So, What Now? (opinions are welcome)

[Eviora]

@FairFamily

The fact that Belgium has some weird election system really isn't an argument against the sort of equality I'm asking for. I would like people to be considered for such positions without regard for sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc etc.

It does seem to make some sense that people who are being oppressed would have more time spent on addressing that oppression than the "non-oppressed" people, as you put it. And if somehow things go too far, the majority will always be able to pull plenty of attention to their problems if they actually speak up. That said, removing their "right" to oppress people isn't oppressing them.

I tend to have trouble taking anti-PC advocates seriously because the conversation seems to always go like this:

Anti-PC advocate: <Insert incredibly rude statement about some group here> followed by "I have the right to say that because of free speech."

Me: Your opinion is horrible and so are you for holding it.

Anti-PC advocate: What!? You can't say that!

There's no way I can respect that sort of double standard.

@Chase

Well, I understand that many people do go a bit far when presented with those who have more privilege. I've actually had to chide people who are politically on my own side for having a harsher reaction to white male Trump voters than, say, Caitlyn Jenner. =p I have plenty of online "friends" (I use the word with some cynicism these days) who are white, male, straight, etc., and while it's easy to get bitter over being dealt the poorer hand, I wouldn't blame them or accuse them just for being lucky.

The ironic thing for some of them is that by voting Trump they do become the oppressors. x.x

As for the rest of the things you say white people want, those are just generalizations that may or may not be true for the majority. Some feel the police get too much blame for recent incidents, and police as a whole almost certainly do. At the same time, there are racial attitudes, held by police officers and many other people, that ought to be challenged, and that, if left unchecked, can lead to, for example, black people being over represented as victims of police violence. Both of those things can be - and, I think, are - true at once.

By the way, I am a white person, too, you know. I think Trump will play right into ISIS' hands by confirming the "us vs them" rhetoric they thrive on. (I've heard they're considering a Muslim Registration Act.... I hope that's not true,.. it sounds awfully familiar...) I support universal healthcare. And I understand that that higher taxes can be necessary to accommodate the needs of the less fortunate. (And, by the way, my family would experience a larger tax hike than most.) So while some white people certain want those things, I see no reason to believe a large majority of white people favor the Republican model of achieving the obvious goals like "defeating ISIS" over the Democratic one.

Ultimately, everything we're saying is highly speculative. I don't see that we have any data. My point is just that the proposed goals don't conflict with equal rights for everyone. By opposing equal rights, one draws extra lines that actually make it more difficult for people to get what they want. Consider a pro-life Muslim who feels forced to vote Hillary because Trump would demonize them and their family. By ignoring inequality, one only guarantees that the lines will deepen. One prolongs all the problems by refusing to stand up for some of the most basic principles this country is supposed to stand for, and we all lose.

[Chase]

We're in agreement then. Largely.

... but this is one of those areas the Democratic Party is currently struggling in. Consider recently the move by new Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York to add both liberal icon Bernie Sanders of Vermont -and- centrist figure Joe (i think it's Joe) Manchin (....manchin?) to his leadership team. I know for certain he's a Democratic Senator from widely conservative West Virginia and that he's up for re-election in a perilous state in 2018.

We've talked throughout the primary season about how fractured the GOP is between moderates and conservatives and how it looked really bad that Trump wasn't popular, but he was more than the 16 other Republicans in the race.

The Democrats are facing one of the same things post-election. Sanders has a valid bone to pick with more center-left Democrats about how the world works, because the more center-left candidate who won the primary wasn't appealing to Democratic voters. There's a power struggle going on as to which direction on the spectrum should the Democrats go in order to move on from 2016 among other things - like who deserves to fill the prominent roles Democrats in power have.

Manchin might as well BE a Republican, especially compared to Bernie - and he's making many of the same arguments I'm making, but I'm fairly sure he'd be 80 percent happier than I would be if Hillary won the race.

In essence, I don't think inequality is unimportant, but I think ignorance in general is the bigger problem at the federal level. I think it's important for individuals to show their disdain for mistreatment of their neighbors on a daily basis, not just through the political process. I also feel like the presidency is more than a referendum on inequality - as do many other Americans.

I think liberal musicians and sports organizations boycotting the state of North Carolina over HB2 is a wonderful example of this. It's how the public opinion is supposed to push back against the government that is representing them - just as beautiful an exercise of power from the bottom as going to the ballot box is.

---

I'm with you on this so called 'Muslim Registration Act' - but I don't know what the bill entails. It sounds like bad news though - as the first I've heard about it is that some stupid conservative justified it by using Japanese internment during WWII as so-called "precedent".

[Eviora]

"Ignorance in general is the bigger problem at the federal level." I'm not entirely certain what this means. One would hope presidents and senators are not ignorant about the issues. I fear that religion influenced bigotry is the actual culprit in the case persecution against of the LGBTQ community and that fear itself is to be blamed for the recent focus on Muslims. And with Trump and Pence in power, it's just going to get worse.

Ugh, I should just stop posting in these topics again. I already suck enough at distracting myself from the things that depress me.

[Shamitako]

The fact that Belgium has some weird election system really isn't an argument against the sort of equality I'm asking for. I would like people to be considered for such positions without regard for sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc etc.

The point is about legislation of equality. The only way for the government to actually make changes is with legislation. The government can't tell you what to think (or, well, it shouldn't be able to)

The system in Belgium is their government saying, "The numbers are skewed in favor of men, that's not fair." And thus legislating to remedy that issue. Since they can't make people think differently, they instead force them to choose differently

[Eviora]

The government can normalize certain behaviors and discourage others, shaping the public perception over time. Just look at the past week. Hate crimes are up. Trump will be president. The message was heard. The government can also make sure everyone is protected equally under the law.

I guess the disagreement between Belgium and I is that I believe each person should have an equal opportunity and Begium believes each demographic should have an equal outcome. (Or, at least, each gender.)

[Chase]

I'm not disagreeing with you with regards to the root of prejudice against those groups (although I think fear is a very viable feeling when across the world people just like you are getting decapitated, stoned, and brutally executed in other ways with regards to Islamophobia.)

I also believe that it's not the best thing to feed into those groups. Thankfully we live in a country where we don't have to follow the President-elect and his cadre of sympathizers down the highway to hell.

What I mean by "ignorance" is bigger than inequality "at the federal level" is that we're allowed to pursue what we feel is best for the country as citizens with little blowback because the entire country doesn't depend on us - but when you represent everyone - as a president does - you should be looking to put the needs of ALL Americans first....if not..well - what happened to the Democrats might happen to you.

If you are ignorant to the issues and needs of any sizable bloc of voters, it will come back to bite you.

[HughJ]

If you are ignorant to the issues and needs of any sizable bloc of voters, it will come back to bite you.

While I do agree with this statement, I can understand why many liberals currently (especially the irresponsible ones) would get a bad taste in their mouth reading it because they just lost an election where the majority of almost every minority group voted for the Democrats

It seems like many of them feel that their voices don't matter but in reality their vote counted just as much as everyone else's and they can continue to further their own agenda through activism

Whoo I'm being careful not to let the vinegar seep into my text

[FairFamily]

@FairFamily

The fact that Belgium has some weird election system really isn't an argument against the sort of equality I'm asking for. I would like people to be considered for such positions without regard for sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc etc.

It does seem to make some sense that people who are being oppressed would have more time spent on addressing that oppression than the "non-oppressed" people, as you put it. And if somehow things go too far, the majority will always be able to pull plenty of attention to their problems if they actually speak up. That said, removing their "right" to oppress people isn't oppressing them.

I do not disaggree that people should have an equal opportunity. The problem is that when the result is not equal, the "oppressed people" claim that the system was still rigged against them by the "non-oppressed elite" and demand that the system still be changed. Hence the "weird election system" or basically quota. This introduction of qouta results in a negative perception on the perspective on the defenders of the equal rights. Not fair to the defenders but not completely unjustifiable.

Do you really think the oppressed can come up for their personal grievances even though public perception does not believe they are oppressed? Who would believe that? Statements like " Men can't be raped." are a clear example of such prejudice. My favorite is this one, "males in general perform worse in school then females, except the entry exam for dentists or doctors, we do not know why females perform worse in these specific exams but these exams are discriminating to females.". People expect the opressed to be oppressed and the unoppressed to be not oppressed when the roles are reversed well tough luck. The focus on the "opression of the opressed" does indeed hinder their chance to get their rights defended which is basically opression . This can put the defenders of the rights of the oppressed in a negative perception. Also do you even think they can group together for being oppressed without the dangers of being persecuted for it? To not being labeled opressers?

The point is about legislation of equality. The only way for the government to actually make changes is with legislation. The government can't tell you what to think (or, well, it shouldn't be able to)

The system in Belgium is their government saying, "The numbers are skewed in favor of men, that's not fair." And thus legislating to remedy that issue. Since they can't make people think differently, they instead force them to choose differently

Well , first there are more ways to make changes without legislation. There are awareness-campaigns, public announcements, budgetairy shifts,... . A hard quota is the easiest way, since it does not solve the problem but rather the symptons.

Edited November 18, 2016 by FairFamily

[Eviora]

@Chase

You can't put all Americans first. If it were that easy, Trump's "everything will be great" rhetoric would translate to reality. Rich, poor, white, non-white, Christian, Muslim, atheist, millennial, elderly, gay, straight, immigrant, and a thousand other demographics - no matter which policies you choose, someone is going to come out ahead of the rest. Even if we had leaders who wanted to do right by everyone - which we're about to emphatically not - every choice they made would erase another future before it could breathe. Not everyone can have everything. But this nation is supposed to be one broad enough to encompass that entire myriad of groups, not merely those among the majority. Regardless of numbers, there should be some semblance of parity.

You speak as if trying to protect minorities is what led to Clinton's downfall - not her corruption, nor how similar her policies were to Obama's, nor the appeal of someone who says what he thinks. But when I asked you what white, straight men wanted, you told me about things like job security and protection from terrorists, things we all want. Those desires and the desire to treat all Americans equally are utterly compatible. In this case, it would be easy enough for Trump to prioritize us all like you say he should.

But he won't. We all knew he wouldn't. He isn't even in the White House yet, and we're already hearing talk of creating one of the most discriminatory pieces of legislation in modern American history.

So I'll ask it again, this time a bit differently. Why Trump? What need is he fulfilling for this allegedly marginalized majority that Kasich, Bush, Rubio, or another of the more moderate Republican candidates couldn't? They wanted job security. They wanted to defeat ISIS. They wanted all the things you claimed white people were seeking, yet one by one, they were defeated by Trump. That suggests there's something different about Trump that made him more appealing. What do you think that was?

I fear it was his willingness to blindly label entire groups as the enemy. In this case, illegal immigrants and Muslims are the two groups with the most to fear. And I think your silent majority wants them to be afraid.

@FairFamily

I'm pretty sure a statement like "Men can't be raped" wouldn't hold up in court. If what you're looking for is for no one to ever say anything bad about your group you're going to be disappointed. Ignorant people will be ignorant. But what I'm talking about is equality under the law. Certainly there are particular experiences that might prove stigmatizing, but if those who are suffering come together to make a stand in such great numbers, they will absolutely be heard. Will they be labeled oppressors in this vague scenario? Maybe. Groups are labeled all sorts of things all the time. You can't stop it without removing free speech. Nonetheless, large groups that come together in protest are always at least heard, if not helped. The media sees to that. Anything for a story.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Eviora

[HughJ]

I fear it was his willingness to blindly label entire groups as the enemy. In this case, illegal immigrants and Muslims are the two groups with the most to fear. And I think your silent majority wants them to be afraid.

I agree with this in part. The truth is that modern Americans are incredibly paranoid people. Outside of the South, and especially on the East Coast, there's this sense that everyone around you could be a serial killer or some enemy of the state. It's been like that since the Cold War and the fall of full-scale, direct war. Even if Americans and people in general didn't harbor a distrust of strangers from evolution (nature), it's certainly been beaten in to us by a gory media and a lack of any declared enemy.

The truth is that the War on Terror is failing. It's failing in that we're only seeing rising homegrown and imported terror rates due to a growth of anti-Muslim and anti-American sentiment (a negative cycle of distrust between people groups that has been repeated time and time again in history); but it's also failing in that people can't really rally against terrorists. Terrorist networks are too decentralized and faceless... occasionally, certain figureheads pop up, like Bin Laden; but even if those people ever did hold any actual power, it will quickly pass to some other member of their organization upon their death. So "terrorism" just isn't an adequate Other to inspire camaraderie in people, especially Americans, as much as politicians all over the world want it to be.

A lot of irritated and fearful voters wanted someone who was willing to simplify the enemy - consolidate the Other, even if it took demonizing groups within America. They wanted to be able to run in a marathon without the fear of blowing up at the finish line. They wanted to be able to board flights without passing through carcinogenic imaging software and getting groped from every angle. And the unfortunate truth is that for a lot of people - especially those removed from global lifestyles at the coasts - who have never even seen Muslims, it was very easy to associate them with the corrupt and dangerous nations of the Middle East (with whom the establishment has perpetuated war for the past 15 years) and write them off as collateral damage for a campaign that would unify the vast majority of Americans again.

[Chase]

Why Trump?

I'm not the best person to answer that question because I'm not a Trump voter and therefore I don't have a personal "this guy gets it" moment that made me convinced he was presidential material. If I were to speculate - it would most likely be that Donald Trump - yes, the elitist New York business mogul that had a reality television run - was easier to relate to than the political figures of Rubio and Kasich. If I were to guess, people appreciated having their fears genuinely acknowledged by a candidate instead of having the likes of a Rand Paul tell them that the best way to stop ISIS is to not get involved with ISIS in hindsight. It doesn't help that candidates like Trump, Huckabee, Cruz, Carson, and Christie stoke fears by pointing them out as they are - but if these atrocities are actually HAPPENING abroad, do you really think the average American wants a politician that sweeps it under the rug or waives off your concerns with a hand gesture?

I absolutely agree with you and Hugh that Muslims get SHAFTED during this kind of stuff, but that's why I'm an advocate of self-policing. If you're tired of blanket statements as a Syrian refugee that is actually trying to flee a negative situation and you -KNOW- of someone what is using the refugee trail to get to the West for malicious purposes - call that stuff out. If you are a Muslim American who is nothing but peaceful and a positive influence on society - continue to do so by pointing out the differences and being vocal. If they aren't the ones raising awareness, the Donald Trumps of the world will gladly do it for them - usually in a hasty generalization.

---

I don't think minority awareness is why Clinton lost, but the flippant liberal stance that if you're not fighting for equality you most be fighting to prevent it is so black and white that there are many people out there that will go to their graves with the misconception that in 2016, America didn't care about equality at all. It's that lack of grey area that caused a lot of voters with different situations from our own to feel left out when it comes to the Democrats and representation. The reality of the situation is - nobody is running for President of Minority Groups - but for President of the United States.

---

My argument with Clinton dropping the ball on issues like job creation or security comes from the fact that she did just that - not that minorities don't want the same rights. They made strong appeals to the LGBTQ community, to Millennials, to African Americans and Hispanics, to Muslims, and so on and so forth - and as Hugh pointed out - those groups showed up for Clinton nicely.

If they went out at all. White people made up a THIRD of the actual electorate - and that group broke for Trump much more across all the demographics of "white" you could have than minority groups did. On top of that, African Americans -and- Hispanics turned out for Trump more than they did for Romney percentage-wise.

The parity - due to Democratic turnout - is going to have to come from the court of public opinion alone - maybe with the prayer that Trump decides he wants to be known as a decent President and his appointments and early policy rumors don't stick.

You have to do well with all the demographics in -all- 50 states and all around those states. It gives everyone adequate representation.

---

With Muslims and undocumented immigrants, there's obviously going to need to be some give and take given the makeup of the government body starting next year. Democrats will fight tooth and nail from the local centers upward to keep sanctuary cities running and to protect immigrants who are active like normalized citizens despite not holding citizenship.

Muslims are probably going to need to start bargaining with the Trump administration and actively putting the focus on radicals within their ranks as opposed to doing nothing behind a government that is no longer going to protect them to levels like they have been. Is it a good situation? Absolutely not - but they should have been more proactive during the earlier days of the Obama administration so that the narrative - especially in center of the country - is different.

---

It's irrational to assume every silent voter out there had ill intent when the fears they hold are actually genuine. Hugh mentions paranoia. The Pulse nightclub, San Bernadino, Paris, Brussels - and the atrocities that happen at the hands of ISIS every day don't just fuel paranoia.

I don't think it's a good reason for new era McCarthyism - but I think when death of a ton of people because of their way of life is involved, it's ample reason to be afraid.

[Eviora]

Identifying the ones who are attacking us is important, but choosing someone who overgeneralizes "the enemy" to include thousands of innocents as our representative is incredibly dangerous. I don't think this was a coincidence. We as a nation have now elected the candidate most eager to demonize Muslims, and realistically, no matter how peacefully most American Muslims behave, as they always have done, they will be smothered beneath Trump's hateful rhetoric. More and more of them will realize that they don't have a say in whether or not they're the enemy, and I imagine some of them will take that to heart and get fed up with the constant abuse. If those who are supposed to be your allies only hurt you perhaps it's time to find new allies. And, just like that, I fear we'll see people who only wanted peace take up arms against us. The hatred will deepen and deepen on both sides, as we've seen throughout history a hundred times before, and more and more, we'll buy into Trump's self-fulfilling proclamation - and, correspondingly, ISIS will grow stronger, too. If that happens, I won't be able to just blame those who turn to terrorism. Those who refuse to learn from history will bear a part - perhaps the larger part - of the responsibility.

By the way, Trump may want to be an isolationist, but the world is watching, and it won't just ignore what it sees. If we start passing laws that are openly hostile towards Muslims, how will the world's large Muslim population react? What about predominantly Islamic nations that we currently have peaceful relationships with? Will they be willing to take that insult? I don't think so... and though open war may not be likely, Trump may serve as the heart that pumps angry blood into ISIS' forces from all over the world.

I have been in a very jaded state of mind lately, so perhaps I'm being overly alarmist, but judging by the things the Trump camp is saying, I think we're practically begging for a lot more bloodshed.

[Chase]

You're not being overly alarmist at all - as Trump seemingly likes to sound the damn alarm (See: Flynn potential appointment for National Security)

---

Ame and I actually had a discussion about this once - and she basically held the same position you did (I.e. to directly paint with a broad brush will result in a dramatic uptick in radicalization and increasing animosity on both sides). I don't think that is out of the question at all - but where I think we are in a grey in is - how do you do something better than identifying a broad-brush "enemy" on the campaign trail?

The good news about Trump being president-elect - is that Trump receives a daily briefing that tells the commander-in-chief-to-be who the high profile targets are. It's most certainly not something any of the news outlets would get a hold of.

The bad news - is that Congress doesn't get these briefings. The bad news - is that Trump has proven to be incredibly fickle on just about everything. The bad news - is that America will grow increasingly anxious with inaction. (see: Democrats mass-exiting the role of party in power all of a sudden)

---

I am reserving judgement on our president-elect until he actually gets into the Oval Office. I have nothing to say he was right and I wasn't. I'm being cautiously optimistic that Congress isn't singular minded and thus doesn't high five Trump for every stupid decision he makes. I'm being cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court won't end up in an ironclad conservative tilt after one term. I'm being cautiously optimistic that Trump's appointments don't prove to validate my doubts.

In general. I'm being cautiously optimistic because worrying would be an endangerment to the way I live from inside my own skin. I want to be proud of my nation - and Trump currently is something to accept because he was brought about through the beautiful process of democracy and fair representation.

He can quickly - QUICKLY ruin that by making grave mistakes. Right now, this registry thing with Muslims - should it pass later on, will be a huge black eye to the Trump administration. Especially when he finally understands more pertinent targets from his daily briefings and -still- decides to paint with a broad brush.

[Eviora]

It would have been easier for Trump to correctly identify the "enemy" on the campaign trail than you think. Simply put, the enemy is emphatically not American Muslims, it is ISIS. There have been several homegrown terrorist attacks in the past decade, and some of them were perpetrated by Muslims, but many of them were not. It would be more reasonable to chalk those up to the sad conditions in which many people grow and live rather than the religion they practice. And, frankly, if Trump is dead set on categorizing by religion, he is turning a huge blind eye to the many crimes committed by Christians in this country. His is a biased viewpoint.

I find it... I don't know... Ironic? ...Amusing? That you, too, feel that this election challenges the way you live inside your own body. But it makes sense, because bodies are really only shells. I've never really been proud of this country. We allow too much bullshit to go through on a regular basis. We're so divided on so much that each president spends half their time trying to undo the things the last one did. As far as I'm concerned, this election has proven that Trump was right about one thing - America, as it stands, is not great. And, personally, all add that I see nothing beautiful in the process of democracy we employ.

I wonder. You keep saying Trump won the election fair and square thanks to the Electoral College, but strictly speaking, that's not entirely true yet. I know this is quite a long shot, but what if, on December 19th, the Electoral College told the voters to go fuck themselves and chose HIllary anyway? Would that, too, be beautiful?

[Chase]

Well, for one, the majority of Republican electors turning the tables on Trump would be absolutely hilarious.

Secondly, I've personally disliked the way his cabinet filling and transition has been a day-by-day soap opera.

Thirdly, most of his picks have been for loyalism and not for qualification.

- Yeah, I'd say an elector turnaround would be beautiful.

The reason WHY though - is because when a person casts a vote in one of the 51 elections held on Election Day (50 states + D.C.) - the name "Donald Trump" is code for "Republican Electors" with regards to the Electoral College - while the name is literally just one vote for Trump with regards to the popular vote.

The same nuance goes for Democratic candidates - and -maybe?- other party candidates. Voting for Hillary means a vote for Hillary in the popular vote tally, but it's code for "Democratic Electors" in regards to the Electoral College.

This knowledge in mind, a vote for Republican electors that have the ability to change their mind was cast. It's not a failure of democracy - even if they do flip over the desk.

So yes, I wouldn't be too disappointed with a Hillary Clinton December turnaround. In a 50/50 race with Trump in which no third party candidate even qualifies for positioning, I literally don't care for either candidate. I run the risk of disagreement one way or the other, and I probably run the risk of neglecting people groups one way or the other. Thankfully, the electoral college vote has nothing to do with my civic duty of voting after the fact.

---

I would hope that you find comfort in that it's not just targeted groups that are nervous. There are many reasons I was never for Trump despite aligning with him fairly well ideologically and despite having a preference for the Republican platform over the Democratic platform. I found his "If I say something, I mean it, believe me, trust me, it'll be terrific." to be - in some discomforting areas - more truthful than other campaigners who found better ways - personally - to phrase stances on certain issues.

I found that Trump genuinely caused people fear and even worse, played to the fears of his voters - and I'm not okay with a demagogue candidate.

I - personally - don't give all that much of a damn about "draining the swamp" and would rather have establishmentarians that know what the hell they are doing than novices who are in lockstep with their boss simply to get rid of politicians. I -do- agree with the Republican concept of bureaucracy being much too large in the United States, and if "drain the swamp" meant "shrink the size of government" alone I would be for it. That doesn't seem to be the way Trump uses that phrase though.

It -truly- is discomforting to know that Trump even was electable - not because of his potential to be harmful to people, but because of how harmful the American electorate's being informed may be. I spent many an hour pouring over candidates' platforms, statements, past histories...and I personally didn't find Trump to be a "diamond in the rough" candidate at all.

I had predicted he wasn't even going to have a prayer - and I'm having to eat crow and hope for the best - that he emulates someone like Rubio or Dubbya or - if miracles still happen today - Ronald Reagan in policies and in success. It most definitely is a time for uncertainty.

I may be seen as following the sheep a bit and that's fine. I think the more appropriate thing is to -hope- for your country to prosper, not predict it will fall apart and wallow in despair. Even if America isn't great right now - everyone should hope - regardless of who's in the White House - that it eventually gets there.

I truly am glad you may find -my- personal turmoil amusing. I think that kind of positivity - and relating - is crucial for us on the popular level to keep going.

[HughJ]

It would have been easier for Trump to correctly identify the "enemy" on the campaign trail than you think. Simply put, the enemy is emphatically not American Muslims, it is ISIS. There have been several homegrown terrorist attacks in the past decade, and some of them were perpetrated by Muslims, but many of them were not. It would be more reasonable to chalk those up to the sad conditions in which many people grow and live rather than the religion they practice. And, frankly, if Trump is dead set on categorizing by religion, he is turning a huge blind eye to the many crimes committed by Christians in this country. His is a biased viewpoint.

Your point on homegrown terrorist strikes is very true, but as I said earlier, you can't put a face on ISIS. There's no President of ISIS, at least not yet (or as far as I know). It's much easier and more reassuring for many Americans to vilify people they can actually see on the street or on the TV than abstract networks of terrorist cells.

It doesn't help the case of the Muslims that many shari'a regimes in the Middle East employ many restrictions on liberty and demonstrate barbaric practices in stoning, beheading, and similar practices. The oppressive rulers and ruling classes there are not allowing for the modernization of their doctrines (Christians and Jews very rarely interpret their sacred texts literally today) because they use it as a method of suppressing the populace. In this way, the very nations meant to be representing Arab ethnic groups don't seem to differ very much from ISIS (and in fact many are funding it). Therefore ISIS, Al-Qaedah, and their sympathizers are interpreted to compose a much larger percentage of Arabs worldwide than they truthfully do.

I wonder. You keep saying Trump won the election fair and square thanks to the Electoral College, but strictly speaking, that's not entirely true yet. I know this is quite a long shot, but what if, on December 19th, the Electoral College told the voters to go fuck themselves and chose HIllary anyway? Would that, too, be beautiful?

Imagine the riot damage and hate crime rate tripling

[Eviora]

Oh, I'm hoping that one way or another, we get to see an epic Trump meltdown on an unprecedented scale before the end of all this. After all, we could all use some laughter now, and who better to provide it than the clown we elected?

Anyway, I predict that in the VERY unlikely event that the Electoral College gives us an upset, it will be sacrificing itself in the process. Right now, Clinton supporters are disgruntled about how it stole the election from her despite winning the popular vote, and if it betrays Trump I fully expect his supporters to go apeshit. With all that hate drawn on the system, it would be unlikely to survive, I think.

The fact that Trump was electable is proof of something I doubt maybe people here will want to admit - that democracy itself is a terribly flawed system. How can we expect our country to thrive when its leaders can be chosen through mob mentality and, frankly, plenty of complete idiots? Tons of voters barely pay attention to the issues, but instead vote based on things like "I personally dislike Hillary" or "Billionaires are the scum of society." I have no citation, so you can consider that an opinion, but, real talk, I think we all know it's true. Many voters are shallow and uninformed. This may be the best system we've come up with so far, but it's very far from perfect.

I'm going to be honest here - I want Trump to fail. Miserably. Not so badly that we end up with war or anything, but enough to turn us into a laughingstock. I want all that American pride to melt away and for people to understand the gravity of what they've done. This country is wounded, and if we're going to get better, we'll need to cauterize the wound - and it's going to hurt. But once that's done, hopefully we can actually move forward. Let Trump's fall make us great again.

[NickCrash]

The electoral college is an undemocratic group, created under the false pretext that it offers protection to scarcely populated states from denser areas. An arbitrary change in preference for the next president would merely convince the people of the redundancy of the electoral college institution.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others", according to Winston S. Churchill. That does not mean the system itself is inherently flawed, rather the voterbase comprises of large numbers of uninformed, uneducated, and biased people who often refute logical arguments by turning to tradition and/or personal religious beliefs. The root of the problem is the lack of pluralism, which indirectly stems from the voting system that leads to extreme polarization, and regards a third-party vote as a wasted one. Thus, electoral systems applied elsewhere (that being mainly Europe), in which a coalition of parties to form a government and an absolute proportional system to elect politicians helps alleviate the extreme facets of such issues. Change does not only reflect in the President-elect's personal judgement, but on the power their peers have on legislative affairs.

That said, no man rules alone. As Chase has pointed out, the choice of representatives in the cabinet is at best alarming. Names such as Bannon, Carson, Guillany and Sessions need no extensive background check to verify their unsuitability. The statements of a neurosurgeon that defy facts on neurology further strengthened by recent metanalyses, simply to promote their own (religious/ideological) agenda, should eliminate such a person from candidacy in a position of power, not to mention the ministry of education. The fact that USA dodged that bullet not because of the President-elect's change in mind, but Carson's personal denial of the position, irks me personally, as it shows complete lack of judgement and total disregard to the scientific and medical community.

To further elaborate on that, and allow the topic to get a bit sidetracked from the course it seemed to take the last 2 pages (and because it seems the discussion is about to go in circles), I believe it's of essence to shed more light upon the ministers and secretaries (aka Keys of Power) with whom Trump is forming his government. As stated before, his inexperience on the field will leave him inable to form a central management in which he will supervise every decision where the ministers simply counsel him, so understanding the people he will base his 'service' on will give us a better understanding of "what really comes next", not only in terms of foreign affairs, but mainly in regards to the changes in the internal system.

[The Swordsman]

I have struggled with the decision to reply here because Chase while you are welcome to differing opinions not everyone else is and I do not want to risk a flame war and one of your topics getting closed again, however I do want to say that your opening post was a nice read and I would not find the EC betraying Trump and how it is supposed to be run beautiful or entertaining, quite the opposite really. Nor would I want any rioting because no matter who does it (from liberals of today to the assumed rioters of Eviora's scenario) innocent people get hurt.

Edited November 18, 2016 by The Swordsman