runouw.com

News has reported that he does not plan to repeal Obamacare, but work on "fixing it" instead.

So far his stances on gay marriage are in the pro, and on comparison sites during the election, when I was choosing out of the four, they listed him as for protecting the right to marry. He's also in favor of letting gays adopt, which is a pretty big issue on its own.

He's not in favor of bathroom bills, but rather puts it in the state's hands. And I agree that's a big problem. That's why we had the marriage equality bill that passed this year.

The wall still confuses me. I keep hearing conflicting views on whether the jobs are to build it, or if it just means the regular border we have. I don't know if "the wall" was a form of speech, or if he's serious.

I know Obama says he plans to work with Trump on his term, but whether that's a form of courtesy or respect, I have no absolute clue. Obama could very well have refused to help the man, but he instead wants to help him achieve his goals.

The term doesn't start until January 7thish, so we're still in the clear. For now.

I don't see how Trump is at all pro-gay marriage or pro-LGBTQ. He just says it should have been a state-by-state issue instead of being decided by the Supreme Court, which is a pretty traditional conservative stance--keeping the national government out and putting things in the hands of the states (which I think is a pretty terrible idea, considering how bad a lot of state governors are, and how partisan the legislatures and court systems are). Otherwise I seem to remember plenty of homophobic comments being reported from him.

By the way, Inauguration Day is January 20th, 2017, so that's when the alt reich officially starts. Coincidentally, there's a massive nationwide general strike planned on that same day, speaking out against Trump and fascism in America.

Doram wrote:And, I'm pretty frustrated. Look at the numbers. It looks like if all the third party votes had gone to Hillary instead, Trump would not have won. In all the closest races, the third party votes made all the difference in the world. In the worst possible way.

No. Hold it right there. Please stop perpetuating this stupid third party "spoiler" nonsense. Yes, it happened in 2000--Nader took 2.7% of the popular vote, most of which would have probably otherwise gone to Gore--, but this election was different. Trump and Hillary were different candidates. I doubt most of the third-party votes this election would have gone to either of the two dominant parties, especially not a Democratic Party with Hillary as its nominee or a Republican Party with Trump as its nominee. I seem to recall from early in the primaries, polls showed that other candidates did better in both parties (i.e. most non-Trump candidates running under the Republican Party fared better than Trump, and non-Hillary candidates running under the Democratic Party fared better than Hillary, though the only popular one was Bernie).

Do you realize what the Libertarian Party is? Most of Johnson's positions are definitely more conservative than they are liberal--extremely pro-free trade, wants to remove government agencies and bureaucracy, wants less (or no) corporate taxation, not planning to combat climate change whatsoever, pro-Citizens United, , although his social positions are definitely more on the libertarian side (hence the name). Please note: Both Johnson and Weld were formerly governors running under the Republican Party. Most of the voters are would-be Republicans who didn't want to vote for Trump, or people who were already planning to vote independent/third party, or people who wouldn't have voted at all if Johnson hadn't been in the race. Johnson got 3.3% of the popular vote, which is definitely more than Nader in 2000, but Nader was Green, a far more left-wing party. Maybe Johnson's votes would have made a difference had the Dems had a stronger candidate, and the Libertarians "stole" votes from the Republican Party, because that's where they're coming from if you can even say they're coming from anyone.

The Green Party largely attracted its own voters, plus the disillusioned former Bernie supporters who couldn't stand voting for Hillary. Many of the voters for this party (and likewise for the Libertarian Party) probably would have simply stayed home had there not been another candidate; it's not a question of "stealing votes from Hillary". Third parties combined might cover the spread between Trump and Hillary, but those third-party votes in most cases would not have gone to either of them in any case, despite how CNN and other sources spin the outcome. And Stein only got, what, 0.98% of the popular vote? What makes you blame anything on this party, of all people?

1 2 3 4 5 6

If you really want to pin the blame on any specific person or group, blame the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for nominating Hillary instead of Bernie. If you've seen any of the polls from during the primaries, Bernie was faring significantly better against Trump than Hillary was, with third parties or without. But I won't waste anyone's time talking about that, because I guess somehow we're Morally and Democratically Obligated to vote in favour of a polarized 2-party duopoly where people aren't allowed to express opinions not conforming to the majority because mass media, authority figures, and groupthink shut anything else out.

---

Maybe this election doesn't seem like it was the best time for third party candidates to rise in the polls, but stop acting as if their voters would have ever gone to Hillary anyway. It's not the fault of third parties. I don't support Trump--I hate (yes, hate is a strong word) his platform: he's extremely dangerous to women, the LGBTQ+ community, Hispanic Americans, African Americans, Muslims, and essentially most minorities along with the entire country, not to mention that he's nearly as much of an "establishment" candidate as Hillary, even though many Trump supporters claim they voted for him in protest of the political establishment. I can see that third parties weren't polling high enough prior to the election to have a chance at making it into office, and had I been qualified to vote, I would have ended up voting for HIllary to Stop Trump^TM or whatever even though I'm not a fan of many of Hillary's policies (notable complaints are her laxity on environmental protection and climate change, war hawkishness, and trade policies).

Just stop (ab)using third parties as a scapegoat, when people are trying to use them actual political change--not just as protest votes, not just as throwaway votes, not just as so-called "stolen" votes.

I apologize in advance for caring.

I read a nice reddit post explaining why I'm scared pretty well.

Reddit wrote:Climate is the biggest concern I have by a landslide. Trump's 100 day plan includes allowing for coal/oil/shale extraction from protected sites, a strong arm for pipelines through protected areas (specifically pointing to Keystone as his champion cause), promises to gut $50 billion of environmental spending to UN programs, promises to undo sanctions on pollution, and also has a bunch of clauses which, if implemented, would impact all fields, but including and especially climate science (such as his desire to require two regulations be removed arbitrarily if one regulation will be passed).
He is appointing a leading climate change denier to the EPA, which he has discussed dismantling all together. He has discussed removing the FDA all together, removing educational advisement from his cabinet, and rewarding companies with tax incentives to expand in destructive areas while simultaneously promising to remove the restrictions put in place to mitigate harm done to the environment in the process.
A lot of this he can get done via executive order. A lot of it beyond that he can get done with house and senate support, which he has.
This is not an instance of conspiracy theories or "what ifs" being thrown around. He has promised these things, and has the tools to deliver. It would literally take him saying "naw nevermind" to stop this from happening.
Any one of the items listed above would cause damage to the environment that will take decades, if not longer to reverse, if it even can be reversed at this point, during a time that we are already losing an uphill battle to protect our environment. And he's not talking about one item. He's talking about all of them, and has the ability, and intent, to do everything he says.
And that's just enviroment. People have a right to be afraid. I would be afraid with a Clinton presidency because I wasn't sure she'd do enough. I would be afraid with a blue house/senate to stand in Trumps way, because I'd be worried they wouldn't do enough. What we actually have, is a scenario where people who deny climate change are now in un-checked power, and are salivating at the chance to make a quick buck off immeasurable damage to our planet.
The planet will recover and move on, the question is if we will be around when it happens. This is not an issue that we can really afford to "wait 4 to 8 years and vote better next time." We have already reached the emergency point according to any scientist worth listening to.
Forgive me if I don't see much opportunity for "it won't be so bad" when it comes to specifically climate change. I could ignore everything else he's doing (which I won't, but we're speaking hypothetically here) and I think stress and alarm is still perfectly in the scope of reason regarding his promises. Even if we "think" he'll do a ton of damage, but he only does a lot of damage, the damage is too severe and has ramifications too drastic to ignore.

https://np.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/c ... n/d9u1r16/

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes):

Trump: 48.8%
Hillary: 47.6%
Johnson: 2.4%

47.6 + 2.4 = 50
50 > 48.8

Florida (29 electoral votes):
Trump: 49.1%
Hillary: 47.8%
Johnson: 2.2%

47.8 + 2.2 = 50
50 > 49.1

Note that these do not all add up to 100%, meaning that there are other people besides Johnson that got third party votes. He's just the only one to get a significant percentage. Now, if JUST Jonson's votes, and not ANY of the other candidates' votes, were given to Hillary, she would have won those states, and the election. And there were more states in a similar position. This is undeniable pure math.

I would like to add that I do NOT think that voting third party is generally a bad thing, or wrong in any meaningful sense, but in cases like this, where the opposition is so phenomenally heinous, a unified front would have won, while a fractured one, clearly, did not.

Can yall third party voters stop patting yourselves on the back for being good people and realize the mess that I and nearly everyone else I know is in, because people were very meh about this election? I'm gonna tell you it's not all Trump voters who have claimed we're making everything up or blame us for it because BERNIE ;;;;;____;;;;; , but Trump supporters have made the hate crimes that people like them excuse or false equivocate. That's why I've barely been here- I don't want to lead anyone who sees me as circumstantial. I don't feel any power here.

Discussion continued from viewtopic.php?f=14&t=49732&start=210#p403830 Lmao nevermind doram moved the posts anyway

Doram wrote:--snip--

MessengerOfDreams wrote:--snip--

Alright, I'm just going to assume both you read exactly /none/ of my post, because both of you entirely missed my message. Really appreciate it. I'm at least trying to have respect for yall, but I don't really know how I'm supposed to even discuss these things when I'm being completely shut out. This is part of what people are talking about when they talk about the two-party trap--any arguments against it seem get invariably ignored, and anyone arguing for third parties is completely dismissed as naive ("Except I Do Agree With Third Parties In Theory"), and the system is perpetuated.

To summarize:

• Doram, you're assuming that if Johnson weren't in the race, his votes would have gone to HIllary. My argument was that your assumption is backwards, thus your calculations are meaningless, even though the numbers line up: Johnson's votes almost definitely would NOT have gone to the Democratic candidate, but rather they (a) would have gone to the Republican candidate if it weren't Trump, (b) wouldn't have gone to anybody at all because these people would have just abstained from voting, or hell, (c) would've maybe just gone to another third party.
• I'm well aware there were multiple third party candidates--one of which I explored in detail (Stein), as you would have seen if you had actually read my post--and others I briefly mentioned.
  
  
• I explicitly said I wouldn't have voted third party in this specific election because of what was at stake, although that's a moot point because I can't vote.
• Hate crimes are incredibly real and I'm scared too. I live in a really conservative area and I've seen posts of people at demonstrations wearing KKK outfits and holding up signs inciting violence against black people, gay people, and more. (I live in Ozaukee, WI which is an overwhelmingly white/conservative/wealthy area of Wisconsin, especially compared to our neighbour to the immediate south, Milwaukee, which is possibly the single most segregated city in the entire US.) I know there's a lot of people who say "it isn't /that/ bad", but it is, and Trump is ♥♥♥♥ up and I'm afraid of what further influence he might have.
  
  
• Is it so bad to want to ♥♥♥♥ have a discussion about these things without being completely ignored??? Holy christ

Nonono. You missed my point. I understand that the people who voted third party did not like either candidate, and (the likely possibility, considering what you've said) if all 3rd part votes were simply split 50/50, yes, nothing would have changed, but my point is that the people that did not like either of them should have looked closely enough to realize how MUCH worse Trump was, and solidified behind Hillary in self defense. I personally did not like Hillary, and that is precisely what I did.

This was not let's-vote-our-conscience time, this was defeat-the-antichrist time, and we'll clean up the rest later.

People aren't able to weigh out "the lesser evil" in this day and age.
They just see evil, not the lesser.

When a bunch of republican generals make a commercial saying that they are afraid to let this man be in charge of our nuclear arsenal, I tend to think that is a good indication of who the worse of the two is.