segnosaur

From: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare. Notice the wording? Actually used "full repeal". Sounds to me like his original plan was to cancel it. Of course this could all be an evil media plan to distort Trump's actual plans. As for his "new" plan to keep parts of Obamacare (e.g. preexisting conditions, etc.), you can't just pick and choose specific pieces of a plan like the Affordable Care Act. Its a complex piece of legislation with various interdependencies. Its all fine and good to say "Our plan will handle preexisting conditions", but unless an actual full and complete plan is presented (which hasn't been done by either Trump or the Republicans) its an empty promise.

The supreme court can only rule on cases that actually get presented to them. They cannot proactively go out and seek out laws that they think are unconstitutional for them to rule on, nor could they simply "ban" something they don't like. The fact that there haven't been more anti-gay or anti-abortion rulings is just a case of luck (i.e. what cases happen to make their way through the courts.) And as I explained, Justice Kennedy usually has a conservative leaning. But, he can also serve as a swing vote; many of the 5-4 rulings have been decided based on his vote. (However, it should also be noted that he has also voted AGAINST both abortion and gay rights in the past.) There HAVE been anti-gay rulings in the past. (e.g. Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale.) The fact that the "gays haven't been rounded up" doesn't mean that there isn't some oppression going on. Apparently you seem to have no problem with human rights abuses. Some of us think human rights abuses should be stopped. In the best case scenario, Trump appoints one supreme court justice, and we end up with more 5-4 rulings, some in favor of gay rights/abortion rights, some against. But again, as I stated before, with some of the judges in their 70s/80s, it is likely that additional appointments of right-leaning judges will be made during Trump's term. In that situation, you end up with a bunch of rulings that will attack abortion/gay rights with either a 5-4, or 6-3 vote (depending on how Kennedy votes).

No there isn't........ Conservative judges: Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy. (Kennedy often acts as a swing vote; he has voted both for and against abortion in the past, but the majority of his rulings have been conservative.) Liberal Judges: Kagan, Ginsburg, Bryer, Sotomayer.. In addition, some of the Liberal judges are over 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices The last Supreme court ruling (after Scalia died) saw them strike down a Texas law restricting abortion 5-3. Ok, so abortion rights were upheld. But Trump will appoint one anti-abortion judge at least, and if one of the Liberal judges should die in the next 4 years (Ginsburg is already over 80, so its certainly a strong possibility; Bryer is also well over 70.), you can easily see similar rulings run 5-4 against abortion in the future. (It may get even worse if more than 1 justice dies.) In general, presidents get to appoint 1-2 supreme court justices per term. Scalia will have died approximately a year before Trump's swearing in, so its reasonable to expect he'll have at least another appointment. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/supreme-court-abortion-texas/

I suspect not. The FBI director (who has republican ties) said that there wasn't anything that she could be charged with that would stick. Any special prosecutor would still have to follow the law, and its quite possible that they could similarly end up loosing the case. So, Trump could end having her charged, have her still not be in jail, and end up looking bad (both for breaking his election promise, and for looking weak/defeated.) Ok, techinically trump might want to appoint a special prosecutor, but his handlers would probably convince him otherwise.

To loosely quote John Oliver... You will remember that day. Because it will be the day that time travelers from the future return to stop trump on the the day everything started to go horribly wrong.

I thought the demographics shift would favor the Democrats in this election, but I was wrong. In fact, its looking pretty grim both short term and long term: - Trump will stock the supreme court with right-wingers (there's one vacancy now, and at least 2 judges are in their late 70s.) So the supreme court will be right wing for at least a generation - The next set of mid-term elections have more democratic seats at risk than republicans, so they will find it difficult to make headway - I'm not sure, but I think the next time redistricting is supposed to happen will occur within the next term. Which means that the process of gerremandering (aligning districts to favor one party over another... which recently benefits the republicans) will once again leave the Democrats with an uphill battle. None of these necessarily illustrate any sort of weakness in the positions of the democrats. Its largely bad timing. But for the democrats it really really sucks.

When hell freezes over. Now, if it were Julian Assange, maybe.

They don't always have long lines. One of the problems with the American system is that the elections are largely controlled by the states, who decide on voting hours, number of polls, etc. So what you see happening is that states controlled by the republicans will have more polls open in upper/middle class areas and fewer in the inner cities (or, perhaps if voting electronically, fewer machines will be available in each polling place in poorer areas.) So the long lineups you see will often be in areas that often support democratic candidates. You tend to see shorter lines in areas that support republicans. Its voter supression. Trump claimed that the "election was rigged". Well, in a way he was right, just not in the way he or his supporters believed. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/07/those_insanely_long_early_voting_lines_were_a_result_of_republican_voter.html

But that can't be right! Trump was for the little guy. You had to trust him on that. It was Hillary that was the corporate shill!

Yes it did. (As I acknowledged in my earlier post.) But by then, the damage was already done. He's shown himself to be a petty person, and now we're wondering if his handlers had to get involved, and whether this will be a constant theme throughout his administration... make a huge blunder, then spend a bunch of time in damage control. Had he started with that tweet, it would have been something to respect. As a followup tweet... not so much.

No, its not really a lie. It is true... fewer people came out to vote for the Democrats than in past elections, and for that they should feel shame. But, there was no reason Republicans had to vote for Trump. They could have looked at Trump, and said "I'm republican/conservative, but I don't think I can vote for an incompetent businessman and a bigot". The fact that they got as many votes as before despite their candidate being more racist than before speaks volumes about them. There were principled republicans. Romney made statements criticizing Trump. Neither of the former Bush presidents campaigned for him (and there were rumors that some were actually going to vote for Hillary). But for everyone else that walked into that voting booth and marked their ballot for Trump (just the same as they did for previous presidents) deserve all the shame for voting for a lying bigot and an incompetent businessman. Keep in mind that not everyone who is criticizing Trump is a "liberal". Some of the posters here are Canadians who actually voted for Harper. Some of the criticism against Trump came from Republicans. As for the "world is ending", no... but things are not going to be good either.

And so it begins... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/10/trump-tweet-professional-protesters-media/93624612/ Earlier Trump tweeted: Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair! So much wrong with that. So very much wrong. First of all, its petty, vindictive and pointless. Why slam the media? You've already won the election, so there's no need to pander to the idiots in your voting base. Secondly, its untrue... I have seen no evidence that the protests were "professional", and I doubt Trump has either. Lastly, its completely hypocritical. After Obama was elected, Trump was calling for widespread protests. During this past campaign, he railed endlessly about the "rigged system", and dropped hints that he wouldn't accept the results. But now that he's won, he is complaining about people protesting him? The proper thing to do would be to release a statement... something like "It was a rough campaign. I understand people might be upset. Its America and people do have the right to protest. Please let your protests be peaceful. Hopefully I'll do a good enough job to earn your trust". It would make him look like an actual statesman. And if he couldn't do that, then just stay silent and let the protests die down. (He did send out a second tweet later, reversing his position and actually praising the protesters, but by that time the damage was done. In fact, now it even looks worse, because it looks like his handlers had to get involved again to stop him messing up on Twitter.) Instead, he comes across as a thin skinned, petty, vindictive, and a hypocrite. Many were protesting because they don't think Trump is qualified to be president. He's helping to show that they may be right.

Well, you're assuming the protesters were the ones who stayed home on election day. Its quite possible that all of them (or the vast majority) did vote on election day, and/or actively campaigned to get Hillary elected. And many of them may have a right to feel a little miffed that the rules allowed their candidate to win the popular vote yet still lose the election. (Not that I agree with the protests... the rules of the election were clearly spelled out before hand, and there may be more productive ways to channel their energy.) I also find it hard to feel sorry for supporters of the Green Party. They wanted to protect the environment and thought "I don't like Hillary", and now they've gotten someone in office that thinks global warming is a hoax. Hope you like it warm!

First of all, while they may be the "same old names", keep in mind that it may not necessarily be a "good thing" to go with all-outsiders. Yes, it may be good rhetoric to dump on those who have been around, but running a government takes knowledge. The U.S. has already elected an incompetent bigot as president, do you really want to also fill the cabinet with a bunch of inexperienced neophytes who will will have to deal with a sharp learning curve? Secondly, the question is do you really think Trump can pick people who can produce/deliver? Remember, this is a man who started a mortgage company, and when it failed (as so many of Trump's businesses have done) he started to blame the people he hired to run the place. Trump is the man who also claimed he "hand picked" the instructors at Trump University, yet its been found that one of the staff has a conviction for child molestation, and others have declared bankruptcy. It should also be noted that when Trump was campaigning, he appointed a council of economic advisors. That group had many business people, including one from (I think) Goldman Sachs, but was short on people with actual government budgeting. Simply put, Trump's record at picking people is poor. Lastly, if a person was actually competent, why would they want to attach themselves to a Trump administration? Its estimated that Trump's economic policies would add Trillions to the debt. Many of his campaign promises were either poorly thought out or he flip-flopped. He's also prone to erratic behavior. If you attach yourself to that, and the S.S. Trump hits an iceberg, you may end up being the sacrificial lamb.

Love the movie Idiocracy. Have it in my DVD collection. Anways, the winner would be: Camacho. The reason: for all his failings, Camancho was at least able to pick the "smartest person on the planet". On the other hand, Trump has a reputation for... not picking the best people. When he started his mortgage company (and promptly saw it fail), he blamed the failure on the people he hired to run the company. And when he "hand picked" the people to teach at Trump University, he selected a child molester and a bunch of people who had no experience in real estate. So yeah, at least Camancho can pick the right people.

Trump said he would appoint supreme court justices with anti-abortion stances. One nomination on the court is currently open. At least 2 other members who are left-leaning are in their late 70s/early 80s. Given the type of judges Trump is planning on appointing, there is certainly reason to expect Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Incredibly moronic statement. Even if there is no outright ban... the fact that you seem to accept such restrictions shows that you have no clue about what the issue is about. If you put such onerous restrictions on abortion, such that virtually no cases will qualify, then you end up with a de facto ban. And that is wrong. "Abortion.... only available to wealthy white women. Hey, its not a ban! After all, some abortions can still happen."

Well, he did make a few other promises... cutting taxes to the wealthy (which will drive up the debt), ending NAFTA (which will harm the economy), and appointing right wing judges to the supreme court (which will ensure that women and minorities will continue to be picked on.) Although the Wall and muslim ban were probably more famous.

Trump's cabinet: - National Security Advisor: James Comey (Hey, Trump owes him!) - Attourney Genera: Judge Judy - Secretary of Education: Jeff Epstien (seems to know about children) - Secretary of health and human Services: Dr. Oz - White House Press secretary: Julian Assange - Secretary of the Treasury: Bernie Maddof (hey he must be a financial wiz! And he'd probably have some financial ideas that are right up Trump's alley) - White house chief of staff: Johm Miller Actually, Trump's preferred Cabinet: Secretary of State - Donald Trump Secretary of the Treasury - Donald J. Trump Secretary of Defense- D. J. Trump Attorney General- Trump, Donald

First of all, Bush didn't have a majority in Congress and Senate during all of his tenure...there was at least one term where the Democrats had control of the house. Secondly, having control of congress is only part of the issue... it is also necessary for whatever laws that are passed to be acceptable by the supreme court. (For example, an anti-abortion law in Nebraska was voted down 5-4 during Bush's term, so obviously any attempts by Bush to restrict abortion would likewise fail at the supreme court level..) Currently, the court seems to be split along idological lines, but Trump wants to appoint judges specifically to have Abortion overturned. Lastly, things are not the same now as they were back in 2001. The right wing has become more entrenched, less likely to compromise. On the other hand, Bush said that while he was opposed to abortion, he wouldn't use it as a 'litmus test' for selecting judges, and would even consider a pro-abortion running mate. Compared to the current crop of republicans, Bush seems almost enlightened. http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm

I'm not necessarily convinced that the electoral college is a "bad thing". Some people do see it as a way to ensure less populated states or regions don't get ignored. (Otherwise, you could have politicians pandering to only New York and California, and ignring everything in between.) It is a shame that it seems to have negatively affected democrats twice in the past few decades. I really thought that the demographic shift would have already had enough of an impact, but sadly no. If there is a siver lining, its the chance that if/when Trump manages to screw up badly enough, the problematic voters (people who stayed home because they "didn't like any of the candidates", or voted for a 3rd party) will recognize the impact that their actions/non-actions had. Perhaps it will mean an even stronger rebound for the Democrats in the future, as one more term of republican control and their reliance on angry ignorant bible thumping white guys will backfire on them more later on. At least that's my hope.

Trump: " "I just don't feel good about it. I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage. :" http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/sean-patrick-maloney/donald-trump-against-same-sex-marriage/#sharethefacts So, tell me, why exactly why you "don't see an anti-gay social conservative crusade"? One of the features of being a constitutional republic is that minority rights get protected. Its not always just "the will of the people". A right involves protection for freedoms even if they aren't popular. Many would disagree. Time and time again we have seen cases where individual states have engaged in oppressive policies... voter supression laws in multiple states, texas creating laws that while they don't ban abortion regulate things to the point where it is a defacto ban, North Carolina's bathroom transgender law. Its easy for individual states to pass such laws because politicians there have fewer residents (and turnout is often lower for state votes). Ideally there are certain fundamental freedoms that should be universal across the country, where the way you are treated doesn't differ based on your zip code. Gay rights should be one of them.

Actually they are certainly tied together, in the fact that there is a strong correlation between a desire to restrict abortion and a desire to limit gay rights. They are both issues that appeal to the hardcore right wing, and usually belief in one means you will have a similar belief in the other. To be honest, I'm really baffled by your suggestion that somehow gay rights are somehow untouchable in the United States. There have been many instances where politicians (both at the federal and state level) have gone against LGBT rights. It will always be needed, because there will always be situations where the morning after pill does not do what is needed. (For example, a late term abortion because it is found the fetus is not viable and the mother's health is at risk.) You're also assuming that the morning after pill will always be available... certain restrictions (e.g. closing planned parenthood clinics, as many republican congresscritters want to do and has Trump has promised. Or certain companies demanding it not be included as part of their health care plans, as happened with birth control a few years ago) men that such a simple solution is not always practical. Hillary basically stated the facts... that late-term abortions are rare and are done only in extreme cases (e.g. significant health risk). On the other hand, Trump pandered to anti-abortion activists by using an emotional appeal (e.g. description of the process). If there was any fault of Hillary, it was in trusting that Americans would be intelligent enough to let reason overrule irrational emotion. Guess she was wrong about that. Ok, how's this for reading up on body language: From: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-06-26/ But there is no formula for understanding behavior, and every act has numerous potential meanings and causes. Our “body language” is subject to context, intent and interpretation. It is influenced by culture and socialization and differs at the individual level. Reading body language is simply the subjective interpretation of the observer, and is open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. So no, you can't look at Trump and tell he's an "alpha male" by judging his body language. Keep in mind that many of the people who are anti-Trump actually voted for the conservatives. I certainly did last election. The fact that Harper was falsely demonized doesn't necessarily mean that all such allegations are likewise false. The conservatives never made opposition to abortion part of their platform, and their earlier stance on gay marriage was relatively mild. On the other hand, Trump has actively campaigned to restrict abortion. And his running made has actively campaigned to restrict gay rights, even pushing for "pray away the gay" (supported of course by government funds.) Frankly, comparing the campaign and policies of Trump & the Republicans vs. the Canadian conservative party should be considered an insult to Canadian conservatives. They are not at all equivalent.

Whether something is "enshrined in the constitution" is partly dependent on how the supreme court votes. If (for example) congress drafts a law to make gay marriage an issue for the states to decide (so we get a patchwork of states with and without gay rights) and the supreme court says it's constitutional, then that becomes the law of the land. As for "getting voted out if they try"... congresscritters don't necessarily do things according to the will of the people. They often pander to their core group of supporters, which in the case of your average republican is a religious nutjob with a bible in their hand and a gun in the other. Heck, look at opinion polls that show most Americans favor stricter gun laws and that most believe that global warming is an issue that needs to be addressed. Yet that hasn't stopped Republican politicians from fighting against firearm regulations and/or claiming global warming is a hoax. Companies like Apple sell their products world-wide. (In the last quarter, Apple got more revenue from Europe+Asia than they did from America). A trade war between the U.S. and the rest of the world will not necessarily turn out beneficial for the U.S., as those other countries will also make efforts to keep production local, and Apple may want to concentrate on areas that aren't isolationist. It is estimated that Trump's tax plans will cost the government anywhere from $2.6 trillion to $10 trillion. Its unlikely economic growth will be able to compensate. There is nothing wrong with tax cuts per se. But they're not a panacea. That doesn't make him an alpha male. It makes him a vulgar bigot. You don't have to be an "Alpha male" to be a bigot. There are a few key differences between Canada and the U.S. that make that comparison irrelevant. - On average, the Canadian political system is skewed to the left compared to the U.S. So even someone who would be considered a hard-core conservative in Canada might find themselves more at home in the Democratic party than the Republican party, if policies only were the issue. - Even if conservatives wanted to attack gay rights, Canada's multi-party system would make it an uphill battle. (In the U.S., with its 2 party system, an anti-gay republican politician has a much greater chance of maintaining his seat.) During the election, he proposed: supreme court nominations that would restrict abortion, suggested "voter fraud" was an issue, claimed he would protect gun rights, etc. Those are all pretty central to the right wing agenda. Plus, you also have the fact that Trump is planning on nominating right-wing judges to the supreme court. Regardless of how Trump may feel about homosexuals, he's not going to be able to control how the supreme court judges vote once they're appointed. So in an effort to restrict abortion, he may be creating a monster that will affect a whole range of civil rights.

Nope, instead you had a large block of voters who voted against Clinton because she was a woman. No, they didn't. Trump (or at least the organizations that he is in charge of) have been charged multiple times. For example: - Trump's organization was charged multiple times for racist activities - The Trump foundation had to pay a fine for improperly contributing to the election campaign of the Florida attorney general. (One that I might add who had the responsibility to investigate wrongdoings at Trump University). And those are just the cases where Trump has actually been convicted or admitted to wrongdoing. Then there is also the case of fraud over Trump University (which is an ongoing case, so we can't say he was "convicted", but it doesn't look good for him), and other cases of the misuse of Trump Foundation charity money (e.g. buying a painting of himself.) By comparison, what do we have against Hillary? Certainly no convictions. Claims that she mishandled classified documents, but even the Republican head of the FBI said likely wouldn't have resulted in a conviction. Given a choice between someone who has actually had convictions against them (i.e. Trump) and someone who hasn't had convictions against them (Clinton), I'd say the more criminal one is Trump. So no, Americans didn't "stand against criminality in the white house". Either through ignorance or apathy they select the person who actually had a worse record of criminal behavior. The fact that you imagine she is a criminal doesn't actually mean she is a criminal, or that the FBI actually knows something. [/quote]they've stated that they do in fact want some sense of order, that jobs and infrastructure are important...[/quote] You see, that's the problem... Its understandable that people want jobs. But voting for Trump is the wrong way to accomplish that. Granted, when Trump makes the claim he'll cancel trade deals to "bring jobs back" it may sound tempting to some poor sap who just got layed off from his factory job. But the world economy is complex, and such simplistic solutions will likely result in failure. High-paying rust belt jobs are just not coming back, even if the U.S. becomes isolationist/protectionist; technology has moved on. Instead, Trumps isolationist trade policies will drive up prices and harm American exports. As for infrastructure, keep in mind that Clinton had a plan to invest billions into infrastructure projects. Trump's plan? Tax cuts. The problem is, the private sector isn't really that interested in public works like roads, bridges. http://www.crfb.org/blogs/hillary-clinton-releases-infrastructure-plan https://www.wired.com/2016/11/trumps-plan-american-infrastructure-get-people-spend-trillion-dollars/ So if someone did care about infrastructure, they would have voted for Clinton. Then why vote for Trump? Trump supported both the invasion of Iraq, and military action against Libya. The main difference between Trump and Clinton in these maters is that Trump lied about things afterwords (e.g. claiming he "never supported the Iraq invasion", even though we have him on tape saying the opposite.) So Trump might be just as hawkish as Clinton, only without the knowledge or experience that Clinton seems to have. Some people might consider that appeasement, especially if Russia is pursing aggressive policies (such as annexing neighboring territory). The fact that people might consider borders and security important doesn't mean that Trump's plans will be useful and/or effective. You're right... there is more than just gay rights, health care and education. The problem is, people are looking at the issues and incorrectly thinking "Trump is Better" when he's not. The way I see it, Trump supporters largely fall into 2 categories... the ignorant and the disgusting. The disgusting people are the racists, homophobes, misogynists , and religious hypocrites. The ones that put up confederate flags at Trump rallies, or chant "Jew-S-A", the ones that want to end gay marriage, or praise jebus and vote for Trump even though he is much further from being a "good christian" (in terms of charitable works and actual church attendance) than Hillary was. The ignorant people are the ones who claim that Trump will somehow make things better, even though (as I've shown above) their belief is largely based on ignorance.

Probably because Trump has said so many contradictory things that its easy to cherry pick the statements that happen to line up with what the reader things best suits things.