Anxiety Over The Election Results

[Twiggy 2,966]

I know that many of you are lamenting the results of the election last night. So I thought I would make a thread to try and assuage some of your fears. I know that this is a topic of debate, thus naturally belonging in the Debate Pit, but seeing as most on the forum don't go there, I figured that I would make it in the General Discussion forum. Debate is fine, but please keep it civil.

 

There are a few things that you need to know. First of all, keep in mind that the strongest form of persuasion is fear. Clinton’s team of persuaders have convinced her followers that Trump is dangerous. Trump won because, in the end, his persuasion game was better, not because America is full of racists. I do have to give a lot of credit to Secretary Clinton here, as she did her persuasion very, VERY well. There are quite a few people who believe 100 percent that Trump is going to turn America into Nazi Germany or some dystopia ruled by robber barons. If you believe this, then you have been hypnotized.

 

Now let's get into it.

 

Temperament: Do you remember the time someone insulted Donald Trump and then Trump punched him in the nose? Neither do I. Because nothing like that has ever happened. Instead, people attack Donald Trump with words (often) and he attacks them back with words. See if the following pattern looks familiar:

 

1. Person A insults Trump with words. Trump insults back with words.

2. Person B mentions some sort of scandal about Trump. Trump mentions some sort of scandal about Person B.

3. Person C endorses Trump (even if they publicly feuded before) and Trump immediately says something nice about Person C. The feud is instantly over.

 

See the pattern? Consider how many times you have seen the pattern repeat with Trump. It seems endless. And consistent. Trump replies to critics with proportional force. His reaction is as predictable as night following day.

 

The exceptions are his jokey comments about roughing up protesters at his rallies. The rally-goers recognize it as entertainment. I won’t defend his jokes at rallies except to say that it isn’t a temperament problem when you say something as a joke and people recognize it as such. (We see his rally joke-comments out of context on news coverage so they look worse.)

 

Trump is, as opposed to how he has been framed, in full control of his temper, and it will not be a problem in a Trump Administration.

 

Trump might insult foreign leaders into a war: Trump and Putin seem to get along fine. Netanyahu said he could work with Trump. Mexico isn’t likely to start a war over trade, or the wall. Trump says North Korea is China’s problem, which is literally the safest thing you could say. And China’s leaders are adults who know Trump says offensive things now and then. China will pursue its own interests, and none of those interests involve going to war over some words. Likewise, other leaders are adults too. They won’t change their foreign policy over some insults.

 

Trump might start a war: Trump owns buildings and property around the world. As a general rule, people who own a lot of real estate don’t start wars because their own assets are at risk. Trump talks mostly about having a strong military to avoid war. Speak softly and carry a big stick. He gains nothing by war.

 

Pacing and Leading: When normal politicians change their minds we label it flip-flopping or – more kindly – “evolving” in their thinking. When a Master Persuader does it, you are seeing pacing and leading, which is a major tool of persuasion. Pacing involves matching people – in this case emotionally – and later using that bond to lead them. We see Trump doing this often.

 

A. Trump paced his base by saying he would deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. Once he had his base on his side emotionally, he led to them to his current policy of deporting only the people who committed crimes while here. Have you heard any Trump supporters complain about it lately?

 

B. Trump paced his base by saying he would ban all Muslim immigration to stop terrorist infiltration. Once he had them on his side emotionally, he led them first to a ban on specific problem countries, and then again to “extreme vetting,” which is a lot like Clinton’s plan. Trump supporters followed, and you don’t hear them complaining.

 

C. Early in the primaries Trump paced the racists in the Republican party by not disavowing them as clearly and as loudly as even the racists thought he would. Since then he has led Republicans to think that some form of a “New Deal” for African-Americans might be worth a look. 

 

D. At the Republican National Convention, Trump used his emotional connection to his supporters to declare he was the strongest voice to protect the LGBTQ community. Republicans stood and cheered.

 

And finally, the biggest one IMO...

 

Populism: Donald Trump is a populist, meaning that rather than having a political agenda, like the one of the Republican Party, he wants to do the will of the American people(This is why many of the Republican elites hate him btw). Trump won the nomination and the presidency by appealing to the anger that many Americans have over the corruption in Washington, and by proposing solutions to fix it. And I believe that he will do everything in his power to see it through. Why? Because his legacy is at stake.

 

Think about it like this. Rather than run for president, Trump could have retired and gone down in history as one of the greatest businessmen in American history. Instead, he opened himself up to mockery, attacks on himself and his family, and the potential destruction of his legacy if he does not do a good job. Because of this, Trump will not do a single thing that would be unpopular with the majority of Americans. This means that your civil rights are safe.

 

As an example, take Roe v. Wade. The Republicans have enough power in Congress to put through a bill to ban gay marriage and make it a states issue. It would then go to Trump to either be signed or vetoed.

 

So would Trump sign it and pass it off to the conservative Supreme Court, or would he veto it, where Congress Republicans do NOT have the power to overturn the veto? That depends on you. Trump, being a populist, will do what the American people demand of him. Write letters to him. Trump may not read them, but someone will. And if they get enough letters saying the same thing, Trump will know about it. Tweet at him your disdain for this bill. Because you know he isn't giving up that vice. Make it known that the American people want to keep gay marriage federally legal, AND HE WILL VETO THE BILL.

 

This is the good of a populist leader. They hold no agenda other than the will of the people. Unlike Obama with TPP, or Bush with the Patriot Act, if enough people make their voice heard, TRUMP WILL LISTEN. 

 

His raging ego is on the line after all.

 

I don't know if any of this will help make you feel less fearful for the future, but I hope it helps. Let's do as both President-Elect Trump and Secretary Clinton said. Unite and work together for a better America.

 

 

I borrowed most of this from Scott Adams blog. It's a really interesting read, and I recommend that you all check it out.

http://blog.dilbert.com/

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,614]

I do not care what his defenders say. His history and how he has handled things before gives me no reason to have anything else but dread for his 'presidency'.

[Brony Number 42 10,069]

I can't wait. I hope he actually follows through with fixing the problems of the last 8 years. He has my full support. I have never felt so excited for a president before.

[Anneal 2,197]

I do not care what his defenders say. His history and how he has handled things before gives me no reason to have anything else but dread for his 'presidency'.

If you refuse to even bother to listen to the other side of the argument your knowledge of issues would only remain half full.

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

Person A insults Trump with words. Trump insults back with words.

 

In a lot of cases, what I see is Person A criticising Trump and he retaliates by insulting them. Even if it is insult for insult, I would expect a higher standard from an aspiring president. It's a small point, and not something I fundamentally care about, but they way he has acted seems thin-skinned to me.  

 

 

 

Trump and Putin seem to get along fine.

 

How many resets with Russia will this be now? At this point I suspect the issue is at the other end. Maybe if Putin leaves office soon (as if) then there could be some traction, but so long as his sights remain set on eastern Europe there will be tension between Russia and Poland / Ukraine / Baltic states / etc. - and without a united Europe the US is needed to support them.

 

 

 

Populism: Donald Trump is a populist

 

That is the concern. When one only serves 'the majority', you have the potential for some very nasty consequences in the name of 'democracy'. If all he is going to do is watch the polls and throw whoever or whatever is unpopular under the bus to appease voters, then that is a cause for concern - sometimes politicians need to make unpopular decisions (which is why we have representative democracy.) Leading on to...

 

 

 

Trump paced his base by saying he would ban all Muslim immigration to stop terrorist infiltration. Once he had them on his side emotionally, he led them first to a ban on specific problem countries, and then again to “extreme vetting,” which is a lot like Clinton’s plan. Trump supporters followed, and you don’t hear them complaining.

 

Have they stopped talking about that? When a political crisis comes up, and the president needs to respond, will he stick to this new line? If he genuinely considered banning Muslims, might he not reach for it again if the polls suggest it would be popular?

 

You see, this 'pace and lead' approach hasn't dealt with the fundamental fear of Islam that was simmering under the surface. Maybe he's let the lid off for a moment, but that's not a long-term solution - and there is a genuine concern that he has validated this fear in order to win the election. If so, might he not do the same to shore up flagging polls? If you can reassure me that he won't do that, then ... well, that would reassure me. Really, it would. None of that other stuff does ('populist' remains a scathing criticism in my book.) 

 

 

What Trump has said has given me hope, however -  he promised to rule for all of the US population. Now, that's a thing a lot of politicians say because it's their job to rule for everyone, but that's why it surprised me - he has very determinedly avoided acting like a politician. He probably meant it, at least at that moment in time (next week, maybe not) but if he does keep to that promise then that would remove your populism point, which is what worries me the most. If he can stand up to his own voters to defend Muslims, then the anxiety many people (myself included) have as a result of the election can finally be assuaged.

 

 

 

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go and stock up on Toblerone. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by Once In A Blue Moon

[Twilight Dirac 721]

Since I have been old enough to vote, neither of the major parties have once fielded a presidential candidate I actually liked. This election has been no different.  America was offered the choice between two bad candidates, and they choose one.  How can you blame Americans for choosing a bad president when all their options were bad to begin with?  The election of Trump doesn't mean American are angry or racist or anything of the sort, it means that exact same thing as the election of Obama or Bush, Americans were given a crap decision and made the best of a bad situation.  

 

In any event the U.S. system of government is very good at minimizing the damage any one person can do.  Trump will still need the backing of Congress and the courts if he actually wants to accomplish anything, and just because he is a Republican president does not mean the Republican Congress will automatically back him up, especially because he is a rather divisive outsider.

[Twiggy 2,966]

At this point I suspect the issue is at the other end. Maybe if Putin leaves office soon (as if) then there could be some traction, but so long as his sights remain set on eastern Europe there will be tension between Russia and Poland / Ukraine / Baltic states / etc. - and without a united Europe the US is needed to support them.

You're correct, but the thing about Trump is that he's going to actually try. Obama was actively working against Russia because Assad needed to go even though Assad is about as much of a threat to our national security as Justin Trudeau. Trump not shitting fury upon Russia's allies will be a good first step.

 

 

 

That is the concern. When one only serves 'the majority', you have the potential for some very nasty consequences in the name of 'democracy'. If all he is going to do is watch the polls and throw whoever or whatever is unpopular under the bus to appease voters, then that is a cause for concern - sometimes politicians need to make unpopular decisions (which is why we have representative democracy.) Leading on to...

I think you may be underestimating the American people. When TPP was first announced, the media hailed it as a great new trade deal on the level of NAFTA. A few people on the internet looked into it, saw it as the shit storm it was, and spread the info like wildfire. Now the majority are against it, and rightly so.

 

In the information era, we can all instantly communicate with each other, inform each other, and debate each other. This is arguably the first time a direct democracy could work, seeing as all the information that we need is right at our fingertips. Back before the internet, we relied on the news and word of mouth to inform us, making direct democracy a fairly irresponsible way to govern. I think that the internet could flip the script, as we can all now do our own research.

 

And I think that Trump would do the right thing when a hard call needs to be made. As far as gay marriage goes, the people could decide that, as lives are not at stake. As far as fighting Islamic State goes, I think that will be more his decision, and not an entirely popular one. I predict boots on the ground fighting alongside Russia.

 

 

 

If he genuinely considered banning Muslims, might he not reach for it again if the polls suggest it would be popular?

Operating under the assumption that Trump isn't a total retard, he knows that a blanket ban on a religion is unenforceable. Rather, it would be a travel ban from certain countries. And for that to become popular while it isn't now, something big and bad would have to happen. Large scale terror attacks and the like. If such attacks keep happening, it may be the right call to instate such a travel ban. President Carter did so for Iran, and we've had other such travel bans in the past. It all worked out.

 

 

 

You see, this 'pace and lead' approach hasn't dealt with the fundamental fear of Islam that was simmering under the surface. Maybe he's let the lid off for a moment, but that's not a long-term solution - and there is a genuine concern that he has validated this fear in order to win the election. If so, might he not do the same to shore up flagging polls?

Do you think that Trump is going to fuck around when it comes to defeating ISIS? I sincerely doubt it. The current fear of Islam is a direct result of the actions taken by ISIS. Trump will be working with Russia to defeat ISIS, and as a result, Assad will likely stay in power. For as much as everyone hates Assad, he would mean stability for the country, which a western democracy would not. ISIS will die and stay dead, and the tensions and fear over Islam will follow suit.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-syria-assad-ready-to-co-operate-russia-putin-war-a7409096.html

 

Trump won't need to do this to flag up the polls. ISIS will be gone.

 

 

 

If he can stand up to his own voters to defend Muslims, then the anxiety many people (myself included) have as a result of the election can finally be assuaged.

He will stand up for American citizens who are Muslim, while opposing radical Islamic terrorism. The underlying context of Trump's entire campaign has been putting the American citizen before foreign interests and political correctness. Many watched his victory speech and said, "Where has this Trump been for the entire campaign?"

 

The answer is that he has been there this whole time. People simply lacked the eyes to see and the ears to hear, in part of the media and team Clinton's successful framing of him as Hitler 2.0.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Twiggy

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

The answer is that he has been there this whole time. People simply lacked the eyes to see and the ears to hear, in part of the media and team Clinton's successful framing of him as Hitler 2.0.

Actually, reading pro-Trump media, the magnanimous and inclusive Trump wasn't the image he put forwards either. He is as responsible for his image as any pro-Democrat or independent media - I remember telling one person who thought they were following a parody Trump twitter account that 'no, the blue tick (and its regular display in other media) means that it's really him'.

 

 

Do you think that Trump is going to fuck around when it comes to defeating ISIS? I sincerely doubt it.

I'll refer you to the CSIS podcast for their view on 'boots on the ground' rather than pick that specific point up. I wasn't too opposed to the idea of more intervention (and, whilst we were at it, dealing with Assad as well) but they did a good job of explaining how overthrowing their 'holy state' with an 'army of infidels' played into IS's hands.

 

There are other issues with Trump's current view. He's set out his stall against dealing with Iran fairly clearly. If he works with Russia and Assad, though, he will be working with Iran, who have provided extensive support to Assad even before Russia did (Iran and Syria are close allies, and he will be helping Iran by keeping Assad in power.) Throw in the Kurdish / Turkish / Iraqi problem and we've got the beginning of the complexity of this situation. It's not a case of policy makers f***ing around, it's a case of horrific complexity in a region that has a complex web of alliances and enmities. The invasion of Iraq made clear that when you intervene, you need to make a complete job of it, and the concern is that Trump might be a bit too blunt in his approach.

 

Trump won't need to do this to flag up the polls. ISIS will be gone.

something big and bad would have to happen.

 

There will always be terrorists and terror attacks as there will always be extremists (Remember remember the 5th of November, gunpowder, treason and plot.) No-one can stop that. To be quite frank, the so-called 'Islamic State' did itself no favours with aspirations to statehood, painting a massive target on its back, and I wasn't actually thinking of them.

 

Even if it's not terror, there will be a crisis that hits the US whilst he is president, no matter how good he is. Something will happen, and he will be blamed for it - not just by his opponents, but also by his former supporters. The polls will take a hit, and blaming foreigners is a tried and tested way of gaining popularity.

 

The current fear of Islam is a direct result of the actions taken by ISIS.

The 11th September attack resulted in a huge change in perception of Islam. That's not going to change just because one or another extremist group was destroyed. To really deal with this, the narrative that Islam isn't the problem needs to be pushed hard - and he has been pushing the exact opposite way to win votes.

 

I think you may be underestimating the American people. When TPP was first announced, the media hailed it as a great new trade deal on the level of NAFTA. A few people on the internet looked into it, saw it as the shit storm it was, and spread the info like wildfire. Now the majority are against it, and rightly so.

That's an excellent example of the problem. If Trump rips up a load of deals and refuses to sign new ones, the population will cheer... and then it will suffer. There is an absolutely brilliant article in the Economist about trade, with heavy reference to the TPP and previous trade deals. It details how the benefits of trade are widely spread, but the cost is highly focused - and how government policy should be to help those who are affected by it rather than scrap the whole idea. Not popular with the nationalists Trump has gathered the support of, but the right solution.

 

You're correct, but the thing about Trump is that he's going to actually try.

Anglea Merkel tried, and I think she is a much sharper politician than Trump is (her response to his election was exceptionally well crafted.) We'll see, but if Putin plays him for a fool then there could be some unpleasant consequences for eastern Europe.

 

 

 

I could go on about what I don't like about his policies, but that's more than enough. Probably too much, to be honest - I know you'll disagree with my support for the TPP, and maybe you're right about it specifically, I don't know (I am confident that trade in general is good, mind.) Most of what I went in to was political, and even if he makes all the wrong choices then he'll just be a bad president. The thing that is concerning, and I don't think can be addressed yet, is that he might set himself up as a demagogue of 'the people.' I hope not, and so long as his supporters

 

@@EquestriaGuy.

 

King John, a truely atrociously unsuccessful English king, led to Magna Carta. It wasn't the revolutionary document that many see it as now, but it did plant the seed of future ideas. If Trump can put aside his ego and listen, it may not even be that bad. More likely it will be rather bad, and he will become a cautionary tale to future voters.

 

 

 

Also, how exactly is Trump Racist? I would like to know where all this is coming from

His speech announcing his presidential bid? The opening piece on Mexico was to brand mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists. Adding 'and some, I assume, are good people' at the end doesn't evade the fact that the emphasis is on them certainly being criminals and rapists. Reading (

) the opening in full, and looking where he places the emphasis, it is clear that that is the message he wants to send.

 

I would guess that this is the touted 'lead and pace' approach, which would require one to be racist to win over racists. Maybe he doesn't believe what he himself said, but that is where this started. His twitter feed doesn't help his image, either.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Once In A Blue Moon

[Connie 320]

No need to try to calm people down. Some people here are Clinton extremists who won't listed to anything the other side says.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Bright Lights

[Twiggy 2,966]

I could go on about what I don't like about his policies, but that's more than enough. Probably too much, to be honest - I know you'll disagree with my support for the TPP, and maybe you're right about it specifically, I don't know (I am confident that trade in general is good, mind.) Most of what I went in to was political, and even if he makes all the wrong choices then he'll just be a bad president.

I was about to type up a long response to what you laid out, but then I read this lol. We're going to have our disagreements on policy, but I see that as fair enough. Your concerns are valid ones, and I share in many of them (though I feel optimistic about Trump's ability to pull through). The target demographic for this thread are the people who are in tears and fearing for their lives because Trump won.

 

The thing that is concerning, and I don't think can be addressed yet, is that he might set himself up as a demagogue of 'the people.' I hope not, and so long as his supporters

A demagogue requires governing based on the emotions of the people. I don't think that he will do anything that he knew would be damaging to the country just because it would be popular. He ran a very successful real estate empire for a long time. That takes a rational and logical mindset that I find highly unlikely to make the jump from populist to demagogue.

 

We'll have to wait and see, like you said, but I'm optimistic. I was right when I said back in November 2015 that Trump would be the 45th President of the United States, so I'm kinda on a roll. Hope it keeps going.

 

I would guess that this is the touted 'lead and pace' approach, which would require one to be racist to win over racists. Maybe he doesn't believe what he himself said, but that is where this started.

It was more to shock the media into giving him months of wall to wall coverage, but that was a small part of it too.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Twiggy

[Babyyoshi309 1,829]

His speech announcing his presidential bid? The opening piece on Mexico was to brand Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists. Adding 'and some, I assume, are good people' at the end doesn't evade the fact that the emphasis is on them certainly being criminals and rapists. Reading (

) the opening in full, and looking where he places the emphasis, it is clear that that is the message he wants to send.

I would guess that this is the touted 'lead and pace' approach, which would require one to be racist to win over racists. Maybe he doesn't believe what he himself said, but that is where this started. His twitter feed doesn't help his image, either.

 

Umm... Mexico isn't a race... 

I am aware he said those things about Mexicans (and yes, they were horrible), but that is not racism. 

[AaronMk 280]

2020 will be the 20/20 election.

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

 

 

Umm... Mexico isn't a race...  I am aware he said those things about Mexicans (and yes, they were horrible), but that is not racism.

 

 

Fair enough - that particular one just makes him xenophobic.

 

Down two paragraphs to where he then expands on this point: "It's coming from more than Mexico, it's coming from all over South and Latin America." 

 

That would appear to cover racism against Latinos.

[-Nobody- 519]

Fair enough - that particular one just makes him xenophobic.

 

Down two paragraphs to where he then expands on this point: "It's coming from more than Mexico, it's coming from all over South and Latin America." 

 

That would appear to cover racism against Latinos.

How is that racist though? He's just saying we shouldn't have illegals. We do have problems with drug runners, and it is a risk for law enforcement to have potential criminals you can't really account for. Now he may have been playing on racist views some people have to gain votes, but I don't think most people are going to hate Hispanics simply because of their skin color.

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

 

 

How is that racist though? He's just saying we shouldn't have illegals.

 

No, he made a sweeping statement about Mexicans, then expanded it to include all of Latin America - he doesn't actually specify that it is the illegal immigrants he is referring to. 

[Anneal 2,197]

Right now I'm a bit more anxious that the American people are becoming more and more divided post-election. I doubt it'll go as far as secession but this election has shaken people more than any other, and right now it seems very difficult to unify the people once more. I don't think it's going to something people are going to easily forget and forgive after 4 years.

 

Already I know I'm going to hated forever for the things I say on here.

[-Nobody- 519]

No, he made a sweeping statement about Mexicans, then expanded it to include all of Latin America - he doesn't actually specify that it is the illegal immigrants he is referring to.

 

I was under the impression that's what he's referring to. He's talking about boarder security, which implies illegal immigrants.

[Vulcan 3,254]

Don't get me wrong, I'm frightened of the guy but also I'm curious at how this turns out. I think his presidency will be one worth remembering.

 

2020 will be the 20/20 election.

 

Apperantly, Mark Cuban may be running in that one as well. I'd love to see how they both interact in the Republican debate.

[Wind Chaser 4,768]

My main concerns over a Trump presidency regard his silence over policy positions throughout his campaign. I'm sure he didn't want to show his hand to radicals on both sides or to moderates who would have found his agenda leaning too far to one direction or the other.

 

While we've gotten some progress on healthcare, he still hasn't said anything about education and only sweet nothings about infrastructure and transportation. The jobs he's fighting to protect are probably not going to be there in 7-10 years. Outsourcing was yesterday's problem. Automation is tomorrow's reality. Trump is not a tech-savvy person; there is word he may be appointing Peter Thiel as an advisor. The people who make up the backbone of Trump's voter base don't want to hear anything about "re-education", but the fact of the matter is that there will be only two options going forward for our country when those jobs do disappear: expanding education and/or reforming and expanding welfare. Restricting immigration by ending rather than reforming visa programs is like the Luddites smashing the machines. It will only make it harder for tech companies to find the workers they need because many of them come from countries with better education than ours. Not combining this with a comprehensive education plan will starve the industry in this country. People think technology is the domain of those elitists on the coasts, but they're in for a rude awakening when about half of their jobs are gone.

 

My optimism for a Trump presidency, however, is that he enacts a cultural change in Washington, bringing accountability back and reducing the influence of economic and social special interests. We've suffered for too long under a broken economic system while Congress and the media fight irrelevant social crusades. This is blind to the adage that a rising tide lifts all ships. Making a more fair and robust local economy may allay many of the social problems. The collapse of Clinton's campaign, especially amidst allegations of rigging on the Democratic side, hopefully spurs some soul-searching on their part or leads to a successful insurgency in 2020.

 

What we've seen so far from President Trump is far different from Candidate Trump, so it's a bit of an encouraging sign. He seems more open to workable solutions rather than hardlining.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Wind Chaser

[AaronMk 280]

 Restricting immigration by ending rather than reforming visa programs is like the Luddites smashing the machines. It will only make it harder for tech companies to find the workers they need because many of them come from countries with better education than ours.

 

I'm going to say I agree with you but I gotta make a couple comments. One deals directly with this and the other I won't get that part, but you can use your imagination.

 

As far as immigration goes he's only expressed an intention to restrict it from way of Central and South America, illegal or no. As far as this goes in regards to the quoted statement it doesn't have any effect other than freeing up positions in jobs that normal legal Americans weren't taking anyways. Either we're too entitled to work in meat processing and agricultural field work or the bulk of the population is all too busy trying to become computer programmers. Either way, the agriculture field is the area most employing migrant labor and, they've even tried to recruit normal "American" laborers to do some hard, honest labor.

 

 

As far as America has come, we've come a long way from the twenties and thirties during the Dust Bowl when an American has honestly took to the field to pick food.

 

But really, by stereotype alone it'd be the immigration from Asia that brings the high-tech savvy people into the country. But Trump campaigned on no intention to build a Pacific Wall. So it's moot.

 

But going ahead, it's all ultimately irrelevant because in time as computers become more sophisticated and AI programs more complex and we breech that quantum gap which so many people seem to get moist over: all these jobs are going to be irrelevant. As I said before around here I will say again: there needs to be more a discussion on the worth of an individual as a living person vs an employee. Because the old standards that a man is judged by the work he does is going to go by the wayside. And moving ahead do we want to put the means of all  the manufacture in the hands of the people (3D printers for all house-holds or a lab for that for all neighborhoods), or are we giving everyone a nice big regular allowance to live comfortably in a time we can't otherwise work  to get money so we can live comfortably and have all the amenities we want on offer and allowing us to live our lives with the purpose we want?

[gamecubeguy214 2,512]

I'm not into politics, so I didn't want either to win nor did I not want either to win. I am glad though that my friend who supports Trump is happy.

[EpicEnergy 23,219]

I didn't have any anxiety over the election results because I wanted Trump to win.

[TBD 17,254]

No, because I have my own and far more important thing to worry about. 

[Steve Piranha 29,428]

While it is fair to say Trump has done some things one can’t agree on, it’s true most of his hate is result of fear mongering, rumors and other kinds of hocus pocus, and not following anything with rationale, but misplaced fear