I tend to fall in the moderate Libertarian camp. I generally say let people do whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone else, but also hold them responsible for their actions. I don't think we need to destroy every government department and let everything be a free-for-all though.
This really was a "who you hate least" election. Only 17.5% of voters actually favored him.
Quote:
Among Trump voters:
20% have an unfavorable view of him
29% do not think he is honest and trustworthy
23% say he isn’t qualified to serve as president
26% say he doesn’t have the temperament to serve effectively as president
44% say they were bothered by Trump’s treatment of women
Beyond that, only 37% of people who voted for him did so because they strongly favored him while 61% had reservations or were voting against the other candidates.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaFish
To all those Hillary supporters that feel upset, just remember the republicans felt the same way 8 years ago, and 4 years ago. The country is still here, it didn't fall apart and it will certainly last another 4 years and we get to go through this crap all over again.
|
I honestly wonder, based on Trump's behavior, if something terrible will happen. I'm not especially impressed with anything from his past, and his antics during the campaign frighten me. He has shown that he's thin-skinned, quick to jump to insane reactions, and doesn't seem to be able to put together basic policies. He's been a part of the elite establishment for a long time, and his pathological lying does nothing to convince me when he says that he's changed and he's all for the little guy now. This is a guy who said he wouldn't rule out using nukes in Europe because "Europe is a big place. I'm not going to take cards off the table." He also stated that you want to be unpredictable in using them. One of his campaign directors said they're "keeping a list" of people who didn't support them. At every point, he seemed to be saying whatever he thought people wanted to hear at that moment, regardless of related facts, logistics, or what he he previously said. I really see him as all the worst aspects of a politician, but without any actual political experience.
I would say I tend to side with Republicans, though I'm more socially liberal. I saw Obama's terms as "Oh great, lots of nanny government I don't want or need." However, I truly fear the damage that's possible from Trump. My hopes are that the campaign was simply a great bit of showmanship from a reality TV personality and that he won't really act like that once in office, and that he and others in our government realize his inexperience and he's surrounded with good advisors to help him, giving much better results overall. I think his victory speech was a good start to this.
I completely understand people's frustration with status quo government. Despite never having voted for a Democrat, I used my primary vote on Bernie. I completely disagree with a lot of his policies, but I felt that he had the best mindset, and him being president would provide the best overall results (when you factor in Congress and other sections of government). I just feel that picking Trump is a crazy way to express that. If you have a bad experience at a dentist, you don't go to a plumber for your next root canal. Hopefully we don't run into a toothache while that guy with brown up to his elbows is standing around...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC Cowboy
To get Congress to get things done is almost impossible. They have to vote term limits and they won't. Their main purpose is to oppose who is in the White House if they're on the other team.
|
FTFY. After 8 years of just blocking everything out of principle, I'm afraid of what a Republican House/Senate/President will try to get passed.
Which leads to my opinion that the two-party system is a huge cause of most of our problems. Everything turns into Us vs. Them. You end up with half the population loving something, and the other half hating it. You get both parties picking opposite stances to differentiate from the other. It ends up being the squeaky, extremist wheels getting the grease, and the vast majority of moderate people in the middle lose out. You pick the side that supports your most important values, and you implicitly support their other stances, which you may not care about or maybe even disagree with. But this guy is also for A and against B, so this guy is right and that guy is the devil.
Imagine if instead of halves, it was split in thirds. Anything your party does alone is guaranteed to fail. At least two of the three parties (or a subset of multiple parties at least) have to agree on something for it to pass. I think that would do a lot for accomplishing things that are mostly supported by most of the population, as opposed to the current half love/half hate situation. I really feel we need at least three parties involved to achieve the best outcome possible. I just wish Johnson would've hit 5% to make this more likely in '20. We'll see if Trump does anything about this "rigged system" now that he beat it.