|
Post by Daleks (@darkalex45) on Nov 10, 2016 17:33:49 GMT
Truth of the matter is, there was no good option- but opinions differ regarding which one was the worst option. Right now we have a Republican House, Senate, Presidency, and at the very least one seat in the Supreme Court is going to go to a conservative judge. Clarence Thomas has also talked about retiring when he knows he'll be replaced with another conservative. Whether any other seats there will open will probably depend upon if someone dies. Regardless of what Trump thinks, a very large group of people have embraced what he's said- and much like post-Brexit, harassment, assault, and outright violence have spiked. There's a lot of people who will push the agenda he's put forward, and at least parts of that (his statements regarding NATO, trade agreements, tariffs, and so on) will make the world less stable while giving other, more corrupt powers room to increase their influence. Add to that his statements regarding use of nuclear weapons, and statements from officials about his lack of understanding regarding the seriousness of using nuclear weapons, and everything becomes very uncertain in a very scary way. By contrast, if Clinton was elected, the Supreme Court might tilt blue, but the House was going to stay red, and she'd get four years of minimal activity- especially if as per usual the Republicans gained more control of Congress in the off-year elections. Undoubtedly there'd be corruption and self-interest, but given that Trump has both admitted to gaming the system and said you should exploit if you can, I think that's a given regardless. I have friends I have to worry for, more than I would otherwise. And for the first time in a very long time, I'm strongly debating whether to purchase a gun and practice with it in order to defend, not just myself, but the people I care about. We'll see. This is the thing I was talking about So many people feel less safe now There are already protests in a lot of major cities in the U.S. Some of them turning violent. This is literally diving the nation in the most toxic debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Registered on: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 17:49:52 GMT
how do you find this source to be 100 percent legit though? for all what we know this information could be completely bogus
|
|
|
Post by OhHiMarc on Nov 10, 2016 17:50:15 GMT
Truth of the matter is, there was no good option- but opinions differ regarding which one was the worst option. Right now we have a Republican House, Senate, Presidency, and at the very least one seat in the Supreme Court is going to go to a conservative judge. Clarence Thomas has also talked about retiring when he knows he'll be replaced with another conservative. Whether any other seats there will open will probably depend upon if someone dies. Regardless of what Trump thinks, a very large group of people have embraced what he's said- and much like post-Brexit, harassment, assault, and outright violence have spiked. There's a lot of people who will push the agenda he's put forward, and at least parts of that (his statements regarding NATO, trade agreements, tariffs, and so on) will make the world less stable while giving other, more corrupt powers room to increase their influence. Add to that his statements regarding use of nuclear weapons, and statements from officials about his lack of understanding regarding the seriousness of using nuclear weapons, and everything becomes very uncertain in a very scary way. By contrast, if Clinton was elected, the Supreme Court might tilt blue, but the House was going to stay red, and she'd get four years of minimal activity- especially if as per usual the Republicans gained more control of Congress in the off-year elections. Undoubtedly there'd be corruption and self-interest, but given that Trump has both admitted to gaming the system and said you should exploit if you can, I think that's a given regardless. I have friends I have to worry for, more than I would otherwise. And for the first time in a very long time, I'm strongly debating whether to purchase a gun and practice with it in order to defend, not just myself, but the people I care about. We'll see. This is the thing I was talking about So many people feel less safe now There are already protests in a lot of major cities in the U.S. Some of them turning violent. This is literally diving the nation in the most toxic debate. Wanna make you feel better with a game of rocket league daleks? XD
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Registered on: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 16:09:47 GMT
Wouldnt it be nice if you can just put our different political views behind us and just accept that Donald trump is the next president of the United States of America
|
|
|
Post by Daleks (@darkalex45) on Nov 11, 2016 16:32:24 GMT
Wouldnt it be nice if you can just put our different political views behind us and just accept that Donald trump is the next president of the United States of America I mean... This is pretty much a political thread if it talks about Trump. Just let people say what they want, as long as they don't insult anyone.
|
|
|
Post by TheUltimateSucka on Nov 11, 2016 22:43:38 GMT
Wouldnt it be nice if you can just put our different political views behind us and just accept that Donald trump is the next president of the United States of America I've accepted it, and honestly I hope Trump proves me wrong. I just don't have much faith in him based on what I've seen. I'm not going to hope for failure like that blowhard Rush Limbaugh did when Obama got elected.
|
|
|
Post by Daleks (@darkalex45) on Nov 13, 2016 14:02:27 GMT
I have trust that Trump will not be as bad as some people overreact as he will be. He is getting a lot of pressure from other politicians and americans to not be a horrible person.
Its honestly just Mike Pence we have to worry about.
P.S A good portion of Trump supporters are still such assholes and scary though
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Nov 14, 2016 3:38:09 GMT
Wouldnt it be nice if you can just put our different political views behind us and just accept that Donald trump is the next president of the United States of America Ehhh
2008 - Birthers call Obama a Kenyan socialist Muslim who shouldn't have been made President because of his place of birth.
2012 - More of the same, Obama's "not MY president etc etc"
Early 2016 - System's so rigged, omg, so rigged!
Late 2016 - can we just accept the outcome pls?
|
|
Archer
Member
What are these "roads" you speak of?
Posts: 869
Registered on: April 2015
|
Post by Archer on Nov 14, 2016 5:24:34 GMT
I personally don't think Trump getting elected is anywhere near as bad as he's being made out to be. Everyone who supported Hillary (or just enough to say generalization is justified) are losing their minds over Trump and how he's going to undermine the country's values, destroy the US, and all that glorious hyperbole, and I'm sitting here thinking, grow up. It's an election, both sides have lost before and claimed the same wound happen, and the world isn't a smoldering crater yet. Checks and balances prevent the president (or the rest of Congress) from doing anything stupid. Even if Trump WANTS to re-establish slavery oroverthrow the government, he can't.
I think that if someone insist on being a hypocrite and not seeing the other side of the coin, then they shouldn't have a say in how their country is ran in the first place. And this is coming from someone who voted Hillary.
|
|
|
Post by cameronman1329 on Nov 18, 2016 7:23:20 GMT
Bit late to this but here are my 'two cents' which may be more than US's economy soon Kappa Trump was not the right choice. It was a choice out of desperation and backlash at the system for failing groups of people. They wanted change. They didn't want an instruction that has failed them to win again. People call this a "whitelash" and partly is, but many voted because their situation was dire. Hillary was no saint either. Better than Trump but still not great. Do I think Trump will be a good president? No But do I think he'll significantly ruin the USA? No There's a limit to what he can do in 4 years. People say it might be 8, if it's 8 he's done pretty well in the job to be re-elected then. Congress and the Senate won't let him turn the country into dark times. The USA is and always will be, a superpower. Trump can't change that. It's not ideal, but it's not the end of the world. His policies need re-thinking but I have hope he won't be as bad as people think. And hey: Don't laugh at Americans voting him in. They've got him for 4 years. We voted to leave the EU forever. We've got to suffer for the rest of our lives for that vote. So could be worse
|
|
fachuro
Member
Posts: 1,036
Registered on: September 2014
|
Post by fachuro on Nov 18, 2016 9:23:05 GMT
The results tonight show that over half of the voting public in the US doesn't like how the world has changed and want to return to the "glory days" of the 50's - when nothing Trump has said in the past year would seem out of place. In other news, 4 more states are on track to legalize recreational marijuana - does anyone else see the disconnect in that? And in more news that affect the rest of the world, stock markets around the world have tanked in response to the Trump victory - how wonderful. I don't disagree that Trump is a terrible choice, but I need to correct you on 2 statements that are wrong here. 1. Neither candidate got over half the vote. And the winner of the popular vote was in fact Hillary Clinton. Trump won because of the electoral system. There was also multiple third party candidates soaking up small percentages of the vote. Making it so that the 750.000 votes that Clinton beat Trump with in the popular vote was still not enough to make it over half the population. If only Sanders had accepted the Libertarian nomination perhaps a third party could've soaked up enough votes to beat Trump? 2. Recreational Marijuana, and Medical Marijuana, was not illegal in the U.S. in the 50's. It was regulated under federal laws, but not illegal. It was only moved to become a Schedule 1 drug and becoming illegal as such under the Nixon administration, as a part of his "War on Drugs". (1969-1974)
|
|
fachuro
Member
Posts: 1,036
Registered on: September 2014
|
Post by fachuro on Nov 18, 2016 9:45:30 GMT
... The list goes on; economists use the GINI coefficient to measure relative in/equality. A score of 0.0 = perfect equality. 1.0 = perfect inequality. Most civilised nations, i.e. Europe, the Commonwealth - are 0.3. The US is 0.41, which puts it with China (JINA) or Russia. Income inequality is problematic because it means the distribution of wealth to new risk takers is rarer. The incentive for a new entrepreneur to take a risk on a new product or service has to be to reward their success financially. Because the concentration is so at the top, the number of people who can break through is smaller. Which means the rich, basically, get richer and the poor stay poorer. ... I'd just like to quickly expand upon this, I'm currently taking a few courses at uni that delves into Innovation Theory and Social Constructivism, amongst other philosophies surrounding the development and adoption of new technologies. And one of the key arguments made here as well is the importance of new risk takers being introduced into the market to be able to create what's known as Disruptive Innovations as larger, more established companies will have no incentive to be developing those and will rather focus on what is known as Sustaining Innovations, now the reason this is important for the development of an economy and a country is that Disruptive Innovations is what drives society forwards, it's basically new innovations that reshape the market by introducing fundamentally new ideas and concepts, like an iPhone. Companies that don't invest in smaller start-ups to help develop Disruptive Innovations have a shorter life-expectancy, and whilst being world leaders in their field often fail due to the small start-ups they failed to invest in. (Ex. Kodak, Nokia) Likewise if a country as a whole create an environment in which only Sustaining Innovations thrive, and smaller start-ups and early risk-takers have no ability to grow they are essentially setting themselves, and their economy up for failure. Other countries will keep creating environments for disruptive innovation to thrive in, and once multiple of the legs of the American economy (in this case) is rendered outdated or even redundant by external innovations, especially considering how Trump intends to alienate many of these nations, once this happens the country as a whole will likely end up as Kodak and Nokia who both ended up with a sudden decline that caused the bankrupcy of Kodak, and forced Nokia off the market for mobile phones. If Trump goes through with his plans it could prove to be disastrous for the U.S. whilst their current trade partners who of course will suffer a heavy blow as well because of their interrelations will be able to recover much easier thanks to their international relations. If anyone want more information on Innovation Theory I would heavily recommend reading articles by Clayton M. Christensen, who is likely secretly tearing his hear out over Trump being elected president.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Registered on: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 16:09:22 GMT
Disclaimer - this is off topic and is not specifically about how the Trump administration are going affect America but more a discussion about the underlying theory on what supports disruptive innovations. It sounds like you are summerising my course from last year "Innovation & Development Methods". Very interesting stuff. Unfortunately I dropped out 2 months ago and so I am considering what education to start on next summer. Innovation was my favorite topic/course and so I'm curious to hear what you are studying, maybe it can give me some inspiration on what to start on myself? --- Kodak and Nokia are perfect examples of giants not making long term investments into risky but possibly disrupting technologies. Before applying sustaining/disruptive theory on a country remember that the government can run a country with a negative economy for longer compared to a company (which is what the US and many European countries have done for many years). When that is said, I do agree with you. The Trump administration can alienate their countries growth if they don't respect the importance of risk-taker's ability to create disruptive innovations. There are an important dynamic when it comes to the government creating a market fit for disruptive innovations; You mentioned the iPhone (1 st gen) as an example of a disruptive technology. Apple did not fund or perform the research that made the iPhone possible. That was done by DARPA among other gov. funded organisations. To be clear what the government did is called basic research, they did not build an iPhone prototype that Apple then polished up but they were responsable for most of what made the iPhone disruptive (see picture in the spoiler). {Spoiler}{Spoiler} The issue is not that companies capitalizes on gov. funded research but that the basic research is almost never funded by private investors, as it is risky (the odds of ending out with a new "iPhone" are slim and hard/impossible to predict), expensive and long term oriented. This is a real problem as many big companies avoid partially or completely to pay their taxes. Tax money that should pay for the research done by the government and fund any future research. Even though the government can draw money from other tax payers to fund their research, the incentive to keep dropping money into what seems to be a black hole will by that logic surely get alienated. Some think that the government should completely stay away from the private market and only focus on maintaining the infrastructure, basic education, basic healthcare, bank rescue packages etc... All of this is mentioned and expanded on in great detail in Mariana Mazzucato's 'The Entrepreneurial State'.
|
|
|
Post by happygster on Mar 6, 2017 23:58:09 GMT
This presidential campaign, election, and now presidency has greatly increased the amount of attention I've paid to politics. On an anecdotal level, this has been the case with friends and coworkers as well. Hopefully this leads to more a more informed electorate in the future than previous years among younger people.
|
|
|
Post by piguy3141 on Mar 7, 2017 0:46:50 GMT
This presidential campaign, election, and now presidency has greatly increased the amount of attention I've paid to politics. On an anecdotal level, this has been the case with friends and coworkers as well. Hopefully this leads to more a more informed electorate in the future than previous years among younger people. The increased amount of attention happened to everyone but it made everyone hella violent about it. I didn't support Trump or even like him, which earned me the hatred of many of my conservative friends, while I saw Clinton as a wackadoodle and didn't like her either, which earned me the hatred of my liberal friends. Both of the two independent candidates didn't know anything either, which is unfortunate since my views align more with the Socialist and Green Party's. It's unfortunate too because all of my friends who were Bernie supporters jumped on the Clinton bandwagon and they basically ignored all of the shady stuff she has done that lost her vote from me. Not to mention the "Pokemon-go-to-the-polls" incident. Basically, if you were a Clinton supporter, you were a socialist pinko commie, and if you were a Trump supporter, you were a racist bigot. No in between
|
|