My Advice on Coping with Trump's America

[MadBomr101]

Well, looking at the Cabinet that's taking shape it's gonna be a 4-year long shitstorm with a fallout that will linger far beyond that. All the worst people possible being tagged for positions of national authority and a clueless, pussy grabbing lunatic at the top. All the while the Alt-right is creaming themselves at the thought of it. They can't wait for the registrations, deportations, stop&frisk, the wall, unchecked corporatism, and the wholesale dismantling of the Constitution to begin. My only hope is that this is actually just a Matrix-like computer simulation and none of it is real. 

But it is and we're stuck with it, so, sit back, pop some corn, light up a fattie and watch the show. It's gonna be a doozy. 

[No one]

Hey now, not all politicians are bad,..............some are dead.

[MadBomr101]

There should be more.

I also see you read the bible once. So did I, now I'm an atheist.

Coincidence?

[Dark Lightning]

While I'm not defending the "chump" (he will never have any other appellation when I speak or write of him), it would appear that all his bombast is starting to fizzle. He's flaking on immigration (the wall), Hillary (criminal accusations), etc. Pics I see of him lately appear to me that he's shell shocked and realizing that he's in over his head. The fact that there was no preparation of a transition team reinforces that. All that said, I wouldn't take reassurance from it, by any means. It means that he is REALLY not fit for the job.

[Tom62]

While I'm not defending the "chump" (he will never have any other appellation when I speak or write of him), it would appear that all his bombast is starting to fizzle. He's flaking on immigration (the wall), Hillary (criminal accusations), etc. Pics I see of him lately appear to me that he's shell shocked and realizing that he's in over his head. The fact that there was no preparation of a transition team reinforces that. All that said, I wouldn't take reassurance from it, by any means. It means that he is REALLY not fit for the job.

Last thing that I heard was, that he no longer thinks that global warming is a hoax. The guy is falling apart. If he continues like this, he will alienate all his voters.

[Recusant]

Whatever Trump believes about climate change, his plan to gut NASA's efforts to track and understand it will please most denialists. Less pesky real world evidence for them to dismiss and ignore.

"Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on 'politicized science'" | The Guardian

Trump has previously said that climate change is a "hoax" perpetrated by the Chinese, although on Tuesday he said there is "some connectivity" between human actions and the climate. There is overwhelming and long-established evidence that burning fossil fuels and deforestation causes the release of heat-trapping gases, therefore causing the warming experienced in recent decades.

[Trump adviser Bob] Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change "is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world. We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn't interfere with it."

It's understood that federal government scientists have been unnerved by Trump's dismissal of climate science and are concerned that their work will be sidelined as part of a new pro-fossil fuels and deregulation agenda. Climate scientists at other organizations expressed dismay at the potential gutting of Earth-based research.

Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said as Nasa provides the scientific community with new instruments and techniques, the elimination of Earth sciences would be "a major setback if not devastating".

"It could put us back into the 'dark ages' of almost the pre-satellite era," he said. "It would be extremely short sighted.

[Continues . . .]

Walker is lying about the consensus among climate scientists, of course.

[MadBomr101]

Drumpf is so clearly unqualified for the job he's been handed that I feel there's no other recourse than to expect the worst and brace for impact. To this end, I've separated myself emotionally from whatever is going to happen and instead will simply watch it like I was watching some classless, brain-dead reality TV show.

I didn't realize that it was possible for an entire nation to do this but apparently America has jumped the shark.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I didn't realize that it was possible for an entire nation to do this but apparently America has jumped the shark.

Remember that the popular vote was in Hillary's favor by well over a million votes, so don't lose hope.

[Recusant]

By the time the counting is done, it will probably top two million.

[Bad Penny II]

I didn't realize that it was possible for an entire nation to do this but apparently America has jumped the shark.

Remember that the popular vote was in Hillary's favor by well over a million votes, so don't lose hope.

Ye but the system is the system and if it wasn't Donald would have worked harder elsewhere and won by more, seriously, everyone knows that.

[Firebird]

Some of the electors are refusing to vote for Trump even though they're legally obligated to, and now some people are hoping they can tip the election back to Clinton. Don't see it happening, nor do I know if it's a good idea since a lot of these idiots would likely riot, but maybe it can be the first crack to take down this asinine electoral college once and for all?

[Icarus]

Firebird, I disagree that the electoral college system is asinine. Be assured that I am strongly on the side of whomever or whatever is against the president elect. As far as we can tell, the phony bastard won fair and square even though not by popular vote.

The electoral college method ensures that states like Wyoming with only 600,000 population is not  hung out to dry. If we used the popular vote system where the most votes win, then a combination of California, Texas, and Florida could decide the outcome of the election because of population density. The voter choices from Idaho, Vermont, Montana, or South Dakota would not even matter. Actually the county that I live in has more registered voters than each of four different states.  No fair that my county could defeat any individual small population state.

I reckon that the founders used the EC method to decide voting result for an entirely different reason.  Lets say that a certain candidate was chosen by the citizens of Georgia or other state remote from Wash. DC.  Delegates from the various states rode their horse or used a slow boat to Washington and that took a while. The delegates merely represented the will of the voters of their state. Now that we have a method to transmit voter preference in a micro second does not make the EC process any less collectively fair for all the states.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I didn't realize that it was possible for an entire nation to do this but apparently America has jumped the shark.

Remember that the popular vote was in Hillary's favor by well over a million votes, so don't lose hope.

Ye but the system is the system and if it wasn't Donald would have worked harder elsewhere and won by more, seriously, everyone knows that.

Maybe.  Anyway, it's Thanksgiving here and I'm going to eat a lot of turkey and drink a lot of wine.

[Recusant]

Firebird, I disagree that the electoral college system is asinine. Be assured that I am strongly on the side of whomever or whatever is against the president elect. As far as we can tell, the phony bastard won fair and square even though not by popular vote.

The electoral college method ensures that states like Wyoming with only 600,000 population is not  hung out to dry. If we used the popular vote system where the most votes win, then a combination of California, Texas, and Florida could decide the outcome of the election because of population density. The voter choices from Idaho, Vermont, Montana, or South Dakota would not even matter. Actually the county that I live in has more registered voters than each of four different states.  No fair that my county could defeat any individual small population state.

I reckon that the founders used the EC method to decide voting result for an entirely different reason.  Lets say that a certain candidate was chosen by the citizens of Georgia or other state remote from Wash. DC.  Delegates from the various states rode their horse or used a slow boat to Washington and that took a while. The delegates merely represented the will of the voters of their state. Now that we have a method to transmit voter preference in a micro second does not make the EC process any less collectively fair for all the states.

Do you really think that a vote in Wyoming should be worth approximately four times what a vote in California is worth, when it comes to presidential elections? What makes Wyoming voters so damn special? Sounds to me like it's California and other large states that are being "hung out to dry."

The Electoral College destroys the "one person, one vote" principle that is the standard for every other election in the United States. Your attempt to justify that seems completely inadequate.

Comparatively, people in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as people in California. Put another way, if California had the same proportion of electoral votes per person as Wyoming, it would have about 200 electoral votes.

[source]

[Magdalena]

Firebird, I disagree that the electoral college system is asinine. Be assured that I am strongly on the side of whomever or whatever is against the president elect. As far as we can tell, the phony bastard won fair and square even though not by popular vote.

The electoral college method ensures that states like Wyoming with only 600,000 population is not  hung out to dry. If we used the popular vote system where the most votes win, then a combination of California, Texas, and Florida could decide the outcome of the election because of population density. The voter choices from Idaho, Vermont, Montana, or South Dakota would not even matter. Actually the county that I live in has more registered voters than each of four different states.  No fair that my county could defeat any individual small population state.

I reckon that the founders used the EC method to decide voting result for an entirely different reason.  Lets say that a certain candidate was chosen by the citizens of Georgia or other state remote from Wash. DC.  Delegates from the various states rode their horse or used a slow boat to Washington and that took a while. The delegates merely represented the will of the voters of their state. Now that we have a method to transmit voter preference in a micro second does not make the EC process any less collectively fair for all the states.

Do you really think that a vote in Wyoming should be worth approximately four times what a vote in California is worth, when it comes to presidential elections? What makes Wyoming voters so damn special? Sounds to me like it's California and other large states that are being "hung out to dry."

The Electoral College destroys the "one person, one vote" principle that is the standard for every other election in the United States. Your attempt to justify that seems completely inadequate.

Comparatively, people in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as people in California. Put another way, if California had the same proportion of electoral votes per person as Wyoming, it would have about 200 electoral votes.

[source]

What makes Wyoming voters so damn special?

I want to know.