Donald Trump, is going to be President, and that makes a lot of people upset. A wise man once said; "Don't hate the playa, hate the game. Now can you dig that, SUCKKKAAAAAAAA!!!!"
The Diverseness of the USA
But in all seriousness, grab your shovels and dig this. The USA is a very large and diverse country. What works and is favored in one area is idiotic and reviled in others. The fact that we put so much stock behind the federal government, especially when it comes to societal issues, is the reason that everyone gets so angry about who’s in charge. Trump appealed to the (almost) half of the country that felt ignored by the direction politics was taking, and he did it in a way that was different and exciting.
Hillary Clinton’s main selling point, albeit a pretty good one, was the fact that she was the viable alternative to a very unsettling Donald Trump. The fact is, people are tired of the not-as-bad choice. That’s why people were so excited to get behind Bernie Sanders, because he was an outsider and brash and different and extreme. It’s like eating something spicy, it burns a little but it’s appealing because of that. To many people, Hillary is the poster child of political corruption, and to others they just don't care. It goes deeper than the emails, but I just want to say as a software engineer with experience in working with government agencies and other industries that value privacy; when they tell you a certain way to do things, you better damn well do it that way. Ignorance is not justification, that's the personal incredulity fallacy; because you find something difficult to understand or you're not aware of how something works doesn't make it false. And I'll just come out and say it, when you're under federal investigation and your husband is talking to the FBI director on a runway, it just seems sketchy.
There was a time in this country, when the world was much less connected, that the federal government wasn’t as powerful as it is now. States and local municipalities had much more control over their laws and economics. I would argue that we should work towards a system where this is more of the case, that way the people have more of a say in how things work in the area they live in and you don’t have half the country who doesn’t even understand the issues that you care about deciding how things should work for you. Obviously, we cannot live in a bubble in our own town like people used to. The world is a much smaller place now, you don't have to like it but you have to accept it. There are certain things that the federal government should have control over, essentially anything that interacts with another country is obviously the responsibility of the federal government. Outside of those things (military, international trade, environmental regulations, etc), I believe the federal government should be as permissive as possible to allow states to decide on their own how matters are addressed and to a certain extent, the states should be as permissive as possible to allow for individual counties and municipalities to decide on their own how matters are addressed. That is the main key issue for me; state rights and limiting the federal government.
Historically, Republicans claimed to be the party of smaller government, but it's more turned into the party of lower economic regulation, increased military spending, and stagnation of societal issues. I don't necessarily believe in small government or lower regulation. I support things like public transportation, public healthcare, tuition free schools, civil rights, marriage equality, etc. BUT, I know that a lot of people don't support these things. I know that what works in Detroit doesn't make sense for those living in the upper peninsula. This is why, for federal elections, I've always voted for Libertarian candidates. Because the Libertarian party addresses this key issue for me in limiting the power of the federal government and giving state and local governments more control in how things are ran.
It's Gary Johnson's fault Hillary Clinton lost the election, it's Ralph Nader's fault Al Gore lost the election, it's Ross Perot's fault George H.W. Bush lost the election, etc. Let's be real for a second, that's bullshit. No one is guaranteed anyone's vote. Third party candidates have to win someone's vote just like the major parties do. Third party candidates have to work harder to convince people to vote for them under the almost certain event that who you're voting for will not win and will be statistically irrelevant. Let's talk for a bit about these three elections.
1992: Clinton vs. Bush vs. Perot
Perot led a very interesting campaign that can actually draw several similarities to Trump's. A Texan tech businessman who ran on a platform of reform, balanced budget, and protecting American workers. He was brash, straight forward, and talked in entertaining euphemisms. A personal hero of mine, he famously said when criticized for his lack of political experience; "Well, they have a point. I don't have any experience in running up a four trillion dollar debt. I don't have any experience in creating the worst school system in the industrialized world, the most violent crime-ridden society in the industrialized world. But I do have a lot of experience in getting things done." It was a complete curveball that people loved, and he had the platform to get his message across. In 92 he was involved in the Presidential debates and easily cleaned house in them. I suggest anyone reading this go on YouTube and lookup these debates, they are excellent .
2000: Bush vs. Gore vs. Nader
Ralph Nader is another hero of mine. He embodies what it means to have a government by the people. In the 60s and 70s he built up a portfolio of legislation as a private citizen that would be the envy of any modern day President. He affects our lives in so many ways that people do not even realize and he truly has made the country a better place. He ran on a platform of reform, worker's rights, corporate responsibility, and environmental concern. Similar to what happened in this election, Nader covered the spread in Florida and was viciously accused of playing spoiler. I will admit, most of Nader's support probably came from people who would lean Democrat, but that does not mean people should not have voted for him. He ran on a platform that people felt needed to be addressed that was not being addressed by Bush or Gore, that is why people voted for him and that should be respected.
2016: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson
Gary Johnson is not a hero of mine. I can't speak as highly of him as Perot or Nader so I just want to talk about the election itself and address the accusations of him spoiling. In recent years, the Libertarian party has become the party of disenfranchised Republicans. Libertarians support the idea of small government, as small as possible. Libertarians can be quite extreme in this idea. Gary Johnson is not one of these extremists. He's a very moderate Libertarian. Most people in the country are moderates. People accused disenfranchised Sanders supporters of voting for Gary Johnson, I honestly hope they didn't because he does not embody the ideas that Sanders supported. Gary is not liberal, Sanders is very liberal. If Gary Johnsons "took votes" from anyone, it was from conservatives. I will say that Gary Johnson wasn't a very exciting candidate, and his voice is annoying, but out of principle of key issues he is who I voted for.
Third party voters are told all the time; "You're wasting your vote." I have to disagree with this. Third parties rarely directly affect the outcome of elections, that is, are elected. What third parties do however accomplish is that they bring forward issues that otherwise are not addressed by major parties. Republicans and Democrats like to play it safe, remember, most people are moderate. The DNC did not want to nominate Sanders because he was so extreme and that would turn off moderates. I would say that the RNC felt the same way about Trump, though he won so who the hell knows, not me.
Regardless, third parties do show that there is a segment of the population that wants certain issues addressed that major parties don't want to. They do this until the voice is too loud to ignore. Whether it's an end to slavery, women's right to vote, prohibition, ending prohibition, worker's rights, black rights, international trade protection, marijuana legalization, these are all issues that have or are currently being addressed by third party candidates. Their support grows until the major parties look at them and say "People care about this, we need to take a stance on this or we are going to lose control." Third parties are extremely important in progress. If there's an issue that is key to you and a third party is the only one talking about it, vote third party.
The Electoral Vote and Moving the Goalpost
The Republicans and Democrats know the game of our representative elections through the Electoral College, and they both played to that. Landslide victories in fewer states is not how you win, maybe someday we’ll implement a straight popular vote system, I can see the argument for both ways and I’m not going to say which is better. One could argue that if the World Series was a best of 5 format the Indians would’ve won. It’s the moving goalpost fallacy; when a claim is shown to be false, you try to rationalize or create an exception that makes your claim true. Hillary Clinton lost the election, but she won the popular vote so therefore she should be President. This is an argument we’ve heard before, and yet when the time comes no one is interested in election reform.
I want you to think about how you thought the election would turn out. Now I want you to think for a moment what you think the general consensus was among people you interact with on a daily basis and online. I also want you to take a moment to look at your local election results; how did your state/county vote. I want you to think about what you heard/read in the media. Think about how you felt the election was going to go and why you felt that way.
I was certain Donald Trump would not win the election. I also live in a larger city, know mostly young people who are college educated. I'm going to rank what I heard about the candidates:
Negative stuff about Trump
Negative and Positive stuff about Hillary
Positive stuff about Johnson
Positive stuff about Trump
Negative stuff about Johnson
Based on what I heard going into the election, I expected Clinton to win easily with around 55% of the popular vote, Trump to get around 35-40%, and Johnson to get 5-10%. Going further, I was under the belief that we wouldn't see a Republican President for many election cycles, until some major political shift due to blunders that occur while Democrats are in control (though not necessarily caused by Democrats mind you).
This goes back to the diverseness of the country. It seemed that Clinton was going to win because everyone around me was supporting her. Furthermore, I would say that anyone I knew who did support Trump wasn't going to be very vocal about it because of the intense hostility towards Trump. When you're in the voting box however, there's no judgement so people vote how they really feel. Unfortunately, I would argue that the Trump was definitely able to excite his supporters much more than Clinton, so his supporters actually got out and voted. I don't think anyone was really excited about the idea of Hillary Clinton being President besides her being a woman, that was all that was really exciting about her. The other side of the equation was people wanting a liberal as President, which is reason enough to vote for someone, but not a very exciting one.
Looking Forward: President Trump
I don't know what to expect. I've not called for doomsday just yet. I will say that I read a report on 100 days in office goals and I was fairly impressed. I do fear for issues like gay rights and police accountability under a Trump presidency, but I place my faith in the checks and balances of power in Washington to sort these things out. Yes, we'll have a Republican Congress and President, but I'm not about to say that just because they're Republicans that they're instantly going to fail, it's the genetic fallacy; judging something as good or bad on the basis of where or from whom it came. It avoids argument by shifting focus on origin and leveraging existing negative perceptions. In the 80s, Democrats were largely viewed as incompetent because of various blunders. Now we view Republicans as such.
That's all I really have to say about it for now. I try to not worry too much about federal elections as since I knew the reality of the state I live in and I know my personal beliefs on political matters I did what I felt was right. My only disappointment was that I really believed that Gary Johnson would get between 5-10% of the popular vote.
romaincrisis
andulkaphoto
tangentwithtanner
vaporwave
discoholicmusic
dededos
annaxmalina
kaledo-art
pixelskylines
