miscellaneous election reactions from fb

Following are fragments I posted on facebook after the election. I have not edited them, and many of the preceding and succeeding comments from others are absent.

11.9

You might think the rest of us are sad because our candidate lost. That's not it.

We are sad because half of our fellow citizens tolerate and even embrace a sexist, racist, liar, cheat, bully. 

He is the worst of what America can produce. Now he represents all of us, to our shame.

---
 

It is not Clinton's loss that we are motivated by, but Trump's win. Clinton did not advocate racism and religious persecution, Clinton did not disrespect women, Clinton did not foment violence at her rallies. No one is saying that you personally have to be unhappy today, but our fears are not groundless -- they come straight from Trump's words. We have been paying attention. This situation frightens those of us who want to protect American rights for everybody, not just white males.

---

Friends -- and I mean that word -- I have questions about your replies, and I would love you to indulge me by answering. My original post treated the "sexist, racist, liar, cheat, bully" line as self-evident, but from your responses, it seems that many do not agree that those words -- any of them? -- apply to Trump. Is this an accurate reading of your position? If so, I am confused about how you have ignored his own statements. They are not just reports of the liberal-biased media; they are actual video- and audio- and twitter-proven statements he has made. How do you reconcile his statements and a belief that he is not these things?

I do not think those words apply to Trump, what do you want me to say. shall we continue this? I just said your side sees life differently than mine. I have spent more than a year providing evidence that he is none of those things, I am not going to today. I suppose like you can ignore Juanita Broderick and her claims of rape by Bill and being threatened by Hillary, I suppose I can ignore some of the supposed evidence that the media found and then poisoned us all with for month after month painting a man into something he isn't. I will gladly have an intelligent discussion and illustrate but not today I am trying to be positive.

Thanks, []. I am not asking whether the Clintons are faultless. I am confused about how you can deny Trump's own words. And I respect your wish to stay out of it today.

---

On the results map, seas of red with city islands of blue.

Seems like we are effectively two countries: one primarily urban/coastal and the other rural.

---
 

Thanks, [], and no one wants me to be wrong about him more than I do! And your point about his being a media personality has some merit. But. For many years -- long before I ever heard of Obama -- I have had heightened concern over the way women and ethnic minorities are discussed. I'm not talking about legislation or violence or even slur words, but everyday language. In my opinion, it is easy to dismiss words ("sticks and stones"), but the way we refer to those unlike us has profound meaning.

We are automatically suspicious of those whose skin or mode of dress (or whatever) differs from ours; that is natural. What our society works toward, ideally, is overcoming those knee-jerk reactions to understand that "other" doesn't have to mean "threat." Trump's words _during_ the campaign signaled to voters that others -- immigrants, liberals, the media, the Clintons themselves, and yes, women -- were responsible for all the perceived ills of the electorate. So he plans to deport, build a wall, take away rights, SEPARATE. I disagree with both tone and substance.

Anyway. Obviously I'm too worked up to give short answers today. Appreciate your weighing in, and I respect your opinion. I really do want to act on behalf of everybody, not just those identical to me.

---

[response to defense of wall] I think you're being disingenuous and also ignoring history. Soviet Union. Berlin. "Irish need not apply." South Boston. Hate and fear create barriers, which amplify hate and fear. []

Re: illegal immigration. Imagine a man, thirty or so, with a family. Conditions where he lives are deplorable, he has little paid work, and few hopes for his children. He hears that if he takes a chance that may kill him and will certainly be difficult and frightening, he can get work in America, where jobs pay so little that Americans don't want them but the pay is comparatively huge for him. Would you not blame him for NOT trying to go?

Our job is to lift up everyone. The conditions in some parts of Mexico and Central and South America are brutal. That is why they come here! If you lived there, wouldn't you do your damnedest to get here??? And yet you act like they are vermin? Have some humility. Let's work toward a solution rather than hate, fear, separate.

---

I have personally lost work to India more than once. Corporations are outsourcing there because they aren't finding the candidates here who will work for the low wages. As for work visas, companies are hiring from abroad because the educated Americans are too few. And you're blaming Obama? You have REALLY lost me.

---

[] Veteran care, now that we agree on. Shameful, on both sides of the aisle. Not sure what you mean about the companies "lies" -- Indians (those who work in India, not here) have wages that are a very low percentage of the same job in America. So you seem to be saying that the companies are at fault, but before you blamed Obama? Not sure of the point you're making, other than you want American citizens to have the first choice for the best jobs, a sentiment with which I agree.

---

I think that the richest country in the world, with the best educational institutions and most rigorous scientific research infrastructure, can come up with a better, more humane solution than "build a wall."

---

I think our priorities are fundamentally different -- which is what America is all about, right? My priorities going into yesterday (as a non-fan of Clinton, by the way) were to preserve a woman's choice for abortion (no one likes abortion, but the choice must be preserved), slow down or reverse income inequality, prevent corporations from being omnipotent, facilitate education, and discourage institutional racism and sexism. Plus I'm sure other things I'm not articulating right now. My priorities did not include deporting anyone, taking insurance away from anyone, or preventing anyone from practicing their religion. All this is not to convince you, but rather to encourage you to see where my dismay originates.

---

[] I hear you, I really do. The "welfare suck" has been heavily promoted by conservatives. I firmly believe that despite abuse of the system (less than Fox News would have you believe), it does more societal good than harm; not expecting you to agree. As for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, they have improved countless lives and I'll defend them strongly!

But again, I'll just say that as the richest people ever to inhabit the planet, can't we afford to uplift people rather than berate them for needing help?

---

I have the highest respect for [your family]. I think that if we want to dig down another layer, the place we differ is whether those who are committed to working hard for their lives may also need a boost, especially if they have been victims of institutional racism (poor school systems, high incarceration). I honestly think the truth is somewhere in the middle (more toward my side than yours though! ha ha) and the more we talk, the closer we get to finding unity.

---

[response to term limits] agree on the surface, but at the federal level, it takes knowledge and expertise, so working one's life to get there makes sense. We'll see how T does without that knowledge and experience; certainly he will need people around him who have that experience. Doesn't necessarily mean elected, though; civil servants. Elected officials, on the other hand -- that's tough, because viscerally I am in favor of term limits, but see above... we need knowledge and experience... and we go around and around...

---

His language has been very clear -- and vocally supported by others -- that he plans to:
- repeal Obamacare, thereby taking insurance away from millions and reinstating preexisting conditions as preventing being insured;
- cut taxes on the very wealthy (including millions to his own family) without compensating for that income, adding to the deficit;
- work toward deregulating many industries, threatening the health of Americans and further dooming the environment;
- deport millions of illegal immigrants, thereby (among other effects) creating a low-wage job vacuum;
- appoint justices that will repeal Roe v Wade.

There are many other proposed policies with which I disagree, but those are the big-ticket items.

---

I didn't mean the tax cuts were ONLY self serving. But the billions they will take from US income? Not offset by any proposal of his.

---

Uninsured people cost us too much. Obamacare is not set up correctly because it was unanticipated that so many states would forgo the federal funds and opt out. But repeal is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

---

Trump has widespread support to appoint justices that will repeal Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court, of all the repercussions of his election, will be the most acute and long lasting.

Even if you don't support a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body, consider that taking away a woman's right to a legal abortion will cause huge societal upheaval. There is evidence to suggest that two things have contributed in large part to the drop in crime the country has enjoyed since the 1980s: banning lead paint and legalizing abortion.

---
 
Some things that are hopeful:
• Tammy Duckworth won;
• Carol Shea-Porter won (first -- and only, so far -- called result from NH);
• Some states approved recreational marijuana (I'm not a user, and I worry about addiction, but I favor legalization to tamp down the worst effects of the drug war);
• AZ voted to increase the minimum wage (also maybe CO, WA, and ME);
• CA voted for stricter control on gun magazine size;
• NV initiative for stricter background checks for gun purchase is winning by a small margin;
• WA initiative to prevent dangerous individuals from gun ownership is winning by a large margin.

---
 

We have known for a while that the white male, sensing the future, would fight harder. He still has a sh*tload of power. We soldier on, the right side of history is still waiting.

---

Struggling. We know we will have to take a deep breath and go on fighting, but right now -- today -- we take time to grieve. Cry and burrow. Be horrified. Give ourselves time to process it, because we need to feel it.

11.10

[response to Trump demographic] My input is, and has been, our sources of information. I contend that Obama did hear those people who are saying they weren't heard. His policies were helping them. But the information divide between Dem and Rep is so vast that they did not hear him! Ditto Clinton. And that they are black or female added to the problem.

---

Was just talking about this. Other than a shared post on Facebook, when would a liberal like me ever look at glennbeck.com? Serious question: Is there a single source of information -- media, government -- that is both heard and trusted by both liberals and conservatives? I contend that the answer is no, and that in the absence of such a source, the divide is unbridgable.

---

[response to someone complaining about anti-Trump reaction] I agree with much of your sentiment -- I don't see the point of "protesting" per se -- he won. And I agree with working together. But I do hope that you'll address a question I have. I am what you would consider a liberal, and I have spent a lot of time and energy in this election season trying to have dialogs, trying to understand both sides, and also trying to explain my views without getting shrill. (I have not always succeeded, I admit.) But my question relates to the last eight years of governance, in which the House and Senate -- admittedly in the opposing party's control -- blocked Obama's work even when it was an issue of bipartisan agreement. Many lawmakers are on record as admitting that their only job, these last eight years, was to block Obama. Now I hope that I and my ilk can do better. But when I read comments like the above, I can't help but consider them hypocritical. I am not trying to start a fight; I am really asking: Do you see the contradiction?

[only one person on the thread commented after that, to the effect of "we should work together"]