CyborgZeta

No. You can say whatever you want about me, but do not misconstrue what I've said for the sake of your argument. I said before that I did not like Hillary's ideas on foreign policy. I also said that I was willing to take a gamble on Trump's economic ideas, because I know people around here need jobs. I've also said that I think illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be dealt with, whether someone puts up a wall or not. Those are the reasons I voted Trump; I don't buy into Trumpism. My preferred candidates were people like Jim Webb and Rand Paul. Your point about the people in power sowing divisions among society is fair; you're not the first person I've heard say that. Perhaps you are right. "We're not the threat, they are!" is not a convincing argument if you want to win the other side over. Democrats/liberals have been saying that kind of stuff for years; that they just want to help, people who vote Republican are voting against their own interests. Maybe those voters are being deceived, or maybe the values that Republicans preach are the values they believe in. Either way, look at the last election; Hillary was anathema to a lot of conservatives, enough that many pulled the lever for Trump despite their own personal misgivings. They very clearly viewed her and the side she represented as a threat. I don't know, I'm kind of doubtful about that. Obama pretty much said the same thing in his farewell speech, but I don't think it really went home. When you consider the issues important to blacks or Latinos, why should they sympathize with that working-class white guy who's struggling economically? They're mad about the police, or concerned about immigration...so why should some guy from the majority group having economic problems concern them?

Like I've said, US politics is just representative of the larger cultural war going on. Liberal/Hillary America and Conservative/Trump America are basically two different countries. Different demographics, cultures, and values (sometimes different laws too). Both sides view each other as a threat to their existence and very way of life. You can't have a reasonable discussion under those terms. That's why I roll my eyes whenever someone talks about "Bringing our country together" or "healing the divide", or anything like that; nobody wants to "heal" anything. My way or the highway, that's how the game works now. Honestly, I'm more concerned that these hardening divisions are going to lead to some large-scale civil conflict. You might think a modern civil war would never happen in the US, but who knows. There's a quote I found recently; "History is littered with wars which everybody knew would never happen." Don't know who said it, but it's not entirely wrong.

What I'd like to know is who qualifies as a legitimate outsider, since I'm sure both sides have their own definition. Conservatives view businessmen like Tillerson who have no government experience as outsiders. What do liberals view as an outsider?

Fair enough, although state polls like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had results that were beyond the margin of error from the polls. Trump may have won them by no more than a point, but considering the leads polling gave Hillary in those states, that sounds like a pretty big miss to me.

The cover received a fair amount of criticism from people who aren't right-wing, or Trump supporters though. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38867961 And while approval rating polls for Trump aren't necessarily "fake news" (although I remain dubious of any polls after the election), national polls seem pretty meaningless at this point. The political/cultural division is pretty clear. The people in the major population centers, liberals, will hate Trump regardless. Yet his core support among Republicans/conservatives, especially in the heartland, has remained strong. Basically, people who never supported him don't approve, and people that did support him do. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-is-stronger-than-national-polls-suggest/article/2614092

I think we can expect the order to go to SCOTUS. That's likely to make the fight over confirmation of Gorsuch a lot uglier.

Well, it's not like the march was going to change anything. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opinion/after-the-womens-march.html?_r=1

Can't say I blame Trump's anger at the BuzzFeed dossier (ignoring whether BuzzFeed is even credible to begin with). You can say a lot of things about Trump, but I never thought I'd see something accusing him of (or implying) a piss fetish.

Going forward, US politics are likely to get more tribalistic. Compromise will become a thing of the distant past. After all, why would you compromise with those whom you view as a threat to everything you stand for? The culture war fought through politics will continue.

Illegal immigration started with the 1965 Immigration Act, but NAFTA didn't help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 Ted Kennedy was certainly a fool. He said the act would have no long-term changes and impact, but he was dead wrong.

I'm somewhat surprised they actually called it a hate crime. People in the US generally act as if racism against white people doesn't exist.

It's not necessarily politics that causes the divide, rather that politics has become the primary means with which Americans express their way of life. Basically a cultural war. There has always been divisions in the US; whether it's race, class, political party or regionalism. The starkest divide shown now, probably, is the urban/rural divide. It could be said that the people who voted for Hillary, and the people who voted for Trump, represent two different Americas with two different ways of life; with both sides viewing each other as a threat to their way of life/existence. Also, it's true that the GOP will get what's coming to them when the Democrats start being the obstructionists; that's how partisan politics works. Plus, the GOP was rewarded for their obstructionism; their gamble on the Supreme Court opening certainly payed off. Naturally, Democrats will want to replicate that. Besides, the Democrat base will naturally be opposed to the Democrats working with Trump in any regard; they do not want to legitimize him.

Do not take this personally, but I generally don't like discussing my personal life; but I'll tell you, since you asked. Without going into too much detail: a series of events in Texas, involving me hitting the lowest point of my entire life, unexpectedly helped me overcome my struggle with depression, non-existent self-esteem, and occasional suicidal thoughts that I've had since becoming an adult. It also helped give me an idea of what I want do going into the future, as well as a long-term goal (moving to another state). It also led to me re-evaluating my opinion on a few things.

For me personally, 2016 has been a game-changer for me thanks to an eventful Spring. The rest of the year is nothing special from my point of view, but I won't forget Spring of 2016. In terms of politics and global events, 2016 has been a pretty exciting year to watch unfold. Terrible year for actors though.

I don't trust any intelligence agency, especially not the CIA; an agency with a history of arming insurgents and undermining foreign governments. Forgive me if I don't take them, or any other intelligence agency at their word. I want actual evidence that Russia is behind the hacks.

I grew up in a suburb, but I live in a rural area now. The area I live in now is nice. I wouldn't want to live in a suburb or any urban area again; I'd rather just commute to those places if need be.

Rather than a bubble, I think both sides (coastal/heartland or urban/rural) are aware they lead different lives; they just don't care. They don't like each other. Why should someone in Seattle or NYC care about what they view as some hillbilly in Tennessee or a farmer in North Dakota? Likewise, why should those people care about someone in San Francisco? http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/ Also, I've never heard of two people from the same party running against each other on a ballot before. I knew California was a one-party state, but not to that extent.

Maine and Nebraska are the only states that split their electoral votes by congressional district, so they're the only states that would be affected by gerrymandering in the EC.

Washington already has laws against faithless electors, but since they accepted the faithless votes, I presume the penalty there is just a $1,000 fine. In Colorado and Minnesota, the votes were thrown out and the electors replaced with someone who would vote for the winner. Maine had the faithless vote thrown out, and the elector changed his vote to Clinton in the next one. As for Texas, the current governor mentioned just after the vote that he's already filed a bill to make electors' commitments binding and punish faithless ones. https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/810979644967124992

SpaceX is heavily reliant on federal funding and government contracts. It wouldn't surprise me if Musk all but forced himself into that position so he'd be in the next administration's good graces.

Why wait that long? Why not just ask them now?

A CEO who has acknowledged that humans have an effect on climate change, and has expressed support for a carbon tax. I don't get this complaint, since the Secretary of State is a diplomat; he does not oversee climate or energy policy.

What is wrong with generals? Mattis and Kelly are excellent picks for the Departments they've been chosen for. Tillerson's credentials lend credence to Trump's idea of "bringing in people who were successful in the private sector to negotiate better deals for the US"; his experience in dealing with Russia also help's with Trump's stated goal of trying to seek cooperation with Russia. I won't comment on the rest of the picks, but I do think Zinke and Sessions are fine. The only choices that really give me pause are Mnuchin, Pruitt, and Puzder. Personally, I was never into the "drain the swamp" because everyone has a different definition of swamp. I find hiring people from outside the Beltway to be sufficient in terms of non-swamp, but not everyone sees it that way. I liked term limits for Congress and a ban on people working in government becoming lobbyists.

They don't have as much influence now because popular vote doesn't decide the President. I'm only expressing my concern at the idea of using popular vote to decide a national election, because then only the most populous areas would matter; in which case a state like California would carry a proportionally large influence. And this election shows that not every state is truly safe. Swing states are important, but if you have a message that resonates, or get enough people to turn out, then you can win states normally considered safe. As I pointed out, the difference between Trump and Hillary in Texas was less than a million votes; add their totals together, and that doesn't even scratch Texas's total population of over 27 million people. Had more people turned out and voted for Hillary, it's possible Texas could've gone blue. Even a state like Montana had a difference of just a bit over 100,000 votes; Montana has a population of at least a million. Could the state have gone blue? I dunno, but Bill Clinton managed to win over a lot of normally conservative states in his runs for President; Montana included.

No one's ever said California and New York aren't part of the US; California in particular may seem like another country altogether compared to where I grew up, but it is a state. I just don't like the idea of two states, regardless of how populated they are, deciding how the rest of the states go about their business. If I wanted to live in California, and abide by its culture and laws, then I'd live there; but I don't live in California. Also, the catch is that California and New York are massively populated and overwhelmingly lean one way. Hillary got a whopping 62% of the vote in California (and it's likely to keep increasing!) and 58% of the vote in New York. Texas is just one state; and despite being a red state, its margins are not as large as California or New York. The difference between Trump and Hillary in Texas was less than a million votes. Texas isn't enough to save the day for one side if the majority of California and New York are going for the other side; the popular vote in this election proves that. Texas doesn't get to decide anything.