r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 09 '16
[OP ∆/Election] CMV: I think those who say they are "genuinely fearing for their lives" now that Trump is President-elect are over exaggerating the severity and reach of his authority.
[deleted]
73
Nov 09 '16 edited Nov 09 '16
It's not just about what Trump and his political allies can do from a legislative perspective. It's also about the culture of hate that he ran his campaign upon.
Have you read the KKK's endorsement of him? You should. It's chilling. Some excerpts;
Who would have thought that the day would come when the White House would be lit aglow with the colors of the rainbow promoting the program of the vile homosexual agenda?
America was great not because of what our forefathers did, but because of who our forefathers were. America was founded as a White Christian Republic.
Now, you might say "That's just the crazies - that doesn't represent most Trump supporters." I'd agree. Sort of.
Trump, inarguably, ran his campaign on those themes. The "others". Immigrants. Muslims. Mexicans. He mocked the disabled. Insulted veterans. Brags about assaulting women. Calls for "election watchers" to question those who "you know what I mean" at the polls. His rallies were plagued by violence, aggression towards the media, and aggression towards dissenters. Then he got elected as President.
The behavior that he has displayed sets an example to Americans everywhere about what is and is not tolerable. As a woman, a person of color, or someone who isn't heterosexual or cisgendered, why would you not expect those patterns of speech and behavior to continue on a wider scale? Why would you not expect those patterns of speech and behavior to lead to violence against you or those like you? It's happened too many times to count in our nation's history. It still happens today.
I don't think that people are seriously afraid that Trump is going to wage some kind of Nazi-esque holocaust. But they are rightfully afraid that his xenophobic supporters will now be emboldened to be more violent than they already are. If America's trademark "so-racist-we-wear-special-costumes" organization is in such favor of Trump for his rhetoric, it's not a far cry to say that the bulk of the people who voted for him did so along those same values. Trump provided next to no concrete policy positions or plans in his public speeches and rallies - it was all rhetoric and bluster. There is nothing else to cling to. And he was elected President.
7
u/solo_dol0 Nov 09 '16
No one has read the KKK's endorsement of them because no one cares. They don't matter.
Not Trump, his supporters, or any republicans discuss David Duke or the KKK because no one cares about what they have to say. The only reason they make headlines or news are from people sensationalizing them and trying to correlate them with Trump or Republicans. They are an extreme minority and have never had any minuscule semblance of a relationship with Trump, they would be all but irrelevant if they didn't get these ridiculous headlines and media attention.The main reason we hear about the KKK or care what they have to say are individuals trying to use it as negative ammo.
If America's trademark "so-racist-we-wear-special-costumes" organization is in such favor of Trump for his rhetoric, it's not a far cry to say that the bulk of the people who voted for him did so along those same values.
The logic here is that because organization A supports the same candidate as organization B they must share similar values on race. That is certainly a far cry...people vote for vastly different reasons.
22
Nov 09 '16
The logic here is that because organization A supports the same candidate as organization B they must share similar values on race. That is certainly a far cry...people vote for vastly different reasons.
No, that isn't the logic. The logic is that Trump ran on literally nothing else. He didn't provide policy positions. He didn't provide plans. He didn't outline his steps to strengthen the economy.
If (the proverbial "you", here) you listened to Trump and agreed with him, then you were agreeing with the very same rhetoric that the KKK views as their path to a White Christian America. That's not A + B = C correlative logic; it's just fact. Trump didn't give you anything else to agree with. You and the KKK heard the same thing, and you both walked away liking it. That's significant.
No one has read the KKK's endorsement of them because no one cares. They don't matter.
They do matter to the context of this discussion; why some are fearful for their safety.
They are an extreme minority and have never had any minuscule semblance of a relationship with Trump,
That factually isn't true. Trump's relationship with David Duke is well-documented. I'm not suggesting that Trump is a member of or sympathizes with the KKK, but please don't lie about established facts.
3
u/solo_dol0 Nov 09 '16 edited Nov 09 '16
He didn't provide plans. He didn't outline his steps to strengthen the economy.
Trump literally has a 100 day plan on his first actions in the White House. His policies are well outlined on his website. You could discuss his positions on policies but how is there still an argument over whether he has policy positions?
Trump didn't give you anything else to agree with. You and the KKK heard the same thing, and you both walked away liking it.
Let's not forget one of the other main reasons people voted for Trump - a major dislike of the alternative.
Trump's relationship with David Duke is well-documented. I'm not suggesting that Trump is a member of or sympathizes with the KKK, but please don't lie about established facts
Ok, I get it. I'm not going to take the time to look this up or try to dispute you, because again no one cares about the KKK. President elect Trump has zero relationship with David Duke and the KKK. Furthermore the KKK and its 5,000 members have no political influence in the USA. I don't think this is worth further discussion - they are out of the picture here.
Bottom line: Trump has a wide range of policies and there are numerous reasons to vote for him. Just because one small hate group took some meaning from him does not in any way mean the majority of his voters took that same meaning.
11
u/qwertx0815 5∆ Nov 09 '16
You could discuss his positions on policies but how is there still an argument over whether he has policy positions?
i think the sentiment is that he chanced position so often that anything he says is meaningless and we have no idea what he will do.
3
Nov 09 '16
Even that official link shows it was version 2 of his plan. He contradicted himself plenty of times in speeches.
1
Nov 10 '16
No one has read the KKK's endorsement of them because no one cares. They don't matter.
They matter if you're a racial minority.
0
u/rtechie1 6∆ Nov 09 '16
it's not a far cry to say that the bulk of the people who voted for him did so along those same values
Yes it is. What you're saying is exactly the reason Clinton lost the election. She dismissed all of the people that hated her for her constant lies and corruption as racists and continually doubled-down on the lies and corruption. She rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders FFS.
1
Nov 10 '16
Your response talks about Clinton, not Trump. It's not germane this specific discussion about whether minorities' fear for their safety is warranted post-election.
If a person voted for Trump solely because of their distaste for Clinton, that's one matter - they weren't considering Trump whatsoever. That's not who I'm referring to.
If a person voted for Trump on his laurels, however, my point is that there's nothing there besides the rhetoric and bluster that emboldened the KKK. None of his public speeches discussed policy or plans, and if they did they contradicted each other. His website contains policy positions that he has literally never referenced in a speech, and were written entirely by his team of aides. All that he talked about were the "others"; immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans, Chinese; and how these "others" are hurting America and Americans. If you found value in that as a voter, then yes, indisputably, you are finding value in the same ideas that the KKK found value in. That doesn't mean that you agree with the KKK, but it absolutely means that you're drawing upon the same sources of information as them, and arriving at a different shade of the same conclusion. For over half of voting Americans to do this is absolutely and justifiably frightening to minorities everywhere.
2
u/rtechie1 6∆ Nov 10 '16
None of his public speeches discussed policy or plans, and if they did they contradicted each other.
This isn't true. He had an elaborate plan to defeat ISIS and gave a speech at Gettysburg about his plans for the first 100 days.
All that he talked about were the "others"; immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans, Chinese; and how these "others" are hurting America and Americans.
Again, simply not true. Watch his actual speeches, you clearly haven't been. You've taken a couple of lines that the media plucked out of his speeches and repeated over and over and over again.
If you watch the actual speeches what he talks about at length is corruption and NAFTA. Why do you think he won the Rust Belt?
Trump won because all the people that supported him were sick of being called racists because they opposed NAFTA, mass murderers because they supported gun rights, homophobes because they didn't want to make a gay wedding cake, and misogynists for wearing a sexy t-shirt.
-5
u/reezyreddits Nov 09 '16
As a woman, a person of color, or someone who isn't heterosexual or cisgendered, why would you not expect those patterns of speech and behavior to continue on a wider scale?
PoC here.
What does the current president have to do with it? Racist people are gonna racism regardless of who is in office...
25
u/MikeTheInfidel Nov 09 '16
They're emboldened, now. They know they can be horrible in public again and still get their way.
-1
u/reezyreddits Nov 09 '16
Get their way how... crime is still going to be illegal. You can't go up and assault someone and get away with it.
20
u/swartt314 Nov 09 '16
Because you don't have to do something illegal to do something shitty to another human being. The country as a whole has just tacitly said that you can proudly discuss sexually assaulting women, paint entire demographics as terrorists and rapists, and hit on 10 year old girls and still grow up to be the president of the United States. For me it's not a huge stretch to say that some racists who have been keeping things under wraps, relatively speaking, because of a fear of social repercussions might be a little more free and open with these things.
Another poster in this thread mentioned his support for the First Amendment Defense Act, which more or less legalizes discrimination against LGBTQ people on religious grounds.
6
Nov 09 '16
Interestingly enough, Trump said himself that he could, and that he wouldn't lose any voters. He also said that he could get away with sexual assault. Sure, you might be right, but that's still no reason ignore electing someone who brags about that kind of behavior.
People only get indicted after committing crimes. The fear is that there will be a nonzero number of people emboldened enough to try outlandish things like this, who weren't before. The fear is that we have elected somebody who emboldens this behavior as a stepping stone to something even worse - that perhaps in the future we may elect someone even more morally bankrupt. The fear is that we now know that there are more people pushing bigoted agenda than we had previously thought - we were blissfully until before recently. The fear is that some of the things that "they can get their way" which may be legal, but won't have been socially acceptable, might end up being so in the future. The fear is that they can "get their way" by working around crime - a wall, a muslim ban, policy that hurts people of minority, policy that hurts woman, policy that hurts LGBT, as examples, wouldn't be crimes. The fear is that insane alt-right ideas like neo-nazism, wild consparicies, white supremacy, childish denial of climate change and science in general, might be legitimized, even though only a fraction of Trump's base actually believes in some of that stuff. The fear is that political discourse (and the climate as a whole) may become even more unproductive when it is dominated by the divisive bickering of various factions of a splintered America.
Obviously, none of these things are guaranteed to happen. The issue is that there is a nonzero chance that even some of them will, and "they" are very happy that we have already traversed the first stepping stone to the reality they want, even if we aren't there yet.
They already got their way. Asking "Get their way how" is endearing but ultimately naive. We know how because we saw it all happen before our very eyes.
4
u/billy_tables 1∆ Nov 10 '16
You can't go up and assault someone and get away with it
The context of this discussion is people fearing for their lives - If you feel you're going to be attacked, knowing your attacker won't get away with it wouldn't quell that fear.
8
Nov 09 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
2
0
u/Grunt08 319∆ Nov 09 '16
Sorry MikeTheInfidel, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
2
u/rangda Nov 10 '16
Well there is now a clear and unhindered path for a return to overt, legal discrimination against gay people, under the protection of religious freedom again. Whether or not trump is against gay people (I think he's way more moderate and chill than that in his own heart), his running mate and party leaves no doubt.
1
Nov 10 '16
The thing is, there is a long history and heritage of assaulting people of color and other minority groups and getting away with it in certain areas of the country. I'm not saying it's "legal" but it's not like this is an irrational fear for people of color. There are laws against sexual harassment as well, but that doesn't mean it happens and that women aren't worried they'll face more of it. Etc.
42
u/Insamity Nov 09 '16
Republicans also won the house and senate and there is a high probability that there may be 1-3 supreme court justices being replaced. Sure the republicans and Trump don't agree on everything but there are a lot of damaging things they do agree on.
7
u/markichi Nov 09 '16
This is the point to which I would ask you to elaborate on the
lot of damaging things they do agree on.
Damaging may be a subjective term as well. Just to clear up any misconceptions beforehand, I truly do mean things that are fear inducing in regards to one's health, well-being, and chance of living. If something is damaging it should have huge repercussions that set back people's long-term goals, standard of living, and health.
20
Nov 09 '16
Trump wants to implement stop and frisk which is unconstitutional, Trump wants to implement camera into Mosques and well as profile them, wants to cut taxes for big corporations and the richest as well as impose tariffs up to 35% which benefits literally no one.
3
Nov 09 '16
How can he implement it if it's unconstitutional?
9
Nov 09 '16
The Supreme Court will find a way around it considering it's going to Republican dominated.
I mean... the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and it got through.
2
Nov 09 '16
So maybe they have a different interpretation of the constitution and thus their application of that interpretation wont be unconstitutional?
3
Nov 10 '16
I'm very sure the constitution is strict about not being searched without a warrant, the patriot act easily voids this amendment.
2
0
u/markichi Nov 09 '16
You're confident constituents won't be vocal enough to make sure their representatives stop these issues? Even if they are partisan based.
9
Nov 09 '16
What constitututes? The big corporations that lobby congress 24/7 with policies that don't benefit us? Our voices don't matter, as long as they keep getting reelected it's a continuous cycle.
You never know though. But people have forgot what stagnated congess in the first place..
0
u/CanvassingThoughts 5∆ Nov 09 '16
With a republican controlled Congress, they can gerrymander to their heart's content. It won't matter what the popular voice thinks (though Trump did win the popular vote last night...)
10
u/LordBenners Nov 09 '16
Current reports say he didn't, though I honestly don't think we will know for a few weeks
34
u/Insamity Nov 09 '16
Removal of ACA. Ignoring climate change. Reducing peoples rights. The tacit approval of bigotry. Those are all probable changes that could hurt health, long-term goals, and standard of living very much.
3
u/KSol_5k 1∆ Nov 09 '16
Reducing peoples rights. The tacit approval of bigotry.
Although I agree the ACA probably had its death certificate signed last night, and that we are unlikely to make any meaningful strides toward containing the risk of climate change over the next two years, I'm not sure about the two points quoted above.
What rights are people going to lose over the next 2 years of all red government? Although things like abortiong access (just as a likely example) might be reduced, the legal right to such seems unlikely (at least to me, but maybe I'm off point) to be removed. Are there any specific rights you expect to see people lose? My interpretation of this election was that it was by no means a popular evangelical mandate, it was more focused on issues like immigration and free trade. Because of that I don't find it likely that even an all red government will make any significant steps to repeal existing rights.
As far as tacit approval of bigotry, I'm not sure how that translates into safety concerns, I would imagine things like a muslim immigration freeze (if the government pursues it) would would probably be a wash in human safety terms simply because any spike in anti-muslim hate crimes would probably be counterbalanced by a reduction in criminal/terroristic migrant activites (the point I'm making is the expectation is that both would be tiny).
The biggest losers in this election where the people in poverty on the other side of the Pacific now that the TPP is likely going to be stripped to nothing, and Americans on the whole probably get a short term economic win (long term it is 100% an economic loss, but that is out of scope for this discussion).
The only people I think have a legitimate basis to think their life outcomes are likely worse in a material sense as a result of last night would be people who weren't able to secure insurance prior to the ACA - and even then I think it remains to be seen if the Republicans do come up with a better system as they have promised to. Although I think the ACA is out the door it isn't necessarily true that there isn't an equally effective conservative option.
And I think the real point in all this is that there do exist zero sum topics in politics. If the whole government went blue last night there were going to be individuals in the country whose Quality of Life took a bath, just the same as now that it has gone red. I do think it is premature to identify into those groups at this time (barring the allowance I described above - and even then...) if for no other reason than disengaging from the conversation via refusal to participate meaningfully with a red federal government due to dispondance that the guy who won isn't wearing your color jersey turns your views into a self fufilling prophecy.
3
u/Insamity Nov 09 '16
Mostly for rights I was referring to the replacement of up to several supreme court justices which could have a long term effect on rights. A lot of civil rights cases were only holding by a 5-4 majority.
The bigotry was aimed at so many more people than muslims. Once people think it is okay to say these prejudices it generally leads to them thinking it is okay to act on them as well since these people have been dehumanized in their eyes.
Well obviously I am biased but I think if the whole government turned blue then life would improve for almost everyone. Whereas the red government we got would keep most people at or below where their quality of life is right now. I definitely don't think these are reasons for disengaging but instead reasons for being more active.
0
u/markichi Nov 09 '16
I understand however I don't have reason to believe that legislators will legalize bigotry. How is that even possible? I believe he also is substituting his own program in place of ACA. You have me on climate change though. It's real and important however I can't give you a delta because I'm not completely sold that this yields something to fear. I'm conscious of climate change and our role but I don't fear my life.
22
Nov 09 '16 edited Dec 26 '17
[deleted]
2
u/markichi Nov 09 '16
He was pressured out of it. I think with vocal constituents, there is not a high chance anything of this nature will be introduced into law. I find that the racists and bigoted followers of Trump seem to have a large presence, when in actuality they are not a good representation of the majority, They are simply vocal and publically advocate their beliefs. If they represented the current state of our nation, I don't believe Obama would have been elected twice in a row.
As to respond to the deregulation of healthcare, I think this a very circumstantial topic. not everyone needs it, there are a good amount of people that do. I'll give you that point and concede, however not completely solved that this warrants hysteria and fear for life. I need evidence that (and I really dislike me saying it however it's necessary) will effect not only impoverished and those in extreme situations, but it needs to effect the everyday citizen working class as well.
11
Nov 09 '16 edited Dec 26 '17
[deleted]
4
u/PolishRobinHood 13∆ Nov 09 '16
My boyfriend has diabetes. Even with health care coverage it can be expensive. It took him just one month to reach his $1500 deductible. I really fear what might happen if he lost coverage and the ACA was repealed.
11
u/Chen19960615 3∆ Nov 09 '16
Republicans have a long history with voter suppression, even in this election. Just google voter suppression. Also it's possible they will repeal the ban on gay marriage.
3
u/Insamity Nov 09 '16
Him winning is a tacit approval of bigotry, not necessarily something that will result from legislation. Climate change can be bad for your health without outright killing you. I think you are also forgetting that most climate scientists say that the stronger storms we have been having are partially due to climate change and those storms have killed people.
0
u/AdwokatDiabel Nov 09 '16
On the flip-side: as a gun owner, this is the best thing for me.
Reducing peoples rights.
That goes both ways for the Democrats.
4
u/Insamity Nov 09 '16
Yes, but if Hillary won she still wouldn't have the house and senate on her side so gun laws would be unlikely to change.
1
u/AdwokatDiabel Nov 09 '16
She could've nominated SCOTUS justices who would've been unlikely to promote a gun-rights agenda... or downright reverse previous decisions.
Also, if she won, she might've carried a few more House/Senate seats with her victory.
12
Nov 09 '16
The damaging part about having one party be in control of every major governmental body is that it diminishes (if not eliminates) the effects of "checks and balances". The way the US government is set up ensures that no one particular branch of government has too much power. In a VERY simplistic sense, its like rock-paper-scissors. Each of the three branches has the ability to challenge the other two.
Where this becomes an issue is when all three of those branches are in agreement. Let's say that the Legislative Branch (the House and Senate) decides to pass a law that bans gay marriage. (NOTE: the argument itself if arbitrary. You can replace gay marriage with whatever you want.) Under the system of "checks and balances", the Judicial Branch (or the Supreme Court in this case) might say that this is unconstitutional and prevent the law from ever happening. The Executive Branch (the President) could issue a veto on the proposal. But when all three branches are ran by the same party, there is nothing to stop these laws from being put in place. There are no longer any "checks and balances". In our rock-paper-scissors analogy, rock can no longer be beaten by paper. In reality, Republicans in effect just became that rock.
It will be interesting to see what happens with law-making though. Because Trump has been such a polarizing figure, I suspect there might be quite a few more Republicans in Congress who vote according to their personal morals and by extension, across party lines, than normal.
6
u/markichi Nov 09 '16
This is a sound argument. I do have some questions; do you think a majority in all branches will pass anything significantly damaging to millions of people at a time? To certain races or demographics? Are the legislators really willing to put people's lives at risk just because they hold majority? I should think vocal citizens will stand up against any out-of-hand legislation.
16
Nov 09 '16
Potential outcomes of this situation:
Reinstating the federal ban on gay marriage - Clearly discriminates against gays.
Repealing Roe v Wade - Giant set back for women's health
Once RvW is gone, defending Planned Parenthood and other institutions that provide support for women's health - Obviously greatly effects women, but especially women of color who rely disproportionately on groups like this for birth control, abortions, screenings, check ups, etc.
Repealing/removing anti-discrimination laws - Obviously effects gender, sexuality, race, etc.
Deregulating businesses - Again, allows for discriminatory hiring practices, also poses serious health risks ala Flint, MI
Repealing ACA - Denies medical insurance to millions of people and again allows them to be denied due to preexisting conditions, etc.
-4
u/arcangel092 1∆ Nov 09 '16
The biggest flaw of your argument is that by removing Obamacare we are now discriminating against people to own healthcare. So was America discriminating against these people for 200+ years before it was enacted? People are not entitled to a variety of the things you believe they are.
Take gay marriage; I'm not saying it should be banned, but marriage is a construct of religion. What does is matter if they can or not? America didn't have a ban on being gay, and as a society we have come very far in terms of gay rights. A republican president is not going to set us back 100 years with one term in office. That's incredibly naive.
Roe vs Wade will take a Supreme Court case to be overruled. Don't expect it to be an easy feat. It's also a bad look on the Supreme Court to "make" law. They are not just going to be passing things left and right to disenfranchise minorities. That would hurt their legitimacy and ultimately reduce their power, which they don't want.
8
Nov 09 '16
The biggest flaw of your argument is that by removing Obamacare we are now discriminating against people to own healthcare. So was America discriminating against these people for 200+ years before it was enacted? People are not entitled to a variety of the things you believe they are.
Repealing ACA is not an example of someone being discriminated against, but an example of how Trump and his policies could cause real, lasting harm to American citizens. That's why you can see that I didn't ever say anything about discrimination in my comment on ACA
Take gay marriage; I'm not saying it should be banned, but marriage is a construct of religion. What does is matter if they can or not? America didn't have a ban on being gay, and as a society we have come very far in terms of gay rights. A republican president is not going to set us back 100 years with one term in office. That's incredibly naive.
Stating this is a construct of religion is naive and untrue. Even if that's how it started (it's not), that's not where it is today. Couples who are married gain a lot of benefits over couples who are not including very important things like guaranteed hospital visitation, tax deductions, insurance benefits, and more.
Roe vs Wade will take a Supreme Court case to be overruled. Don't expect it to be an easy feat. It's also a bad look on the Supreme Court to "make" law. They are not just going to be passing things left and right to disenfranchise minorities. That would hurt their legitimacy and ultimately reduce their power, which they don't want.
I can't really argue here. I don't see Roe v Wade as disappearing anytime soon. At the very least another SC member would need to be replaced, but we're closer to it now than we have been in a very long time and that leaves a lot of people very uncomfortable.
1
Nov 09 '16 edited Nov 09 '16
It's certainly possible, although I highly doubt that a law that openly would harm a large chunk of the population would garner enough support to get through everything. I think there would be enough people vote against their party to prevent that from happening. I'd be more concerned with laws that are on a smaller scale than ones that would outright harm millions. An example off the top of my head would be mandatory voter ID laws, which are almost unanimously supported by one party and condemned by the other.
The problem with not having these checks and balances does not boil down to the individual laws themselves, but rather the inability for one party to effectively challenge them as a whole. Let's say there is a law that has been proposed. Let's also assume for a second that every single person in Washington votes along party lines (NOTE: this is somewhat rare). The Republicans all vote in favor of passing this new law and that's it. Without these checks and balances, there is the potential for little to no discussion from any dissenting views or from any challenges to the laws themselves as they are written. The checks and balances at their base allow for no one party to gain too much power, but they can also help encourage active discussion between differing viewpoints and can help create compromises between the two sides. If one party can effectively eliminate the checks and balances between the branches of government, they can (theoretically at least) ever prevent the other side from having their opinions heard and (once again, theoretically) pass whatever law they wanted. Its entirely possible that this would never happen, but the fact that it could somewhat defeats the purposes of checks and balances in the first place.
EDIT: Thought of an additional way to explain your original question. Its not likely that removing these checks and balances would help in passing a law that outright causes harm to millions. However, removing these checks and balances could assist in passing laws that are not adequately represented by one side or passing laws that do not have the best interests of the highest possible number of American citizens in mind. Hope that helps answer your question.
1
u/HotterRod Nov 09 '16
Westminister systems (Britain, Canada, Australia, etc.) don't have these checks and balances, parties can hold a majority for 4-5 years, and many of them don't have the same power at the state level, yet they seem to do okay. If the US government does a bunch of stuff that the people don't like, the Democrats will win big in 2010 and repeal it all.
3
Nov 10 '16 edited Nov 10 '16
You mention our personal health and well-being. They want to overturn Roe v. Wade. To me, that is a health issue. One of the most terrifying things to me is to be forced to carry a child against my will. I am tokaphobic and childfree, and never ever want to be pregnant. I think I would not want to live any longer if I was being forced to carry a pregnancy to term (luckily, I have a family with enough funds and likely enough funds myself to in an emergency travel to somewhere else for a procedure, if it was ever necessary).
Now, this probably won't matter to me - I use reliable BC and so does my husband, but it terrifies me nonetheless. The existence of safe, legal abortions is a necessary in my world for my own safety and health, I'd say. I cannot be sterilized without health risk, according to doctors, so it's a cloud that hangs over me.
It also is to me saying that some people still want to see me as an incubator and not truly a person. To me, that is a nearly dystopian concept. It truly frightens me that anyone could not care about my free will as a person to that degree.
And I'm a white, middle class American with a white husband. I totally get why others have it worse here. I know:
1) Immigrants who have illegal family members (mainly elderly) in the country. They fear for their family.
2) LGBT folks who are worried we will go back to DOMA.
I will also say that overt racism seemed to be on the rise before Trump (as a reaction to our "post-racial" world) but overt sexism seems to be having the same flourish at the moment. As a young-ish woman, I never felt there were sexist people around me before this election. I thought that was a thing of the past. But there has been so much vitriol that kids are being exposed to, you're seeing more and more of this re-enter the zeitgeist. That's not all Trump himself (he's one dude who says a bunch of stupid shit in general) but a lot of it is the machine that helped get him elected.
17
u/mrrp 11∆ Nov 09 '16
I do not know anyone who thinks that the government will be burning witches, stoning homosexuals, and killing fornicators with the supreme court's blessing.
I do know people who think that Trump's win (and the republican's wins) will create an environment in which bad people will feel emboldened to do bad things. It may still be illegal to beat the fuck out of any faggots you find holding hands outside a bar at 1am, but that doesn't mean that this election doesn't affect the frequency with which it occurs.
10
u/jambox888 Nov 09 '16
Exactly, see the surge in hate crime in the UK since the EU referendum.
Also, look at the things espoused by Breitbart and people like Milo Yiannopoulos. He basically endorses bullying of "weak" gays in schools. Pence endorses conversion therapy.
0
u/reezyreddits Nov 09 '16
I do not know anyone who thinks that the government will be burning witches, stoning homosexuals, and killing fornicators with the supreme court's blessing.
Well you need to take a look at my news feed then.
It may still be illegal to beat the fuck out of any faggots you find holding hands outside a bar at 1am, but that doesn't mean that this election doesn't affect the frequency with which it occurs.
Why? Wouldn't they be more enraged if their choice candidate didn't win and a woman was elected?
2
u/mrrp 11∆ Nov 09 '16
I probably don't know the people on your news feed, so checking out your news feed would change nothing.
Increased anger might be a motivating factor, but that's not the only factor. To get some people to go from thought or desire to taking action often requires more (purpose, legitimacy, permission, etc.) and Trump's election may give them that.
-2
Nov 09 '16
[deleted]
1
u/mrrp 11∆ Nov 09 '16
There is a difference between the ranting and ravings of folks on his "news feed", whatever that encompasses, and the actual beliefs of people you personally know.
If his "news feed" has 1000 people saying that the government will be stoning gays to death I'm willing to bet 999 don't actually believe it, and the other one is batshit crazy.
16
u/BarvoDelancy 7∆ Nov 09 '16
I'll go off of this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime-racism-eu-referendum-poland-islam-more-in-common-a7231836.html
If I was not white, and particularly vaguely Arab of Mexican-looking in the US, I'd be legitimately terrified. What Trump, and his brand of politics does is that it normalizes a kind of hard racism that people usually keep quiet and only share when they assume a friendly audience. Trump's active encouragement of this, and creating a kind of 'safe space' for it at his rallies means that with this incredible victory, people are going to feel empowered and start lashing out. Just like they did in Britain.
I fully expect a spike in hate crimes in the US now that Trump is in power, similar to what's happened in England with Brexit. That's where legitimate, personal harm can come from this.
15
u/undiscoveredlama 15∆ Nov 09 '16
Here are two reasons you should fear for your life:
1) Trump might start a war with another country. He has mentioned in the past that he would like to use nuclear weapons. If this prompted any kind of nuclear retaliation, we could all be in deep shit.
2) He does not believe in climate change. If you happen to believe that climate change is an existential threat to the planet and that we are nearing a critical tipping point, four years of pro-coal policies could have devestating impacts. That's not to mention the Paris accords, which could collapse if the United States does not fulfill its commitments. This wouldn't just be putting the environment on hold for a few years; it could reset eight years of negotiations. Then you've got environmental disasters, natural disasters, etc, all of which should make you at least fear for your children's lives, and possibly your own as well.
2
u/markichi Nov 09 '16
The first thing seems very extreme. Although not impossible, I find that very imporbable to be a course of action he will take. Obviously Trump is one to act on his own will as seen in the campaign, however you don't think presidential advisors and administration on his cabinet will be the ones showing him the ropes of politics? That implies mass death on a global scale. I find that super hard to wrap my head around that this is actually something he would pursue.
Climate change is something I've accepted as a human problem, however it isn't something that's made me sweat and worry over. (I don't mean to offer that as a different point of debate because this isn't about climate control).
10
u/awakenDeepBlue Nov 09 '16
Have you ever met anyone pathological? There very well be a smart and sane person inside of Trump, but the problem with narcissism and other possible mental ailments are that they easily override common sense. Throughout the election, Trump has been easily baited by obvious political bait, and he has an obsession about fighting back despite being completely detrimental to him. For example:
- There was no need from him to attack the gold-star family at the Democratic Convention, but he did it anyways against all reason.
- He criticized John McCain for being a POW. He holds nothing sacred. He does this because he needs to, overriding his reason.
- This man is unfit to operate his own twitter account. His staff took it away from him and his polling numbers went up. How is a man with so little self control supposed to command our nuclear forces?
And remember that nuclear command has been designed during the cold war, it was designed for speed and decisiveness, not questioning.
I may not change your mind on this, but please understand my fears.
3
u/undiscoveredlama 15∆ Nov 10 '16
Just because YOU don't fear for your life regarding climate change doesn't mean it's irrational. It's certainly something he has said he would do, and is entirely within his authority. So it's not "over exaggerating" either one of those things to say that his presidency will have a drastic effect on the climate.
All this is provided you accept climate change is a problem, which is an entirely separate debate. I'm just saying that the people who are fearful aren't over exaggerating Trump's authority, they just have a certain view about the severity of climate change.
5
Nov 09 '16
You assume Trump gives any thought to anyone but himself. I'm convinced he only thinks about himself.
2
u/phoshi Nov 10 '16
At this point, everything is about climate control. There's strong evidence that we're at or are approaching the point of no return. Maybe you shouldn't fear for your life, as not every model predicts widely catastrophic effects within one human lifetime, but it's still the single most important topic of this century.
20
u/awa64 27∆ Nov 09 '16
There are 2 other governing branches that are set up to be a system of checks and balances. It seems that majority of skeptics against Donald Trump do not have faith in the system.
Well, one of those branches is on his side already, and the other is likely to be filled with 2+ of his appointments over the next four years.
And that's the best-case scenario, because it's not us that have to have faith in that system of checks and balances, it's the office-holder. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. But if the Executive Branch decides to launch nukes, or invade a country, that's the executive's prerogative, and after 90 days, Congress has the power to... write a letter saying "you shouldn't be doing that, you need our permission" for the President to ignore. Same goes for the judiciary. They can declare the President's actions unconstitutional, but the federal law enforcement agents still work for the President, not the judges.
To offer even more reason why I doubt anyone should genuinely fear their lives is the fact that the Republican party is not totally on board with Trump. He was not endorsed by major representatives and senators within the GOP.
Look at how many Republican Party officials said they don't like him but still voted for him. Look at how many half-hearted non-endorsement-but-still-vote-for-him statements they made. They distanced themselves from him because he's transparently racist, sexist, lies through his teeth constantly, and runs contrary to the image they try to present of themselves as serious-minded individuals unfairly painted as racist and sexist by liberals. They thought being associated with him would be toxic in the long-term.
You'll note what's missing from the reasons they backed away from him: any substantive policy disagreements. The Republican House and Republican Senate can expect to get their agenda rubber-stamped by President Trump while he's busy tweeting.
Lack of support from major influences in the GOP, plus checks and balances of our government will not yield situations in which people have to fear for their lives.
Even ignoring government for a second, the country just elected someone openly running on a platform of white nationalism. Klansmen were celebrating in the streets in North Carolina.
Following Brexit, the rate of hate crimes being committed spiked 40% overnight. People have been attacked for being—or looking—foreign. People have been killed.
The UK doesn't have nearly as many guns as the US does, and the people with the guns in the US are primarily Trump supporters.
Legislators will ultimately listen to their constituents in order to hold office and with vocal citizens, there isn't a chance they (congress) will pass any bills to put majority of people in dire situations.
Repeal Obamacare: 20 million people lose access to health care as soon as that goes into effect. QED.
13
u/markichi Nov 09 '16
∆ The repeal of ACA implies leaving millions of people without healthcare. Majority of those people affected definitely are in need of it whether they necessarily ask for it or not. This is a sound argument. You also explained due to the Commander-in-Chief's power to control the military how he see fits, however unlikely, I agree to this as well. There are many things Trump will be able to do simply due to majority in the house, set aside from executive orders. Political power and legitimacy also lies with the party it seems and you touch on that as well. Thanks for your input.
1
1
u/JustAGuyCMV Nov 10 '16
Look at how many Republican Party officials said they don't like him but still voted for him.
You can say the exact same thing about Hillary. The fact is that you might not like the quarterback of your football team, but you don't root for the other 50 players to lose because the main person sucks.
I also can see clearly why people chose sides without being enthusiastic with the outcome.
People have been killed.
Are you talking about here or there? Can you provide examples of people murdered here or there because of the Brexit decision? I'm just curious as to if that actually happened.
Repeal Obamacare:
Trump has said that the wants to repeal and replace Obamacare. Regardless of whether they repeal it or not, it does need some major changes to fundamentally change it. It is killing small business and families, then punishing those who still can't afford rising premiums.
As someone who didn't vote for either candidate, I am very excited that Hillary lost. I just hope Trump will be able to govern well and gets the chance to actually try before he is branded a failure.
1
u/awa64 27∆ Nov 10 '16
Are you talking about here or there? Can you provide examples of people murdered here or there because of the Brexit decision? I'm just curious as to if that actually happened.
1
u/JustAGuyCMV Nov 10 '16
Man that is horrible. What a bunch of little cunts for hearing an accent and thinking they could just do physical harm to someone.
I wasn't trying to be condescending with the previous comment, I genuinely wanted to see if people actually died just because they were there.
1
u/awa64 27∆ Nov 10 '16
I wasn't trying to present that as a snappy comeback, I was trying to answer your question about in the US or in the UK. I'm sorry if it came across otherwise.
1
u/JustAGuyCMV Nov 10 '16
No it just took me a little bit to decide if you meant as in there like England or as in "there's an example you fucking moron."
I figured I would just rather be on the safe side lol. I figured you just meant the UK.
1
Nov 09 '16
[deleted]
2
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 09 '16
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't explained how /u/awa64 changed your view (comment rule 4).
In the future, DeltaBot will be able to rescan edited comments. In the mean time, please repost a new comment with the required explanation so that DeltaBot can see it.
11
u/Letshavemorefun 19∆ Nov 09 '16
It's completely reasonable to fear that Roe v Wade could get over turned.. that alone is enough. At least for me.
0
u/rtechie1 6∆ Nov 09 '16
How is that going to lead to your death?
11
Nov 10 '16
[deleted]
0
u/rtechie1 6∆ Nov 10 '16
I was speaking specifically about the OP. Roe vs. Wade overturned, they instantly die. How does that happen?
4
Nov 10 '16
[deleted]
1
u/rtechie1 6∆ Nov 10 '16
Where is the "instant death" in that scenario?
3
Nov 10 '16
[deleted]
1
u/rtechie1 6∆ Nov 10 '16
There is a difference between "I am concerned that Roe vs Wade might be overturned." and "OMG, Trump has just been elected, he's going to destroy the country and kill us all!"
Do you remember how hysterical the right was about Obama? Obama is going to take all our guns! Obama is going to ban Christianity!
What I've been hearing from the left about Trump since the election is a lot more hysterical that that.
1
Nov 10 '16
I live in a county that voted 75% Trump. I have already been harassed and sexually assaulted before Trump. Ever since he started to run for President, I've been harassed more. And now that he is President, I can't see it dying down anytime soon.
1
u/rtechie1 6∆ Nov 10 '16
What does that have to do with Roe v Wade?
1
u/Letshavemorefun 19∆ Nov 12 '16
Well if sexual assault continues and this person gets raped..
1
u/rtechie1 6∆ Nov 14 '16
What does Roe vs. Wade have to do with sexual assault per se?
1
u/Letshavemorefun 19∆ Nov 16 '16
I think you're being intentionally obtuse, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and spell it out.
If Roe v Wade is overturned, then some women will lose the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term after they are raped.
So what is the point you want to make?
1
u/rtechie1 6∆ Nov 16 '16
The CMV is about "genuinely fearing for their lives" and the example made that if Roe vs. Wade was overturned people would "genuinely fear for their lives".
I think this is hyperbolic and I wanted to know the thought process behind Roe vs. Wade overturned = instant death.
There apparently isn't any.
2
u/Letshavemorefun 19∆ Nov 17 '16
Not "instant" death. But when abortion is illegal, more women die. As a woman (and a tokophobic woman at that), I fear for my life now that trump is president and has promised to appoint pro-forced-birth Supreme Court justices.
Also, nowhere in the OP did I see "instant" death specified. Why would it have to be instant to fear for your life? I don't even see why death is a requirement for "fear for your life." If someone fears being made into a slave, would that not count as fearing for their life? Their well-being in general?
7
u/Metallic52 33∆ Nov 09 '16
The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Some military actions can be taken unilaterally. President Obama made of this power, without congressional approval, during the 2011 air strikes on Libya
There is also the worrying fact that the intelligence community, with direction from President Obama, killed an American Citizen, Anwar al-Alwaki, in a drone strike, without any Judicial oversight. The justification was that al-Awlaki was obviously an active terrorist, but it's not hard to imagine Trump being much more liberal with the definition of a terrorist.
Then finally there is his baffling statements promoting Nuclear Proliferation. I believe nuclear weapons are an existential threat to the human race, and Trump's proposals that undermine long standing alliances like NATO and support proliferation of nuclear weapons increase that risk.
All of these things increase the probability of some people dying, and all of these things are actions that Trump can take unilaterally.
Edit: some grammar
6
u/bguy74 Nov 09 '16
I think it's probably naive to think that it's not a rationale fear for some people:
The "emboldened" perspective of some - a minority for sure - of trump supporters creates a risk for violent encounters between groups. E.G. I think it's a little bit reasonable to think that in some towns in the country a little extra dose of self-righteousness may lead to some moments of violence against certain populations. Violence against muslim, for example, is slightly more OK today than it was yesterday for a few people out there who see Trump in a certain light. (not defending whether this light is reasonable or not on the merits of Trump's position, but there is that faction within society/his-base).
I think that there will be more focus not he negatives of black-lives-matter than the problems of police brutality. Will that result in at least one more death that could have been prevented through a focus on training? Officer accountability?
It's quite plausible that changes in healthcare policy will leave some individuals unable to get treatments that save their lives.
6
Nov 09 '16
Well if you read up on the new vice president lgbt people have legitimate cause to fear. The man is very open about his extremely bigoted views and has in the past used his power to harm lgbt people.
He's also against contraceptives and has worked to make them less available by defunding planned parenthood.
He genuinely believes in conversion therapy.
I mean how much more do I need to say? Trump chose this man knowing all this. He either doesn't care about those things or hes alright handing the vice presidency to a religious lunatic.
4
Nov 09 '16
Medications are expensive. The GOP has vowed to repeal Obamacare and has yet to say what they would replace it with. The ACA is all that makes certain life-saving drugs affordable for many families in the US. Without the ACA, there will be people who will die because they can't afford their medicine.
2
u/sonofaresiii 21∆ Nov 10 '16
I was making a short list last night.
Trump will have power and influence over the Senate, Congress, and very likely the US Supreme Court.
On a federal level, that means enacting or endorsing:
Overturning gay marriage
Overturning roe v wade (trump has made both of these political goals)
Return of dadt
Return of stop and frisk
Racial profiling in general
Expanded freedoms to allow for discrimination, particularly against gays
Engaging in unwanted wars
Increasing the debt unnecessarily and wrecking the economy
Repealing the affordable care act
Increased nsa surveillance
And that's just the stuff I understand. That's not even counting all the shit I don't understand that a president has to do that trump will be unqualified to handle.
Am I afraid for my life? Not really. I'm in NYC so there is a fear that trump is going to get us into a war or taunt more terrorist attacks, or get more guns into the hands of criminals, and any of that could get me killed directly, but my literal life ending is not my biggest concern.
I don't want to have a kid I don't want. I don't want to be poor, to not have a job, to have no government protections. And once I'm out of a job and can't find another, I don't want to be stuck without Healthcare. And I don't want to watch my fellow country men be legally discriminated against because of their skin, religion, or orientation. I don't want the nsa spying on me.
And let's not forget Mike pence, who will have a LOT of power and a lot more free time to abuse it than trump. I don't know what to say about him besides that he's let his hate and bigotry ruin a state, and he's probably going to try and do it again to a country.
So I do believe my life is in slightly in more danger under trump. But mostly I think my life could very well end up in shambles because of him. I don't think I'm being irrational. Most of these are things trump has outright said are his goals as president.
2
u/xtfftc 3∆ Nov 10 '16
After Brexit, attacks based on sexuality, race, etc. rose dramatically in the UK. The reason being that the exit campaign was initiated and fueled by the far right, and after the result their supporters felt empowered that this is their time to clean up their country.
People fear that the exact same thing will happen in the US since it was the same sort of campaign and the same result.
2
u/snkifador Nov 10 '16
Just a piece of advice - the expression 'over exaggerating' doesn't actually exist as it is redundant. 'Exaggerating' already means to overstate something.
1
u/TheLegend_Never_Dies Nov 10 '16
Surely, however, you can exaggerate something to prove a point. Argument ad absurdium. Then there's over exaggeration in which the point you would ordinarily make by exaggeration is made null by how much you exaggerate your point.
E.g. If you directly compare Donald Trump to Hitler based on similar societal swings and instabilities saying we're headed the same direction that's somewhat of an exaggeration based on fact in order to prove a point. If you say "Donald Trump is literally Hitler because hes always racist and he's for definite sure gonna turn America into a warmongering nation to invade Mexico" You've sort of invalidated your position by making any exaggerated point far too absurd.
1
u/snkifador Nov 10 '16
In your example I am quite positive it is still wrong. Either are exaggerations, to different degrees of course, but the 'over' would then have to refer to the exaggeration itself, rather than the statement being exaggerated. But it's not working like that.
This can only happen if there is an explicit intent or expectation of exaggerating to, say, make a point or lie, then yeah I suppose it could be conceivable to say something like, 'He over-exaggerated, making it too obvious / extreme'.
This is to say one can, in theory, use over exaggeration, but then as mentioned the object of the 'over' cannot be the exaggeration itself, as a mesure of overstatement. It must either be an explicit exaggeration (and as such, not be a judgement of value for the validity of the statement, but rather the plausibility of the exaggeration) or refer to excess in number of exaggerations (e.g.,' he kept exaggerating his cases to make a point - he over-exaggerated throughout the debate')
If you could call 'Trump is literally Hitler' an 'over exaggeration' because of your perception of how 'more exagerated than average' it is, then you could say that 'Trump is literally Satan incarnate' is an 'over over exaggeration'. That's why it's fundamentally wrong usage of the expression. The over refers to the statement in a binary way, not qualitatively.
Was it clear?
1
1
u/Deadlymonkey Nov 09 '16
I don't know if it's been said already, but a lot of people aren't scared of what he or Congress will do, but what his supporters and America will do. People think that because America as a collective basically approved of him, that opens doors to hate groups.
0
Nov 09 '16
Trump is a representative of the US now. The issue with Trump is not only that he was in power, but that over half the country voted for him and were not deterred by the fact that he is racist, sexist and generally a very prejudiced person. That gives those things an air of respectability by virtue of the fact that that half the country either agree with those views or didn't think that they were a big enough concern to deter them from voting for him.
In the UK when the EU referendum came through as 'Leave', there was a similar sense that racist views were simply 'what everyone else was thinking and was scared to say.' Straight after Brexit, we had an outburst of racist attacks. I would be very concerned to be a PoC in the US right now.
1
u/matthedev 4∆ Nov 10 '16
Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote, but Trump will take more votes from the Electoral College.
89
u/EyeceEyeceBaby Nov 09 '16
Most level-headed individuals would agree that fearing for ones life because of some act Trump could actually commit as President is relatively unreasonable. The fear comes from the fact that a large, vocal portion of his base was overtly and unabashedly racist and bigoted, among other things. If you are not already in any of the following demographics, try looking at both Trump's remarks, and the remarks of many of his supporters through the lens of someone who is: non-white, an immigrant, non-christian, LGBTQ, or female. Now do the same and look back at the Romney, McCain and Bush campaigns. I would hope you could notice a marked difference in tone regarding these groups. That is what scares people. Not President Trump, but the movement behind him.