but that corrupt status quo of unchecked capitalism with its dominance by moneyed interests is thankfully over, at least for the time being — Erik

Ah yes, because Donald Trump has consistently resisted any temptation to protect his wealth by less than scrupulous means like false advertising, tax avoidance, and outsourcing and is in constant search of an ethical economic system! In no way is he going to use this Presidency to line his pockets and reward his rich friends!

And so your opinion would have been the same had Clinton won, considering the polarization would have been the same and we'd still be on the same 200+ year collision course set in motion when the Constitution set out the foolish election system it did?

There's obviously a major disconnect between his life and the group he claims to represent. No argument there, but would that be the first time that's happened in politics? Of course not. But he's awakened that monster despite the discrepancy, and will be held accountable by this group to deliver on his promises. If he doesn't - which I agree he probably wont - someone else will be there to channel the energies of these middle and lower-class folk. I'm hoping that's the case.

This may be a bad theological analogy (my understanding of these matters is minimal), but it's almost like a corrupt preacher who lives a secret life of debauchery and possibly even unbelief somehow inspiring others with the message of the gospel. His motivation may have been to get their money through tithing, or to gain power and influence within that particular community, but the end result may have also been to change lives amongst the flock and make them somehow aware of their sin in a way they may not have understood before. I see no reason why the insincerity of the one (preacher) should necessarily lead to the insincerity of the other (church members or parishioners or whatever they're called). Like I said, that may not be a great analogy but I do think it makes the point to a certain degree. Trump appealed to the working class in a cynical and manipulative fashion, I think, but that doesn't mean his message didn't resonate amongst this large bloc of voters.

And it's not the preservation of legacy I'm concerned with but tearing down something in its entirety that a slight majority of the people seem to support (or a slight minority, depending on how the popular vote will play out). But never mind them, because they lost, right? — Benkei

Sounds like you're sad because you don't believe in democracy!

I doubt you'd be crying over the electoral system right now if Hillary was POTUS!

And I would also ask: do you really think Trump needs more money? Was that his sole or even primary motivation for running for president? To enrich himself and his friends? It's definitely possible. I'm not a fan at all and honestly don't know what his thought-process or driving ideas have been. I am cynical about his stated intentions, but at this point I'm willing to wait and see what he does. Enhancing his power and influence in the service of his already monstrous ego seem more likely motivating factors, but then if that's the case why not try to implement those changes you promised through your populist message and strive to be loved by the masses? I see no necessary conflict in his self-interest somehow aligning with the interests of working-class Americans. In fact at this point they seem symbiotic. If he does sell out to that very establishment he attacked, he'll be called out for it by the many media outlets who already despise him and perhaps someone like Bernie Sanders will be given an opportunity the next go around. That would be ideal, actually.

think that is entirely possible. I come from one of those working class families with many members who supported Trump, and can say with confidence that not all Trump supporters were motivated by bigotry and hate. That was a caricature disseminated by popular media, the motivation perhaps being to shame decent folk away from any association with Trump. I don't think that grotesque aspect of his candidacy was essential to all or even most of his voters. What was essential was the fact that a large segment of US citizens have been hit hard over the past 40 or so years in material and psychological terms, — Erik

One of the smartest things Trump did was to focus on Americans who have lost their jobs, and subsequently their homes, etc., because of companies sourcing work out to other countries. That's a tremendous amount of people. Whether Trump can actually do something about this is another matter, but the fact that he said he wants to do something about it was important. And that's why he won states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.--those states have been hit hard by factories etc. closing down.

Indeed. It may not be realistic to expect a return to the days when one could find a solid and stable job without an advanced degree or marketable skill, afford to buy a home at a reasonable price, raise a family on a single income with more parental involvement in the kids' lives, etc. and in doing all these things attain the very important psychological satisfaction of having a certain respectable status within the community. But the alternative of staying the neoliberal course at the expense of hardworking and law-abiding citizens was not the answer either. I'll await Trump's solutions to the myriad problems we're facing with a bit of cautious optimism. Change was obviously needed, whether it's for the better or worse remains to be seen. Couldn't get much worse for many people, at least economically, and that was the primary motivation for voting against the 'establishment' and for a man who effectively crafted a narrative in which he - an outsider relative to the main players within the system - would finally give voice to those who've been screwed over and neglected.

And so your opinion would have been the same had Clinton won, considering the polarization would have been the same and we'd still be on the same 200+ year collision course set in motion when the Constitution set out the foolish election system it did? — Hanover

Yes, as I said in another thread, it doesn't matter which monkey pushes the button and when Baden was trying to call it I again I stated I don't care who'd win. Maybe if you'd have a bit more knowledge about democratic systems (historic and contemporary) you wouldn't be so hung up on the shitty system you have.

Sounds like you're sad because you don't believe in democracy!

I doubt you'd be crying over the electoral system right now if Hillary was POTUS! — dukkha

I considered her a marginally better option than Trump but effectively it's the same difference.

And I would also ask: do you really think Trump needs more money? — Erik

Actually yes. He wildly overspent on this campaign. He has failing businesses on his hands and he's going to want a slew of lawsuits to go away so can expect to have to dig deep to settle them on the quiet. I really can't see him wanting to come out of the Presidency as 'poor' as he'll be going into it.

But even if he didn't need it, when has that ever stopped rich men desiring to get richer? Isn't it that apparently needless and reckless adding of billions to personal fortunes that has gotten us, by which I mean pretty much the entire Western world not just USA, into this mess in the first place? I just don't see, for all the rhetoric, this leopard changing his spots.

Quite, trickle down is a myth. The rich get richer and pull up the ladder behind them.

Most U.S. philosophy forum members probably voted for Clinton or Jill Stein?

I voted for Trump. I actually consider myself a "socialist libertarian" at this point (in lieu of something better to call myself . . . my views are a mixture of socialism and libertarianism, but my views are also extremely idiosyncratic), but I voted for Trump partially because there was no way I wanted Hillary to win. I've never liked Hillary, I didn't like Bill when he was president, and I'd rather have someone in office who isn't a career politician.

If I had been voting for the person whose views I most agree with, I would have voted for Jill Stein--I voted for her in 2012. Not that I agree with her on everything, but she was the best choice in my opinion. Of course, we're still nowhere near any party other than Republican and Democrat being a viable option for achieving the presidency, so a vote for Jill Stein from me this time around would have simply made it easier for Hillary to win. — Terrapin Station

I think that that is the worst decision that someone in your circumstances - someone who has socialist views, and views with much in common with those of Jill Stein - could have made. And I think that it is nothing short of a travesty that relatively large numbers of people in similar circumstances voted that way - including, and especially, Bernie supporters.

I follow Jill Stein on Twitter, so I was aware of her focus on attacking Hillary Clinton. But, although that might have been advantageous for her and her party, I think that, outside of that context, it was a mistake once Hillary became the Democratic candidate, given that Hillary was the better, and Trump was the worse, of the only two candidates with a realistic chance of winning.

It is completely against socialist interests 1) not to have voted for Hillary Clinton, in light of her clear socialist policy proposals and priorities, such as those relating to taxation and economic inequality, which no other candidate would have had a hope in hell of enacting; and 2) to have voted for Trump, in light of his policy proposals and priorities, again, such as those relating to taxation and economic inequality, the latter of which would be exacerbated, and the former of which would be relaxed in places where it should be maintained, if not increased.

So there's the big elephant in the forum...

Does anyone have thoughts on what this might mean? — schopenhauer1

Its like I keep saying, in over ten years of asking if anyone knows the simple distinction between a lynch mob and democracy I have yet to hear the correct answer. You simply can't have a democracy when nobody knows the meaning of the damned word and spends all their time arguing over the definition of stupid and who is the better example. What you have instead is Mob Rule. Its empire baby, and this train ain't stopping until she derails.

The money is doing all the driving because the lights are on, but nobody is home. Ranting and raving and complaining or even rioting won't make any significant difference because nobody is listening. At best such things will only temporarily address the worst symptoms of the problem. Your constitutional rights have been suspended indefinitely and almost every police department in the country has been buying surplus military equipment, while congress has already given the military the legal right to round up citizens like cattle and made all the necessary preparations to do so.

Sooner or later people might catch on, but I'm not holding my breath. The real worry is that the US could produce the next Adolf Hitler.

...but that corrupt status quo of unchecked capitalism with its dominance by moneyed interests is thankfully over, at least for the time being. — Erik

No it ain't. Don't kid yourself.

Trump has said he will significantly cut corporation tax, and, according to analysis, his plans would mean that the top 1% of earners would see their income increase by double-digits. This is not in the interests of the working class, it is in the interests of large corporations and the fattest of fat cats.

Trump's speech was actually not too shabby. He still repeated himself a lot and asserted all these things that he'll never actually be able to do. But I was genuinely surprised that he apparently called Clinton right beforehand. For once, Trump was not a wild, raving lunatic in a suit.

Trump looked scared during his speech. Maybe he was just tired from the whole election campaign. But I suspect he also was finally understanding the gravity of the situation.

given that Hillary was the better, and Trump was the worse, of the only two candidates . . . It is completely against socialist interests — Sapientia

As I said about my views, "in lieu of something better to call myself . . . my views are a mixture of socialism and libertarianism, but my views are also extremely idiosyncratic"

I can't stand Hillary. I didn't like Bill when he was president either. (And I didn't like Hillary when she was first lady either.) I don't dislike Trump. In fact, I like many things about him. I just do not agree with all of his views. But there is never a presidential candidate where I agree with all of their views, and I don't even usually agree with most of any candidate's views.

Also, another consideration is if something were to happen to the president. Tim Kaine comes across to me as completely sleazy/untrustworthy. I definitely do not agree with all of Mike Pence's views--he's very religious for one, but he comes across like a pleasant, even-keeled, intelligent guy who easily would have a presidential quality. There's no way in hell I'd want Kaine to be president.

Three articles that I found that are helpful in understanding what Trump may lead to if anyone is interested:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/

http://journal-neo.org/2016/03/26/president-trump-us-war-machine-rolls-on/

https://thecolossus.co/2016/06/01/an-interview-with-noam-chomsky/

https://www.currentaffairs.org/ — Saphsin

I stopped reading that one at "unconvicted sex criminal."

As I said about my views, "in lieu of something better to call myself . . . my views are a mixture of socialism and libertarianism, but my views are also extremely idiosyncratic"

I can't stand Hillary. I didn't like Bill when he was president either. I don't dislike Trump. In fact, I like many things about him. I just do not agree with all of his views. But there is never a presidential candidate where I agree with all of their views, and I don't even usually agree with most of any candidate's views. — Terrapin Station

So, not only did you make the worst possible decision, you did so on shaky grounds. Is that supposed to be a defence?

If I can't stand waters that aren't infested with sharks, and I don't dislike sharks, but in fact like many things about them, should I go swimming in shark infested waters?

So, not only did you make the worst possible decision, you did so on shaky grounds. Is that supposed to be a defence? — Sapientia

You know that "worst"/"best" etc. are subjective, right?

If I can't stand waters that aren't infested with sharks — Sapientia

What does "can't stand" have to do with anything I said about Trump?

You know that "worst"/"best" etc. are subjective, right? — Terrapin Station

Ah, that old chestnut.

They are relative terms. And in this case, I'm talking about what is in the best/worst interests of you or of society, as opposed to mere preference or what you happen to like or dislike.

What does "can't stand" have to do with anything I said about Trump? — Terrapin Station

It doesn't. It has to do with what you said about Clinton. In the analogy, Clinton is the safe waters, Trump is the sharks, and voting for trump is swimming in shark infested waters.

Ah, that old chestnut. — Sapientia

It didn't stop being true at any point.

They are relative terms. — Sapientia

Yes, and subjective, and noncognitive. Statements containing those terms are never correct or incorrect, true or false. There is no coherent distinction to be had where those terms do not refer to preferences.

How about my second question?

How about my second question? — Terrapin Station

How about you added that in after I had already begun to reply, so I didn't notice it? I have answered it in the edit to my reply.

It doesn't. It has to do with what you said about Clinton. In the analogy, Clinton is the safe waters, Trump is the sharks, and voting for trump is swimming in shark infested waters. — Sapientia

If trump is the sharks, but I can't stand Clinton, then you'd be equivocating "sharks"

If trump is the sharks, but I can't stand Clinton, then you'd be equivocating "sharks". — Terrapin Station

What? How so?

I applied the same form of argument as you did in a different context in order to show that it's a poor basis for reaching a decision, and I think that I have succeeded in doing so. You haven't answered my question because you know that it forces you to either accept a stupid conclusion or tacitly accept that that basis for reaching a decision is poor.

What? How so? — Sapientia

Ah--I misread you as saying "If I can't stand waters that ARE infested with sharks"--I didn't read it as "AREN'T" That's why it made no sense to me.

So yeah, if you like sharks, you can't stand waters that don't have them (which isn't what I said, but okay, we can go with that) and you want to go swimming with them, then sure, you should.

Ah--I misread you as saying "If I can't stand waters that ARE infested with sharks"--I didn't read it as "AREN'T" That's why it made no sense to me. — Terrapin Station

Okay.

So yeah, if you like sharks, you can't stand waters that don't have them (which isn't what I said, but okay, we can go with that) and you want to go swimming with them, then sure, you should. — Terrapin Station

>:O

So you bit the bullet and went with the stupid conclusion. At least you're consistent.

You believe that some people shouldn't do things they like in that vein, because someone else feels differently about it? They should do what the other people like instead?

(I actually know/have known people who have swam with sharks, by the way, including Ron and Valerie Taylor . . .)

You believe that some people shouldn't do things they like in that vein, because someone else feels differently about it? — Terrapin Station

I believe that there are some pretty clearcut cases where prioritising preference over what's in one's best interests is more likely to lead to worse outcomes, and that worse outcomes should usually be avoided.