Does Trump believe vaccines cause autism ?

according to my facebook newsfeed, trump himself causes autism

Stayed up til 1:15 Am to watch the Election results. Trump 2016! Awesome!! Build the Wall! Ban LGBT! Day Off today :)

 

 

 

You're kidding, right? I'm sorry you feel that way, but that is really irrational thinking.

It's not at all irrational. Transgender people (and gay people too) already had reasons to fear for their safety, and now that a president has been elected largely because of his bigoted subtext, it's not going to get better. And in the long term, a republican president, Congress, and Supreme Court is going to undo a lot of the progress we achieved in the last 8 years.

 

Trump has been more supportive of LGBT people than any Republican nominee in history. Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush, Reagan, etc. were all far more anti-LGBT than Trump. And all the Trump supporters I've interacted with online don't care about orientation at all, as long as you aren't pushing for laws to ban free speech they're completely OK with anyone of any gender, orientation or race. Trump winning is an extremely positive thing for LGBT tolerance amongst the right side of American politics.

 

As for Pence, he's a VP. He won't have any significant influence on policy.

If that's what you think supporting LGBT means, then that's incredibly disappointing.

Stayed up til 1:15 Am to watch the Election results. Trump 2016! Awesome!! Build the Wall! Ban LGBT! Day Off today :)

I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

I stayed up till around 10:30 AM and went to bed right after Trump's "speech". I think people should give him the benefit of the doubt before they start panicking too much. Honestly i'm just happy Clinton lost. She doesn't deserve to be the first female America president. 

It's not about Trump as much as it's about who he's nominating for the Supreme Court. He already released his short list and we're screwed for the next 40 years if he gets more than 1 justice in.

Trump has been more supportive of LGBT people than any Republican nominee in history. Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush, Reagan, etc. were all far more anti-LGBT than Trump. And all the Trump supporters I've interacted with online don't care about orientation at all, as long as you aren't pushing for laws to ban free speech they're completely OK with anyone of any gender, orientation or race. Trump winning is an extremely positive thing for LGBT tolerance amongst the right side of American politics.

 

As for Pence, he's a VP. He won't have any significant influence on policy.

 

Okay but have you actually read the republican platform on lgbt rights

 

Or spoken to lgbt folks on whether or not the right is pro-lgbt (surprise: it's still really super anti-lgbt, milo existing didn't change that, sorry)

 

Because the party that he's running for - the one that is now running things beyond just him - are just a tiny bit in favor of torturing the gay out of kids, as an official stance (Obfuscator, remember when you argued that the us didn't torture gay people? It kinda does, pence wants to fund it, it's legal in a lot of red states, conversion therapy is basically a human rights violation)

 

And he's kind of going along with it, and pandering to the people that started it, and making promises about his supreme court nominee to them specifically. you know, the guy that's filling the empty slot on the court, who will end up shaping policy for many years after trump is but a footnote in history? The names he's named aren't exactly pro-gay

 

And - surprise - a lot of his supporters are also violently bigoted

 

This has been a message from your friendly neighborhood gay. if trump is pro-lgbt it's only because people like reagan before him had the policy of "sit back and let AIDS sort 'em out". Which happens to be Pence's policy, and the policy of a lot of mainstream Republicans, coincidentally.

If I had bet all my money on Trump winning I would be a millionaire :(

Remember in 2008 when Obama was elected and Republics were calling Obama the anti-Christ and that he was coming to strip America of their 2nd amendment rights? Remember how literally none of the crazy stuff people said was going to happen because of Obama never happened?

 

I feel like this election is the same exact thing just on the other foot. Rarely anything in life will be as bad as you think it will be, and a Trump presidency will be no different.

Remember in 2008 when Obama was elected and Republics were calling Obama the anti-Christ and that he was coming to strip America of their 2nd amendment rights? Remember how literally none of the crazy stuff people said was going to happen because of Obama never happened?

 

I feel like this election is the same exact thing just on the other foot. Rarely anything in life will be as bad as you think it will be, and a Trump presidency will be no different.

People love to panic over politics, no surprises there. I don't think Trump will be very good but I'm hopeful that he can be mostly "contained"

Frankly, I worry more about 1) A Republican-majority congress and 2) Trump's nomination.

 

I haven't reviewed the latter. The former could be prevented by Democratic fillibusters since it's not a super majority.

 

But I don't doubt America will do worse under Trump than it would have Clinton. Clinton would've easily stalled any social regressions (in other words, stalled attacks against women and minorities) while keeping the status quo (steady increase of wealth concentration to the capitalist elite). The same cannot be said for Trump who ran on a platform marginalizing and attacking minorities.

Frankly, I worry more about 1) A Republican-majority congress and 2) Trump's nomination.

 

I haven't reviewed the latter. The former could be prevented by Democratic fillibusters since it's not a super majority.

 

But I don't doubt America will do worse under Trump than it would have Clinton. Clinton would've easily stalled any social regressions (in other words, stalled attacks against women and minorities) while keeping the status quo (steady increase of wealth concentration to the capitalist elite). The same cannot be said for Trump who ran on a platform marginalizing and attacking minorities.

I agree with you, but I think it's likely Clinton foreign policy would have been much more damaging than Trump. She's essentially one of the most hawkish members of the mainstream democrats; it's going to be difficult for trump to be as aggressively militaristic as she's been.

I don't know. At least she didn't advocate crimes against humanity (killing families of terrorists) publicly.

 

Trump has never held office, he has no record to compare against.

I don't know. At least she didn't advocate crimes against humanity (killing families of terrorists) publicly.

True, although she's actually done it, which is worse than just advocating for it. Here's an interesting piece on it ( a lot of other stuff in it as well but there are some key quotes): https://medium.com/@mtracey/why-voting-for-hillary-is-morally-untenable-be4d9fe330ac#.gokubl5xa

 

 

Trump has never held office, he has no record to compare against.

He may well turn out to be pretty bad on foreign policy as well, but at least it's not a sure thing like Clinton.

I definitely think Clinton's foreign policies are bad, but all I'm saying is we have no idea how Trump's will compare and his public statements don't inspire any confidence.

I definitely think Clinton's foreign policies are bad, but all I'm saying is we have no idea how Trump's will compare and his public statements don't inspire any confidence.

Fair enough. Still, I think it's reasonable (at least when it comes to this particular issue) to choose a vote for "possibly bad" over "definitely bad". At any rate, it's a done deal now. Time will tell...

Completely unrelated:

 

Does anyone know a good file manager for Unix-likes? I use XFCE on FreeBSD, but Thunar crashes way too often. It seems a bug with file sort order changing, and it hasn't been fixed properly.

I'm not surprised. I was optimistic in the last couple of weeks, especially after the Scholastic Children's vote (which has historically be quite accurate). Mostly it just seems surreal.

 

I still don't get how he can be a champion of the working class. I think I've come to understand all the other reasons people support him, and to an extent, I sympathise with many of them, but looking out for the little guy? To me, it looks like he has spent his life doing the exact opposite, exporting their jobs, running that scam of a school, not paying federal income tax. He didn't work his way up from nothing, there is no example of the american success story there either. He's not even that successful as a businessman, just wildly successful as a brand manager. But yeah, too me, it's people like him pulling the political strings that helped get a lot of people in the terrible situations they are in right now.

 

Anyone have an over under on how long before he gets bored and delegates to Pence? I'll be pretty surprised if that never happens. He's been pretty clear that aside from a couple pet projects, he's just in it to win, and doesn't really care about most of the job anyway. Perfect person to be VP for though.

I'll set the O/U at 1.5 years

 

Idk if anyone thinks he sympathizes with the little guy. He just hates the same people they hate.

Does no one think that trade deals that lead to a currency and job deficit are a bad thing?

 

Trump won Ohio, Michigan, Wyoming and Pennsylvania because a lot of people in that area see changing our trade deals as the only way to bring back high paying manufacturing jobs

Trade deals are a net positive for the economy, not a bad thing. Sure, we can start making iphones in north America; but that just means they start costing $3000 instead of $700, and only the top 10% will be able to afford them. We don't live in a closed system anymore; today's economy is a global one, and misguided attempts to rollback the odd trade deal won't change that. The heyday of manufacturing in North America is gone; it is not coming back. What outsourcing hasn't killed automation has taken care of, and we're only getting better at that.

 

Of course, this doesn't mean globalization benefits every single person. There are always victims, and how their condition can best be improved is a valid question; but the answer is not increased tariffs and isolationism.

Obama's "liberal agenda" was mostly halted by a limp dick congress. All three branches are currently majority Republican which is as terrifying as it would be if all 3 were majority Democrat. And while I'm personally generally a little left, I understand the concept of checks and balances is supposed to prevent rampant radical ideology which is less likely to be the case now. I would have settled for a Democratic senate with Trump as head executive, but full on Republican makes me uneasy. Its just baffling how some of these republican candidates think. Some of their ideology in economics is valid, and they're patriotic as all get out but ffs the religious values have to go.

Does no one think that trade deals that lead to a currency and job deficit are a bad thing?

 

Trump won Ohio, Michigan, Wyoming and Pennsylvania because a lot of people in that area see changing our trade deals as the only way to bring back high paying manufacturing jobs

(This is just my reasoning.)

 

Economics is a soft science. Personally, I wouldn't discuss social science or psychology (for example) since I'm not well learned in either, so I extend the same reasoning to economics.

 

The exception is I will discuss the merits of economic platforms from an ethical standpoint, but that's a different scope I think.

I'm gonna be honest, but the jobs China 'stole' aren't coming back to America and even if they do, you know what companies would do?

 

Use robots and automation.

Today I finally got around to do my "dailies" on OGame... which was rather overdue because I haven't logged in for a few days :L. After my transports arrive later today, I will building 1,500 Gauss Cannons on one of my planets :) .