Donald Trump Wins US Presidency (nytimes.com) 2837
It's official: Donald Trump has won the 2016 presidential election. Slashdot reader Xenographic writes: Google's map of results is now calling the race for Donald J. Trump. This is something that Nate Silver jokingly predicted back on May 10th when he wrote "Reminder: Cubs will win the World Series and, in exchange, President Trump will be elected 8 days later." The House and Senate are also under Republican control. In other news, the Canadian immigration site has crashed under heavy load.This is how The New York Times, America's top newspaper reported the news:The surprise outcome, defying late polls that showed Hillary Clinton with a modest but persistent edge, threatened convulsions throughout the country and the world, where skeptics had watched with alarm as Mr. Trump's unvarnished overtures to disillusioned voters took hold. The triumph for Mr. Trump, 70, a real estate developer-turned-reality television star with no government experience, was a powerful rejection of the establishment forces that had assembled against him, from the world of business to government, and the consensus they had forged on everything from trade to immigration. The results amounted to a repudiation, not only of Mrs. Clinton, but of President Obama, whose legacy is suddenly imperiled. And it was a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters who felt that the promise of the United States had slipped their grasp amid decades of globalization and multiculturalism. Update: The New Yorker's Editor-in-Chief David Remnick, described the Election outcome as "an American tragedy." The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said, "Trump will bring global recession." BBC has an article on how the media worldwide has described Trump's victory. The Guardian captured the thoughts of world leaders on the matter. Hillary Clinton addressed the nation this morning and told her supporters that they all should keep an open mind and give Trump the chance to lead.
Editor's note: this story has been updated with more details, and also moved to the top of the front page because of its importance.
Editor's note: this story has been updated with more details, and also moved to the top of the front page because of its importance.
One party rule (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't see this coming but it looks like the republicans will control all branches. It will be interesting to see what they do with that power in the upcoming years.
And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidentally, for those looking for someone to blame here, look no further than the DNC:
Read the PDF attachment on this email [wikileaks.org] for the source.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was one of the Democrats who voted for Trump during the primary to sabotage the GOP. Screw game theory. Elections are too important to not vote your conscience.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it sexist when anybody votes for Trump but voting for Hillary for the purposes of having a non-functional set of gonads being president is OK?
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say that double standard, or at least the perception of it, is a big part of what got Trump elected. That, and the fact that Hillary comes across so generally unlikable. She's a typical Washington-insider-back-dealing politician, but without the charming personality her husband had. Think about it... Wall Street is freaking out over Trump's impending presidency. They knew *exactly* what to expect with Hillary, which was "business as usual". No one has a fucking clue what Trump is going to do.
My going theory is that if either side had put up a remotely likeable candidate, it would have been a landslide. Instead, the Democrats put forth the "next-in-line" insider despite her baggage, and the Republican elite alienated their base so badly that the rank-and-file instead insisted on the "anti-candidate" which NO Republican beltway insider wanted.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is exactly why I blame the Democrats for Trump.
It has been clear for a long time that people are fed up with business as usual and want change. Hillary represents business as usual, while Trump and Bernie represent change.
By making Hillary the Democrat candidate, they ensured that Trump would get the votes from everybody wanting change.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Interesting)
They knew *exactly* what to expect with Hillary, which was "business as usual".
And that is exactly why I blame the Democrats for Trump.
And yet, all the people voting for Donald Trump, in order to "shake things up," also voted, overwhelmingly to put the same old congresscritters back in office.
Drain the swamp, but leave my alligator alone!
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but what part of "It's Her Turn" don't you understand? You sexists are all alike.
This kind of patronizing attitude is the most pervasive form of sexism. Women don't need "their turn" they're perfectly capable of competing for top jobs.
Re:Not a level playing field (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it that over half the population is women and yet they account for only 20% of congress?
For the same reason that over half the population is women and yet they account for only 15% of the prison population... they take fewer risks.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump's sexism is mostly harmless. Stupid remarks, some prejudices, business as usual, offensive, annoying, but in the long run with no impact.
Clinton, on the other hand, is a sexist with an agenda. She'd be "bringing gender balance to the government" by replacing men with women on key positions - even with a shortage of adequately competent female candidates. Skill be damned, gender matters - she'd actively discriminate against male candidates, with disregard for actual qualification levels. She'd allow female supremacists to push their laws through, and obstruct their opponents.
We had recently a somewhat similar situation in Poland, though more regarding political integrity than gender issues. We've voted a quite competent party out, and voted stupid bozos into their place. Simply, because the competent party was very actively using their competence to rob the country blind, using their immense political talents and brainpower for things that benefitted them, at heavy cost to the society. Well, the bozos are incompetent. Even if they go full evil, they won't be capable of causing so much harm, because they simply don't know how.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton, on the other hand, is a sexist with an agenda. She'd be "bringing gender balance to the government" by replacing men with women on key positions - even with a shortage of adequately competent female candidates. Skill be damned, gender matters - she'd actively discriminate against male candidates, with disregard for actual qualification levels. She'd allow female supremacists to push their laws through, and obstruct their opponents.
As a classic liberal, that's what really scares me about the new SJW left. I was on the left when they supported true equality and civil rights (and I still support those things). But the modern SJW's are just racists and sexists themselves. They villianize white males the same way that Klan members used to villianize blacks. The only thing that separates them from Dixiecrats is which race/sex they want to disenfranchise and discriminate against. It's sickening that they've been able to take over the left like a cancer and turn a party that used to stand up for equality and freedom into a party of black nationalism, misandry, and opposition to free speech.
So congrats snowflakes, you actually got this old-school liberal to vote for Donald Trump. And the more "hate speech" laws you advocate for and the more you push an agenda of open hatred and discrimination against white males, the stronger the backlash against you will grow. Even many women are starting to think about what kind of world their sons will have to grow up in if your ideology wins the day.
Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is BOTH candidates have displayed a great deal of racism, sexism, and bigotry.
You need only look at many of the positions Hillary held while she ran for senate. How she stood up in front of large crowds and told us all about remorseless super predators, her friendships with clansmen like Byrd that she never disavowed, how many of her former staff claim to have been treated by her and say she even used racial slurs, how the campaign e-mails show she cynically divided people and sought to do so along racial and gender lines. The woman was no saint she just set herself up as the anti-bigot and a complaint media went along with it. They never bothered to ask how can Trump be so sexist when he gives some of the most important positions in his campaign and companies to women? Remember too Bill ultimately settled out of court with at least some of his accusers, because he knew they would prevail if it went to trial therfore we can assume she knew as well. Standing by your man and giving him the benefit of the doubt is a perfectly reasonable thing for a wife to do, but when you really don't have doubt it is it really right to try and destroy those women publicly the way she did?
I did not put that last thing in to apologize for Trump I merely put it in to suggest that you and I have been feed a very biased portal of both of these people. Both of these candidates decided to make this election about name calling because neither was long on substance. Clinton was simply not really a good advocate for women she just put on the mantle thinking it would be politically useful. The only way to spin things for H being any less sexist and bigoted than Trump is to suggest she treated everyone more equally badly. Oh boy that sure is a win.
Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really ? So you think he's not going to try and force Muslims to register on a special database and carry special ID ? He promissed to do that many times. You think being okay with a president who wants laws like that does not make you complicit in the atrocity such a law would represent ?
Normally we would say - the supreme court would chuck that out so fast his head would spin since it would clearly violate both the first and fourth ammendments, but Trump gets to fill Scalia's seat now, with a republican congress - so he can give that seat to any bigotted jerk he wants to, and suddenly that particular defence is a lot weaker.
You think he couldn't get enough votes in congress or the senate to pass such a law ? Republicans have pandered to that same sentiment all year, and they have majorities in both houses. You think any of them would risk the ire of the voters by taking a principled stand against it ? Maybe a few like John McCain might, especially having just won re-election and thus being safe for 4 years, but are you CERTAIN there's enough of those ?
How is being willing to take that risk not making you complicit in the bigotry that lead to it ?
What if Trump resurrects DOMA ? With his new conservative court - the current legal status of gay marriage may very well end, the most we could hope for is a sanity clause to allow existing marriages to remain valid. What about all those insane laws that outlaw abortion by proxy (in Texas they've managed to get it down to a single abortion clinic for the entire state) - you think a Trump supreme court will shoot those down ? You just have to pray we don't get another roe-vs-wade style case or it ends entirely.
Now it's quite likely none of these things affect you personally - they don't affect most of Trumps voters and the most hardcore ones actively WANT these things. But it makes them all bigots, it makes them all to blame for every single one that happens - because they chose somebody who would do those things, it doesn't matter why they chose him. It doesn't matter if they voted for his tax policy or his trade policy - they were willing to subject other people to a bigotted government to get those things - and that makes them bigots themselves. It makes them responsible for his actions.
The only Trump actions ALL of his voters don't bear EQUAL responsibility and guilt in - are whatever he ends up doing that was NOT in his campaign. The things he said in speeches he will do - if even one of them comes to pass, all the horrors it causes is blood on the hands of everybody who voted for him. And coincidentally voted for Pence too - a man who signed a law demanding that gay couples be jailed just for WANTING to get married and has publicly stated that he believes women should be charged with murder if they have a miscarriage.
Yeah, I'm upset, even traumatized. I'm fucking scared for the world my little girl is now going to grow up in. I'm legitimately worried that another world war is looming and I don't know if we'll live through it. Vast numbers of people didn't make it the last two times - and those didn't have large nuclear arsenals. You bet I'm fucking traumatised... but at least I have a clean conscience.
Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really, really wish Sanders had been the democratic nominee - Trump was the anti-politician ? The left should have answered with a populist anti-politician, the difference would be, they'd be electing a sane one.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't your vote. It's the political system that makes any votes other than for the two major candidates useless.
US should look at the political system of pretty much any other democratic country and copy it.
There are plenty to choose from and pretty much all will be better than the two party system.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I've said here on Slashdot that the Greens and Libertarians should form a coalition. They might not win, but they should get enough support to get a spot on the stage in the debates. If they pushed real hard, they could even get a few electoral votes in some states.
Imagine what they could have done in this election season. Their joint venture would have been newsworthy, get out the vote efforts could have flourished for them, and people who hated both main party candidates could have had an actual option.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I've said here on Slashdot that the Greens and Libertarians should form a coalition.
That can not and will not ever happen because they are fundamentally opposed entities. The Libertarian party's core tenet is fuck you, I'm eating, and the Green party's core tenet is wait, I live here. Ne'er the twain shall meet. If we had a less-insane Libertarian party which cared about the environment, then you wouldn't need a Green party.
I propose we take a page from Red Mars and consider ecology economically. If you spend it, you have to pay back into it. But as long as the Libertarian party is ignoring physics by suggesting that we should all be able to do whatever we want with whatever piece of land we take by force, or which we buy from someone who took it by force, it will be fundamentally incompatible with both science and the Green party.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Informative)
You should do your homework first, to avoid making false claims. Libertarians (large or small "L") aren't philosophically against protecting the environment, they just believe there's a better way to do it.
You should take your head out of your ass, to avoid talking stupid shit. Libertarians are against any meaningful environmental regulation; they want injured parties to have to sue through the courts and suffer years of ongoing damages to the environment which cannot be repaired before the case is settled and someone is asked to pay a handslap fine.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife is a liberal non-white female who voted for Hillary, hoping to see a female President.
Voting for someone on the basis of their sex is just as stupid as voting for someone on the basis of their race/skin-colour. You should be voting on the basis of their policies — far more complex than some genetic attribute.
Re:Fucki voting your conscience (Score:5, Insightful)
Vote for the damn issues, AND, whatever or whoever serves their ACTUALLY HAPPENING, however incrementally.
This means NO THIRD PARTY shit,
What if I think voting third party is the best way to accomplish the issues I care about?
NO PROTEST VOTES,
I agree with that, as my reply above said.
PARTICIPATING IN PRIMARIES,
Yes, but they aren't the be-all-end-all some think they are, as this year showed.
and VOTING FOR ONE OF THE TWO.
Sorry, now I have to tell you to fuck off. I vote for who I want, from whichever party, for my own reason. If that happens to be NOT one of the two main parties, so be it. It is my choice, my vote, not yours. So, again, kindly fuck off.
FUCK.
Not tonight, my wife is too depressed.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Funny)
He's a Republican. It's a job requirement.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a Republican, FUCK YOU.
Your party just won the White House, against all the mainstream beliefs that it was impossible. Why are you so angry?
It shouldn't be the party, or be about the party. It should be about the candidate. George Washington warned of the perils of political parties, but no one took his advice. Washington said, and this is a direct quote "Fuck the Democratic Party and Republican Party because someday they're going to push a cheetoh-colored monkey and a corrupt harpy for President, and somehow the harpy will win, and you'll just have to like it." I'm pretty sure he said that because he grew weed, but it was prophetic.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm old enough to remember when they wanted to face Reagan. I guess you need to be careful what you wish for.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
FYI: If you're counting the actual unemployment rate it's probably closer to 15% in the US.
It may very well be 15%, but the quoted 4.9% is published using known methods that we can independently validate. Can you do the same? Or is this the new Trump era where just saying so is good enough?
Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Using the number of Americans"not in the work force" is inaccurate and dishonest. That 95 million number includes both my parents, who are retired and living in a nursing home; my 18 month old grand daughter and my 8-year old son in elementary school; and my wife who is a traditional home maker and not interested in outside work.
None of the people in those categories should be considered in "unemployment" statistics, which is what you're doing by citing the 95 million non-working Americans.
U-6 from BLS is much more representative and is currently at 9.3â.... It includes people who want to work but have given up on despair, as well as people who want to work full time but can't get anything other than a few hours on a part-time gig.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Informative)
You need to look more carefully. There has been substantial inflation over the past few years:
1. Bond prices
2. Stock prices
3. Housing prices
4. Food prices (look at the price per unit quantity)
5. College tuition
6. Medical care/medical insurance (Depending on where you live in the U.S., how do you like that 33% increase in insurance premia for the coming year?)
The only place you don't see inflation are energy and wages (wage inflation is what the Federal Reserve does *not* want to see because it is "bad" inflation).
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidentally, for those looking for someone to blame here, look no further than the DNC:
- and the GOP, who have been tearing themselves apart and letting the people down. And the God Mongers, who have always been part of the establishment; and the media, whose only interest has ever been to line their own pockets and wouldn't let facts get in the way. And so on.
What can anyone say at this point? As somebody who has lived long enough to see what the reality is like in politics, I think you guys made a mistake - there is a hell of a lot of difference between "sorting out the world" over a few pints in your usual bar, and tackling real politics in the real world. Clinton knows her way around the political system - she would have been able to make things continue more or less the way they have always gone; admittedly not the best campaign slogan, but we knew what we were getting and she never promised more than she could deliver. Trump, on the other hand - what can he actually do, now that he has to do it for real? Build a wall? Start a major trade war with China? Deport all the illegal immigrants? Make America great again? How would behaving like an idiot make America great? On the other hand, if he doesn't deliver on his promises, because he comes to his senses, what will all the angry people, whose anger he has stoked with his talk, how will they react? Are they going to take it stoically? Well, we will see, but I think we are in for a bumpy ride, and we will feel it no matter where we are.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, if he doesn't deliver on his promises, because he comes to his senses, what will all the angry people, whose anger he has stoked with his talk, how will they react? Are they going to take it stoically? Well, we will see, but I think we are in for a bumpy ride, and we will feel it no matter where we are.
Having seen this sort of thing over and over again... no, there's not going to be a reckoning. Because, like Trump did all throughout the primaries and general election, you can always blame someone else when you're wrong, and a sizable number of idiots will say you were right and it was someone else's fault.
So when Trump's policies fail, it will be the work of those shameful Democrats somehow.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidentally, for those looking for someone to blame here, look no further than the DNC:
- and the GOP, who have been tearing themselves apart and letting the people down. And the God Mongers, who have always been part of the establishment; and the media, whose only interest has ever been to line their own pockets and wouldn't let facts get in the way. And so on.
Why not just blame people who voted for him? We talk about failure of the institutions, failure of the intellectual elites, failure of the politicians...
F*@! that! I'm calling this the failure of the masses!
And if you think it's snobbish to say so, you are wrong - I'm the one acknowledging their agency, that their decisions matter! Now they voted for a guy who wants to use the nuclear bomb. There's no excuses for that. That's not just 'locker room talk', that's not 'complicated economic policy', that's not 'showing the top 1% the finger' - that's just pure evil!
And the worst part is that this is happening all over the world. The Phillipinos voted for a loud mouthed buffoon as well. And the Polish have got a right wing isolationist president as well, ironically all the while the British isolationists claim they need to leave the EU because the Poles are getting all the gravy to the detriment of UK! All over europe extreme right is on the rise! There are elections comming in France and Germany next year and FN and AFD are hoping for a surprise as well!
W.T.F. people!
Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have historian friends who tell me something along the lines of: "We're overdue. Civilizations forget the past, and believe themselves better than their ancestors. They believe the nations that spawned Plato, Confucious and Beethoven were primitive compared to now. They think what has happened before so many times is now behind us. Thus they do not listen to the warnings. They dont believe it can happen to the most modern and advanced culture the world has ever seen. Still, it happens. They are shocked when it does. They ask 'How could it happen here, in these modern times? Surely we are more sophisticated than those brutes we heard about from history?' They all believed that. The Romans, the Byzantine, the Chinese dynasties and the Victorians. They all believed that, and they were wrong."
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
You could say people who voted for him are victims, like most of the people who voted for Hitler.
I don't buy it.
You know what life was like in the Weimar Republic? The currency was worthless (the mark depreciated by a factor of 10^12 in five years), unemployment was by 25%, streets were not safe (the reason why the government residen in Weimar rather than Berlin) and when the government defaulted on war reparations due to the terrible state of the economy, the belgian and the french force moved into and occupied Ruhr, the most industrially advanced part of the country... The situation comparable to today's Venezuela.
In other words, the people there really *were* victims regardles of Hitler. He did not quite manufacture that situation just took advantage of it. Still, he got only 33% of the votes in the last free elections.
There is no way you can compare that situation to what's going on in the US now. There were starving people roaming the streets begging for food; here the lowest classes are a generation of morbidly obese... I can see how people overlooked the warmongering and hate speech when Hitler also promised order and food. On the other hand the americans are overlooking the use torture and atomic weapons for the promise of getting rid of the immigrants.
Sorry, I'm not sympathizing with that!
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton knows her way around the political system - she would have been able to make things continue more or less the way they have always gone; admittedly not the best campaign slogan, but we knew what we were getting and she never promised more than she could deliver.
We didn't want the status quo, and the DNC offered nothing better.
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people forget that there isn't a lot Trump can do without the Congress playing along. And while his nonsense might play in the House, he's still down a few votes for cloture motions in the Senate. There are ways to work around that in the budgetary process through reconciliation, but it has a whole new set of rules around that.
The Congress is going to put the brakes on a lot of shit he wants to do, and even thinks he can do. The White House Counsel's office is going to have a busy four years.
"it was her turn" (Score:5, Insightful)
This year's Democrat primary was truly weird, no Presidential incumbent but only a single prominent Democrat running? How the hell did that happen? It should have been a crowded field like 2008. Somehow the party machine convinced other prominent Democrats to stay out of the race, "it was her turn". There was one token opponent who mostly said he largely agreed with her and that she would be a good President. And there was the Independent running as a Democrat, a party outsider, Bernie.
It should have been a crowded Democratic primary field like 2008 and a more viable candidate emerging like in 2008. But that didn't work out for the party machine's preferred candidate last time did it, so they worked to avoid that same mistake and essentially ran here "unopposed" in the primary. The shock of Bernie doing so well should have told them something, but no, "it was her turn".
[sarcasm] DNC, thank you for Trump. You found the one candidate he could beat [/sarcasm].
Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed.
Had the Democrats fielded almost anyone *except* HRC, it would have been a D landslide victory. They probably could have fielded a dog and a used ball of aluminum foil and won. But, no, they chose to anoint one of the most hated women in politics - and I say that as a life long Democrat. She's simply toxic in a way that the party core is simply blind to.
I feel like we just had the Superbowl, and the 49ers and Browns ended up as the NFC and AFC representatives.
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Interesting)
It will be interesting to see what they do with that power in the upcoming years.
My guess is gloat then fuck everybody.
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Funny)
I hope Emperor Trump takes a victory tour all over the US, starting in Dallas.
In an open top limo.
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Interesting)
This. The poll numbers never changed, Bernie had 20+ points over Trump, and every single Trump voter I know was a Bernie supporter. Democrats literally bit the poison pill, and lost all around. And now we all have to suffer for it.
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget that the DNC actively encouraged people to vote in the Republican primaries for Trump, because that's who they wanted to run against instead of a more moderate, experienced, and level headed candidate.
They got who they wanted, and they rigged their own primary to nominate their candidate; then they fucked the dog and lost the election through smugness and not paying attention to what the voters were actually telling since the early primaries.
They lost an election. The whole country will lose far more than that. Thanks, DNC. And I say this as a registered Republican, who did not vote for Trump.
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Insightful)
It was predicted in the primaries. Hillary Clinton was the weakest possible candidate against Trump. If the party had rallied around Bernie Sanders, Trump would have lost. So many of the Trump votes were anti-Hillary protest votes. A vote for Hillary in the primaries was a vote for Trump.
Voting for Trump out of protest is like shooting your self in the foot to cure foot fungus.
Lizards, lizards everywhere (Score:5, Interesting)
Virtualy any serious (or indeed unserious) person willing to project a a sensible anti-establishment persona, and not say the kind stupid horseshirt Trump has said, and also not be trailing decades of sordid little establishment-class skeletons like Hillary... I tend to believe any of those people could have beaten Trump. We wanted a person in charge for a change; the democratic establishment instead gave us a lizard [goodreads.com]. One of the more reptilian lizards to saunter by in a while, really.
And so people voted for the blabbering airhead instead of the lizard. People of or for the left: please learn your lesson. Reform politics. Create an "alt-left"... or just continue down your current path, keep making your token snide remarks and behold as the right destroys everything.
Re:Lizards, lizards everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
And so people voted for the blabbering airhead instead of the lizard. People of or for the left: please learn your lesson. Reform politics. Create an "alt-left"... or just continue down your current path, keep making your token snide remarks and behold as the right destroys everything.
The lesson here is that the democratic party is not left-wing. The Green party is our only real left-wing party, and it is a whisper of a murmur of passage in the night compared to the other parties. The Democratic party is a centrist, status-quo-maintaining party, and this is a time when people are demanding change. Remember how Obama ran on the Hope (you don't get drone striked or indefinitely detained) and Change (prior administration's policies very little) platform? Problem is, he failed to meet people's hopes and he delivered very little change. Racism is clearly still as rampant as ever so having a black president clearly didn't accomplish anything, and nothing has really changed. The world is still at the brink of war, the same number of people are still seeking employment because the unemployment rate is still a lie (just as it was under republican presidents in the past, this is a bi-partisan effort to fuck us) and he's going to let Standing Rock "play out for a few weeks" after promising that the natives there would not stand alone. So provably, clearly, undeniably, the Democrats could not run on the platform of Change when even their color-changed candidate couldn't provide any. They ran on the basis of maintaining the status quo at a time when people are clearly done doing that.
At best, the DNC is a bunch of incompetent raving lunatics. At worst, they threw the election.
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Funny)
Elizabeth Warren decided not to run against Hillary.
Joe Biden stepped aside for Hillary.
Biden vs Trump, what an election that would be. Maybe that could still be 2020.
Tim Kaine isn't looking too bad, though I don't think he's president-material, not yet.
Oooo how cute! You think there's going to be an election in 2020!
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Literally no excuse. So when Bob the redneck keeps whining It's Obama's fault he doesn't have a job you can gleefully tell him to GTFO.
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope folks are ready for sheer hell to break loose because it will..Folks like me can look forward to dying as our Medicare and Social Security are ripped away from us.
America has collectively gone Insane
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Funny)
The world economy is already reacting bigly.
I mean badly.
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the senate seats up in 2018 are Democrats, not to mention how many supreme court justices he's replaced by then. We'll be dealing with the fallout from this for a long time.
And don't think for a minute that the Republican congress won't exploit Trump to get legislation passed. Narcissists are easy to manipulate; put their ego on the line and they can be goaded into anything.
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Interesting)
And don't think for a minute that the Republican congress won't exploit Trump to get legislation passed. Narcissists are easy to manipulate; put their ego on the line and they can be goaded into anything.
Oh, yes, the Republican establishment has had such roaring success in making Donald dance to their tune so far.
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Obamacare is literally keeping my sister alive. The medication she needs to survive costs $5000/month and is not covered by her employer's insurance (she's a teacher at a private school). Thanks to Obamacare she was able to get into an exchange and buy insurance that does cover her medication for only $500/month. Being on a teacher's salary, my parents who are retired help her out. With her pre-existing conditions, there's no way any insurance company would take her and she'd quickly hit the limits with the medical issues she's had since every couple of years something major comes up. Her medication is so expensive because it is derived from human blood because her immune system has shut down and isn't making antibodies. And Trump's plan with tax deductions won't come close to paying for the medication, especially on a teachers salary where she doesn't pay much if any federal taxes.
Re:One party rule (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, we can't have a religious test for entry (obviously) but it is horrible, horrible leftist masochism to continue to imply that the floodgates should be opened for all countries equally. Stockholm had become the rape capital of Europe even before the Syrian refugee crisis ballooned, largely on the backs of the massive numbers of third world and largely Muslim (and yes that does matter, because Islam correlates to misogyny even more than Christianity does) people they had invited in. Trump is a either a psychopath or a moron (I tend to think the latter) about this, but the left didn't give us a good, strong, loud alternative.
His other anti-racism thing is strongly "supporting" the police. A pretty obnoxious thing to do, given the need for reform in this country. But still... not really the same as proposing racist legislation. Not really the same, when you think about it. If you're honest with yourself.
Keep the caricatures in check. Keep it positive. Reform the left. Help forge an alt-left. Stop pretending the main problem stems from gaffes. Stop pretending the main problem is that women from decades ago are suddenly making accusations (didn't everyone get sick of this like, 15-20 years ago? On the left in particular??)
And stop pretending that the biggest issue right now is that the fascists are taking over. The large majority of my extended family voted Trump, even though most of them voted Obama not once, but twice. And most of them live in a swing state.
Hmmm well (Score:5, Funny)
Hay we survived bush Jr we can survive trump.
An old Chinese saying is may you live in interesting times....wait that was a curse wasn't it :/
Interesting times.
Re:Hmmm well (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be pointed out that hawkish behaviour under the Bush regime meant a LOT of people didn't survive the Bush regime (literally bombed and shot to death). While American's have been concerned with talk of Mexican Walls and grabbing women inappropriately, the rest of the world has been gravely worried about the potential dismantling of major world alliances and free trade deals, and the potential for nuclear proliferation.
People in the US need to realise that US guns in US hands kill a LOT of people around the world.
Re:Hmmm well (Score:5, Interesting)
Those who remember history are doomed to repeatedly fail at teaching people a goddamn thing.
Re:Hmmm well (Score:5, Insightful)
I knew it wouldn't be long before someone would Godwin this thread. The slight difference is that Trump doesn't want to exterminate the entire race of Hispanic people, and isn't intent on conquering some Lebensraum for his master race to spread out into Canada. Don't forget, we've had men of questionable morals in the White House before, and we certainly will again. Probably women too, in the future. Trump is an arrogant ass, but seriously comparing him to one of the most evil mass-murderers in modern history demonstrates a lack of perspective, or at least a severe lack of faith in the people of the US, to think anyone would go along with such schemes.
I'd hope that you can now understand the angst of conservative voters when President Obama won the last two elections. Or perhaps I can at least empathize with you a bit because of that, if you're not feeling very empathetic yourself yet. Many conservatives predicted the end of America as we know it, and they were just as wrong. I believe America is still a strong country, generally made up of good people who just want to get along with their neighbors and live their lives in peace. Maybe you think that's naive or optimistic, but so be it.
If nothing else, just keep reminding yourself that you'll have another chance to vote him out in four years.
Re:Hmmm well (Score:5, Funny)
Although lets face it - that is a policy pledge that could have won the election for either side.
Re:Hmmm well (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump doesn't give a shit about the law or about the people he claims to represent. He has been screwing ordinary, hard working Americans his entire life. Using cheap immigrant labour to build his business empire, setting up scams like Trump University. He's a billionaire who was given a huge loan by his parents, not a man of the people.
Oh good, now we've got your bullshit out of the way. Remember that part where Hillary wanted to enforce no-fly-zones against Russia in Syira, and operated multiple pay-for-play scandals?
You know nothing about Europe. The child abuse in Rotherham was by people of Asian descent, mostly from Pakistan. They and their parents mostly came here in the 60s and 70s, before we even joined the EU, from our old Commonwealth empire. I happen to be half Asian, so FUCK YOU for even playing the race card.
Oh so which is it? They're asian or pakistani? They came here in the 60's and 70's? Or multiple people who were arrested were "new immigrants" and were in their 20's and 30's. According to the court records. I also happen to be half-asian(actual half-asian, not the lovely code-word that UK and EU media likes to use for people from the middle east). So fuck you for trying to be a weaseling little shit, and trying to crawl out of it.
Deporting people isn't going to make America great again, unless you think working for pennies on the Dollar is great.
Gotcha. Ensuring that companies actually employ americans = bad. Stopping the flow of illegals that cause crimes = bad. Bet you're right there cheering on H1B's replacing Americans and them being forced to train their replacement too.
Re:Hmmm well (Score:5, Interesting)
I expect the first priority for the Republicans now will be reversing everything done under Obama. Even the thing they agree with, they can't allow a Democrat to claim the success. I expect a health care reform repeal act to pass at some point in 2017.
Trump himself doesn't really have any policies, just powerful rhetoric, so I would expect him to just reflect the party positions on most issues. The country will march on, there will be a brief battle (which republicans will win) over at least one supreme court nominee when the Republicans insist on appointing someone who has pledged to overturn Roe given half a chance, and Trump will say something embarassing every couple of months that will need a bit of diplomatic skill from his underlings to downplay. America may become a bit of a laughing stock for a time, but it'll still carry on running. Food will be on the table, television will keep on running, and the people will grumble as usual.
Re:Hmmm well (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmm well (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, first priority will be packing up the statue of liberty and shipping it back to France with a rude note and a poop emoji.
It was hollow from the start in any case. The symbolism is quite appropriate.
Re:Hmmm well (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you get sick, and can no longer get health insurance...
Considering people are already hitting the point where they can't afford the health insurance in the first place. Hell my buddy in Alaska saw his premium go from $400/mo w/2200 deductible to $1100/mo w/$9000 delectable. Can you afford that? My neighbor in Central Florida? Well he's lucky, his 28 year old daughter and her husband? Nope. $250/mo pre-obamcare to $4800/mo with w/14k deductible? A lot of people are now worse off then they were before.
Re: Hmmm well (Score:5, Funny)
You certainly can't spell perjury.
Re:Hmmm well (Score:5, Funny)
Bill Clinton greatly enlarged the principle that corruption and lying were acceptable in high office and in the public at large.
You can't start a post with "Bill Clinton greatly enlarged" without ending with some sexy fan-fiction.
Wet paper bag (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear DNC and superdelegates: Thanks so much for giving us the most unpopular Democratic nominee in living memory. What should have been a landslide win has become a complete fucking nightmare. Good job.
Very true (Score:5, Informative)
For anyone who doubts the parent post, read the PDF attached to this email [wikileaks.org] and look at the list of names of "Pied Piper Candidates" the DNC hoped to face.
Maybe they should dump the superdelegates and let the people choose their own candidate next time?
Re:Very true (Score:5, Informative)
The time for misinformation is over. Hillary beat Sanders by ~2 Million popular votes and was leading throughout the primaries. Anyway you slice it Hillary was rightfully the Dem nominee. Its moot now anyway because here we go...
Re:Very true (Score:5, Insightful)
One party deliberately manipulated their primary process to select the candidate the party bosses wanted, instead of the candidate the voters wanted. The other party grudgingly accepted the voters' choice of nominee even though the party bosses thought it was crazy stupid. The first party lost the Presidency. The latter party won it. Turns out listening to the voters' choice instead of the party bosses' opinions pays off in a democracy. Who'd've thunk it.
Re:Very true (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize Hillary and trump both won their party's nomination
Yes, of course.
fair and square, right?
You're joking, right?
Re:Wet paper bag (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the problem is that the DNC has it's own bubble, and the professional political establishment considers what makes a professional also makes a winner.
Hillary also kept pitching for the "I'm a woman" and LGBTQ and minorities. Everyone KNEW the Dems were supporting this so WHY always bring it up? They spent ZERO air time saying; "we want to get jobs to coal workers and bring opportunities to rural communities." Instead; "Coal is going out of style."
While I'm THINK that Bernie Sanders could have won -- I voted for him after all. It's mostly because he didn't EXCLUDE white males. He didn't have a message of who he was or wasn't -- just universal messages of what he planned to do for people. I hope the DNC learns this -- or dies. I'm not a fan of political parties in the first place.
Re:Wet paper bag (Score:5, Insightful)
There were many people who didn't like Trump, but who despised Hillary. They either stayed home, or grudgingly voted for Trump. If Sanders had won the nomination, many who despised Trump would have had little issue voting for Sanders, knowing the Congress will keep him in line. Sanders could have gained many votes that refused Hillary.
Re:Wet paper bag (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks so much for giving us the most unpopular Democratic nominee in living memory. What should have been a landslide win has become a complete fucking nightmare. Good job.
Here I'm with you 100% except that you need to widen the net.
Dear Media: Thank you so much for turning a relatively banal email screwup that had zero actual consequence into the biggest campaign scandal in decades and turning an otherwise likeable candidate into a pariah.
Eh, WHAT? Hillary Clinton likable? My personal theme this year was that Trump was the only power on earth strong enough to make me vote for Hillary. 8 years ago part of what got Obama elected was that he wasn't Hillary. The Hillary supporters have always thought that she's just misunderstood, everybody will come around eventually. The email server was her faullt. Covering it up and pretending that no secret Emails were sent/recieved on the server was also her fault. Hillary has been viscerally disliked for who she is for decades by many and her attempting to skate by pretending that the rules for everyone else don't apply to her now mean that we're all going to have to suffer through 4 years of Trump.
Re:Wet paper bag (Score:5, Insightful)
Just one thing:
Dear Media: Thank you so much for turning a relatively banal email screwup ....
Sending and receiving classified documents on unsecured computers is not a "screwup", it is an illegal act. The Secretary of State cannot use the excuse of "I didn't know it was classified", in the same manner that a police officer cannot use the excuse "I didn't know stealing was a crime".
dear Canada and Mexico.... (Score:5, Funny)
We're sorry.
Sincerely,
a shitload of americans. (just not a big enough shitload, apparently).
Go ahead let it out.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please consolidate all the comments about how sexist/racist/xenophobic America is because they didn't coronate Hillary under this comment for organizational purposes. Please provide reasons for why a bunch of people who were "good" when they voted for Obama deserve to be shipped off to your concentration camps today for failing to do as they were told.
Also, you can post your real estate listings here since you ARE actually going to man up (ooh wait.. too cisgendered a term there) and move to Canada right?
Interesting microcosm of why Hillary ACTUALLY lost that can't be boiled down to a prejudiced throw-away "ism" hurled at groups of people you don't like: Tonight she flat out refused to go out and face her own supporters at her lavish "victory" party. Not even to thank them for their hard work. No class whatsoever where it actually counts.
Re:Go ahead let it out.... (Score:5, Funny)
"Tonight she flat out refused to go out and face her own supporters at her lavish "victory" party. Not even to thank them for their hard work. No class whatsoever where it actually counts."
Truth be told, Hillary's still running; she's just not running for President. That's why she couldn't face her supporters tonight, and not even a concession speech. Bet she's gonna lose a few thousand calories, though! ;)
Re:Go ahead let it out.... (Score:5, Interesting)
She was SUPPOSED to win in a runaway landslide.
Against Donald Trump... you know, the guy who has been mocked and demonized by the media for over a year? The guy who was supposed to be a joke of a candidate?
Even with the corpses of three endangered white rhinos dumped onto her side of the scale she LOST.
16 Celebrities who said they would leave the U.S. (Score:5, Informative)
1. Barbra Streisand 2. Bryan Cranston 3. Miley Cyrus 4. Lena Dunham 5. Amy Schumer 6. Jon Stewart 7. Cher 8. Chelsea Handler 9. Samuel L. Jackson 10. Whoopi Goldberg 11. Neve Campbell 12. Keegan-Michael Key 13. George Lopez 14. Ne-Yo 15. Rev. Al Sharpton 16. Raven-Symoné
Don't let the door hit your rears on the way out you babies!
Re:16 Celebrities who said they would leave the U. (Score:5, Insightful)
This election was just like the Arab spring. Take the information monopoly out of the hands of the biased elites and use social media to reach everyone with the real message.
They did their best to sabotage him but Twitter and Facebook are the main reasons for the Trump victory.
I kid you not... (Score:5, Funny)
I went to bed at 11:00 PM thinking too many states were too close to call until the morning. It's 1:52 AM right now. I just got woken up by my two-year-old yelling. He couldn't tell me what was wrong. I gave him some water and changed him, even though he wasn't wet, and I put him back to bed.
I thought, what the hell, I gotta know. I power on the computer, log in, and this is what I see.
Methinks young padawan senses a disturbance in the force.
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Britain slips down to number 2 in the stupidest country rankings.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Basically... yes.
You guys just had to be the centre of attention, right?
Disappointed but not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Since term limits began we've been in a cycle of 8 years one party, 8 years the other. Bush (the first) was the only exception, because Reagan was ridiculously popular and Dukakis wasn't.
More accurately, Republicans have a base of ~40% that turns out no matter what; Democrats don't, which is why all the true landslides of the past 50 years have gone to Republicans. The party cycle is pretty much all because of Democrats; after two elections they become complacent and idealistic and stop turning out, then it takes a couple terms of Republicans to build up the fire in their belly again. It would be funny, except for how many people suffer in the meantime.
And if you were one of those idealists who would only vote for Bernie, remember that idealism is an extremism as dangerous as any other, because it ends in letting the world burn because you won't settle for second best.
Anyway, all hail Grand Nagus Trump and see you in 2018.
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, at least we (the UK) are no longer the biggest clowns in the west.
Most perceptive comment of the night (Score:5, Interesting)
From the Washington Post:
I’m no fan of Peter Thiel, the billionaire who put Gawker out of business by bankrolling a lawsuit by Hulk Hogan, the professional wrestler. In fact, I find him appalling.
But when he spoke recently at the National Press Club, he said something that struck me as quite perceptive about Donald Trump.
“The media is always taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously, but it always takes him literally,” Thiel said. Journalists wanted to know exactly how he would deport that many undocumented immigrants, or exactly how Trump would rid the world of ISIS. We wanted details.
But a lot of voters think the opposite way: They take Trump seriously but not literally.
They realize, Thiel said, that Trump doesn’t really plan to build a wall. “What they hear is, ‘We’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.’ ”
Trump, quite apparently, captured the anger that Americans were feeling about issues such as trade and immigration.
Also, as someone who is not a Trump supporter, I thought at least that his acceptance speech was quite good.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
You're forgetting Mike Pence (Score:5, Interesting)
As an Italian I can say: (Score:5, Funny)
Moving to Canada (Score:5, Funny)
If you promised to move to Canada if Trump won, please post contact information and an army of volunteers will reach out to you shortly to schedule a date to help you pack.
If you promised to move to Mexico to protest Trump's plan to halt illegal immigration, please... Just kidding, we know none of you are willing to live in Mexico.
I was shocked (Score:5, Funny)
To find out Canadian immigration website runs IIS.
Four years of I've Told You Sos (Score:5, Interesting)
The moment Brexit happened, I strongly suspected Trump was headed for the White House. Two completely unrelated things, you say? Not at all. The point is this: Project Fear has run its course. If you tell people "Oh No, if you don't vote for the status quo, warts and all, things will get so so bad!", they will be inclined to tell you to go fuck yourself up an ass with a cactus. And if the Brits were willing to do that, for fuck's sake, Americans surely were as well.
Should I say it? Does it need to be said? Bernie could have won, easily. Probably a dozen others could've done the same. I personally think Biden could've easily won because the man is not a phony. Elizabeth Warren might have easily won too; I'm not sure. For millennia, people haven been bitching thatpoliticians are phony and yet it's somehow impossible to elect someone who isn't phony. [goodreads.com] Guess what? It's not impossible. Now, in this case I'm pretty sure people settled on a rank phony-ness of a much different sort, a non-standard phonyness over the standard one, but...
But Jesus fucking Christ, all of this dumb shit about racism and sexism... all of these red herrings that NO ONE on the fence gave a crap about after the man gave you a mountain of potent ammunition to use against him. Scream and scream and scream hysterically at us if we don't agree he's "orange Hitler". No, no he's not Hitler or a racist, obviously fucking not. He's an airhead who barely pays attention to what he's even saying, a sycophant, a man who was a registered Democrat not that long ago, someone who was able to broach a few important topics that no one else was willing to broach, even if he make a complete mess if it every time he tried to talk sense. Just broaching the topic was enough.
Instead of a curse, I'll try to end with a blessing:
May the old guard of the Republicans finally disintegrate entirely, may the evangelicals slowly grow quiet and chasten with the realization that genitalia-centered regulation and shaming is no longer going to be a priority in this country, may the alt-right toss out its more vile elements and turn into something that's actually worth listening to now and then, and may the left in this country grow the fuck up and realize that merely being less anti-intellectual and more "moderate" (especially compared to the left in other Western democracies) is not enough.
This wasn't the way to do it; definitely wasn't the smart way to do it, and I risk spraining my neck from shaking my head but at the same time... alone in the kitchen, coming in for a quick snack but then finding myself pacing absentmindedly and staring at the ceiling... I have to admit cracking a smile or three. Moronic and foot-shooting as this whole thing has been, it does give me a little bit of hope. If reasonableness fails against cynicism, I guess stupidity and bombast can sometimes carry the day, for whatever Pyrrhic victory that's worth.
Now let's just hope we can all survive the next four years.
Re:May the Lord have mercy on us all (Score:5, Interesting)
Blah blah blah. Clinton -- with all the same information that your favorite pal George W. Bush had -- voted for the Iraq war. The fact that she later decided that war was bad when it was politically convenient to do so and was never questioned once by the toadies in the press about here hypocrisy doesn't change the facts.
As secretary of state she personally instigated the disastrous destabilization of multiple secular governments in the middle east to appease the jihadi Muslim Brotherhood.
There was one proven war monger on that stage, and it wasn't Turmp.
Re:May the Lord have mercy on us all (Score:5, Insightful)
Every country has some weird traditions. USA's is electing a clown as president.
I am sure it will not be as bad as most people think. After all president is constrained by the budget set by congress. Neither can a president declare war without their approval. I am sure that if he really starts to act out then impeachment is on the table.
Still, you have to wonder about the voter disillusionment to get such a result.
Re:May the Lord have mercy on us all (Score:5, Informative)
The US congress has declared war 11 times [senate.gov] the last one in 1942.
You went to fucking Vietnam without congressional approval. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. There's no need for congressional approval for the president to deploy military force, and since this precedent has long since been established I don't think for a second Trump will even try to get congressional approval if he wants to play war-games in the mdddile-east or wherever.
Re:god help us all (Score:5, Interesting)
"Coward" is an Islamic surname? Who knew?!
But seriously. If I enter any other non-Western country with a Christian surname and am treated as a second class citizen, it is expected. I am the guest, I am expected to abide by the rules, the customs, the laws, the norms. I cannot own land in Japan, If I am a woman I cannot vote in Saudi Arabia. Yet everyone expects that the West change their ways to accommodate them when they enter. And when there is pushback against this expectation, the response is accusations of racism and xenophobia.
If the West is so great that everyone wants to enter, why does everyone want to change it so radically?
Re:Nice work jackasses. (Score:5, Funny)
The best summary I've seen was in a tweet (sorry, don't have the link):
BRITAIN: Brexit is the stupidest, most self-destructive act a country could undertake.
USA: Hold my beer.
Re:Im confused how Republicans could win so much (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know where the extra Republican votes came from.
It's called the Bradley effect [wikipedia.org] people are always reluctant to admit to pollsters that they are willing to vote for a corrupt and openly racist candidate.
From people sick to death of a corrupt, lying Clinton and the totally transparent corruption of the DNC and all of the media machinery that was trying to shove her down everyone's throats. If you still think this was about "Russian hacking" or any other sort of external influence, you're exactly the sort of out-of-touch person that probably thought Clinton was entitled to more of the sort of power she's been so eager to abuse and enrich herself with over the years.
If you think that anybody can become a realestate tycoon in New York and meddle in the casino business without being corrupt perhaps you'd be interested in this bridge I have for sale. Voting for Donald Trump because you think he's less corrupt than Hillary Clinton is about the best joke I've heard in a long time.
Re:The real losers are his supporters (Score:5, Insightful)
At least you can get insurance.
My sister has a major pre-existing condition and requires gamma globulin that costs $5000/month in order to stay alive. She works as a teacher and the insurance where she works (at a private school) does not cover it so she has to go to the exchange for another plan that does cover it. Without the ACA, no outside insurance company would touch her due to her pre-existing conditions. With the insurance she only pays $500/month for her medicine (not counting the other medications and doctor co-pays, etc.) If the ACA is repealed with Trump's plan she'd be out of pocket $5000/month to stay alive, which is far more than she makes. Tax deductions under Trump's plan won't help when she pays little to no federal income tax anyway at her salary.
If the ACA is repealed my family will have to figure out how to come up with at least $60K/year to keep her alive. My parents are retired and it's far more than I can afford. While healthcare in this country is fucked up and way overpriced, the alternative for many people of repealing the ACA is far far worse.
I know people who are alive because it prevented insurance companies from imposing lifetime caps on care, my sister being one of them. I also know people who lost everything before the ACA due to something like cancer or a stroke when insurance companies refused to pay due to caps or other reasons.