Its almost over!

[NecCat]

And needless to say, he's nixed any idea of moving to Canada. So I guess we're stuck with President Slimebag.

Don't bother, we're screwed. Two of the promises Trump has made to enact almost immediately are revoking all H-whatever visas and ripping up the NAFTA. What do you think will happen to Canada when a large number of citizens return home looking for work at the same time as our biggest customer stops buying from us? Country-wide unemployment highs.

I know it's a resource rich v. low population country, and Trudeau did just sign a trade agreement with EU, so it's not like we are all going to starve to death and never recover, but there is going to be a large period of 'adjustment' (which means suck-o)

I think Trump will do it early on too, once he realizes that many of his promises (like repealing the first amendment to the constitution or deporting millions of American citizens) are untenable because the balancing powers of your government won't let him follow through on them.

[TheHuckster]

Hubby thinks Trump will be kept in line by the Supreme Court and Congress, but I don't think so; they're all Republicans together. Most of them aren't as horrible as he is, but they do tend to stick together. He also doesn't think he's going to be as awful as I think he will. And needless to say, he's nixed any idea of moving to Canada. So I guess we're stuck with President Slimebag.

The only thing I can think of (long shot) that would keep him in line is if he clashes with congress the same way he clashed with members of the GOP during his campaign. Chances are that they'll let bygones be bygones, but there is still a lot of contempt in the GOP against Trump, even among those who reluctantly supported or voted for him. What he gained in support for voters he at least somewhat alienated himself from a lot of establishment republicans that are currently in the house and senate. They'll agree on a portion of big-picture issues, like repealing the ACA and at least some aspects of immigration, but there might be some clashes on the details of how to execute his plans. Obviously, they won't be as obstructionist as they were with Obama, however.

[Anthony K. S.]

I saw a very lengthy debate (more than one, actually) on Raw Story between Hillary Clinton supporters and Bernie Sanders / Jill Stein supporters. Basically, they were arguing about whose fault it is. Oh, good. I'm sure that's going to be productive.

99% reporting :
Donald Trump - 59,479,278
Hillary Clinton - 59,680,035

Not that it matters - it doesn't - but it appears that Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote, albeit by a razor-thin margin of about 200,000 votes.

Wow, deja vu. The Democratic candidate wins the popular vote and the Republican candidate wins the electoral vote. So the Republican nominee becomes President despite the fact that more people voted for his opponent.

The similarities don't end there, either.

During the summer of 2000, some people were looking at the polls and speculating that George W. Bush would win the popular vote, but that Al Gore would win the electoral vote. It turned out to be the other way around.

I seem to recall that, several months ago, some observers were suggesting that Donald Trump would win the popular vote, but that Hillary Clinton would win the electoral vote. And again ...

The sadly predictable thing is that, in all cases, whether somebody believed that (1) a candidate losing the popular vote but becoming President means that the system is broken and needs to be fixed or (2) the electoral system established by the Constitution is what it is and should be abided by, was largely dependent on which candidate the person was supporting.

I remember seeing Bush supporters in the summer of 2000 arguing that it would be a gross injustice for Al Gore to become President if he lost the popular vote. But their position seemed to instantly reverse as soon as the results came in in November.

Al Gore's supporters, meanwhile, did the exact same thing, only the other way around.

This morning, I saw a commentary from a Hillary Clinton supporter who said that yes, it's dumb that a candidate can become President even though more people voted for his opponent. However, this person then went on to say :

"But, be honest. If Hillary Clinton had won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote, you'd have no problem with it. You can't only criticize the system when it yields a result that you don't like."

Being president will turn him gray by the summer.

Only if he actually tries to do the job.

I have always agreed with the people who said that the fundamental problem with George W. Bush was that he never wanted to be President in the first place.

Bush liked becoming President. He liked delivering speeches, waving to supporters, having huge crowds of people chanting his name and cheering for him. He liked the rallies, the parades, the spectacle. He liked winning the election and being honored and inaugurated as President.

But when it came time for him to sit down in the Oval Office and actually do the work, he just didn't want to. That was why, for the first six or seven years (at least) of his Presidency, he kept saying these magic words :

"Run that by the Vice-President's office."

It was reported that just about every time that a new issue came up, or a new piece of legislation was going through Congress, or whatever else, Bush would tell his staffers to run it by the Vice-President's office, meaning to just let Cheney decide.

(Bush did stop doing that at some point during his second term, when his relationship with Cheney started to sour, and he began to make decisions on his own instead.)

As I look at Donald Trump, I find it nearly impossible to believe that the situation is any different than it was with Bush. I honestly think that the only reason Trump ran for President in the first place was to aggrandize himself, to serve his own ego, and generate publicity for his business.

It would not surprise me in the least if Trump were to get into office and then make no effort whatsoever to do the job, and just let Pence or his other advisors make all the decisions.

[mjr]

So now that the election is over, when are all the "celebrities" going to move to Canada who said they're absolutely for sure I mean it for real going to move?

Hint: They're not. I'd be shocked if ANY of them did.

And poor Madonna is going to be very busy. I mean, she still has to fellate all the men who voted Hillary, right?

I get it's probably a "haste" or a "heat of the moment" thing, but do they realize how foolish they look saying that?

[Greenday]

It will be interesting to see what happens if Trump is convicted of rape next month. Though we all know that it's unlikely for rich, white men to be convicted of sex crimes. Will that be enough for us to impeach him? Can a president be impeached before he's even sworn in? And would Pence be any better of a president?

Nothing considering she dropped the lawsuit.

So now that the election is over, when are all the "celebrities" going to move to Canada who said they're absolutely for sure I mean it for real going to move?

Hint: They're not. I'd be shocked if ANY of them did.

And poor Madonna is going to be very busy. I mean, she still has to fellate all the men who voted Hillary, right?

I get it's probably a "haste" or a "heat of the moment" thing, but do they realize how foolish they look saying that?

Not at all since everyone's going to forget they said it within a week or two.

[mjr]

Not at all since everyone's going to forget they said it within a week or two.

Valid point. And people will forget.

[Rageaholic]

Not that it matters - it doesn't - but it appears that Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote, albeit by a razor-thin margin of about 200,000 votes.

A lot of states were very close too. Some of them Trump won by just 1-2 percent.

As I look at Donald Trump, I find it nearly impossible to believe that the situation is any different than it was with Bush. I honestly think that the only reason Trump ran for President in the first place was to aggrandize himself, to serve his own ego, and generate publicity for his business.

It would not surprise me in the least if Trump were to get into office and then make no effort whatsoever to do the job, and just let Pence or his other advisors make all the decisions.

Well that sounds significantly less scary than the doomsday scenario I had in mind.

[wolfie]

Don't bother, we're screwed. Two of the promises Trump has made to enact almost immediately are revoking all H-whatever visas and ripping up the NAFTA. What do you think will happen to Canada when a large number of citizens return home looking for work at the same time as our biggest customer stops buying from us? Country-wide unemployment highs.

Don't forget that some of the provisions of NAFTA screwed Canada - namely, that we're not allowed to favour local suppliers while the U.S. is, and that if we EVER start selling a commodity to the U.S., we CAN'T stop even if it's in short supply back home. Tearing up NAFTA tears those up as well. Also, I can see that if Trump even threatens to destroy the Canadian economy by tearing up agreements, the Canadian government will tell him "NORAD is now back on the table". Remember that both the DEW line and the Mid-Canada line (early detection of a Russian attack against the U.S.) are on Canadian soil. Launch an economic attack against us? Both of them are shut down.

[jackfaire]

I still think it's amazing that they are still calling a rich white man who's been influencing politics with money for decades a "political outsider" or that it's historic that the "rich white guy who's openly sexist and racist" won. Uhm they do realize most of our presidents fit that description right?

[Dreamstalker]

Mom just advised me that our state's measure to legalize recreational weed passed. Appropriate timing, methinks.

As I look at Donald Trump, I find it nearly impossible to believe that the situation is any different than it was with Bush. I honestly think that the only reason Trump ran for President in the first place was to aggrandize himself, to serve his own ego, and generate publicity for his business.

I can't remember when or where I heard this, but I seem to recall Trump saying that if he won the election, he didn't actually want the job.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Valid point. And people will forget.

As they should.

Believe it or not, but I don't actually hold everything someone says during an election as factual. People get too passionate which is par for the course. Over the last 8 years I could have called bluffs on a few relatives on the Republican persuasion. "I'm moving to Canada" is flat out shorthand for "everyone's a fucking moron" which is just what people tend to say when they lose.

Unrelated, demographics wise what's making me laugh about this election is EXACTLY what many have been warning about is exactly what happened. Young 'uns stayed home because they didn't live through Nader. Well congrats dumb fucks, that's how you lose elections. Ultimately in most cases Trump was up by percentage but the Democrats turnout was down which was the majority of his gains. I know some want to blame the candidate - but flatly this is and always has been the achilles heel of the Democratic constituency. The Republicans have been a statistical minority in this country for really the last 10 years but through the magic of actually showing up and staying loyal, they tend to eek out elections.

My legit question is this though - for the people who split tickets thinking Republicans would check Clinton, what are they thinking now? This is a victory by the smallest of margins borne on what was probably the choice of many to abstain or figure on a different outcome - which will lead the Republicans to own the States, the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and very shortly a +1 to +2 Margin on the Supreme Court. There's absolutely no checks and balances right now. The states can pass pro Republican voter laws, the Congress can do its thing, and even if the public says "no we don't want that" in 2 to 4 years, the new Supreme Court probably will keep it locked down.

[mjr]

Don't forget that some of the provisions of NAFTA screwed Canada - namely, that we're not allowed to favour local suppliers while the U.S. is, and that if we EVER start selling a commodity to the U.S., we CAN'T stop even if it's in short supply back home. Tearing up NAFTA tears those up as well. Also, I can see that if Trump even threatens to destroy the Canadian economy by tearing up agreements, the Canadian government will tell him "NORAD is now back on the table". Remember that both the DEW line and the Mid-Canada line (early detection of a Russian attack against the U.S.) are on Canadian soil. Launch an economic attack against us? Both of them are shut down.

I don't know that he would "go after" Canada like that. Hasn't the U.S. been basically on friendly terms economically with Canada for ages? I don't really see an economic "attack" on Canada.

As to NecCat's post about the H-1B program: My personal opinion is that it does, indeed, need to be revamped. They should work to reduce the number of H-1B, and work to reduce the abuse in the system. Make stricter rules, because companies are skirting them.

I'm not sure Trump really wants anything bad to happen. He's got "business interests" all over the world. I don't think he'd want to endanger those interests.

If I were a businessman with global and domestic interests, I think I would be very hesitant to engage in military conflict (I think I would be, regardless), if for no other reason to protect my own business interests.

[Kheldarson]

I don't know that he would "go after" Canada like that. Hasn't the U.S. been basically on friendly terms economically with Canada for ages? I don't really see an economic "attack" on Canada.
.

But tearing up NAFTA is an attack on that economic friendliness. That's the issue. NAFTA was a codification of our basic alliance and easing of some economic barriers in order to strengthen said alliance. He tears it up like he's promised, then it's an attack on the fundaments of our ties.

Which just highlights why Trump is a horrifically bad choice, beyond the bigotry and hate. He doesn't understand cooperative business. International alliances aren't winner take all friendly. That's how you get Cold Wars and MAD moments.

[mjr]

But tearing up NAFTA is an attack on that economic friendliness. That's the issue. NAFTA was a codification of our basic alliance and easing of some economic barriers in order to strengthen said alliance. He tears it up like he's promised, then it's an attack on the fundaments of our ties.

Wolfie also mentioned that some NAFTA provisions have screwed over Canada.

Don't forget that some of the provisions of NAFTA screwed Canada - namely, that we're not allowed to favour local suppliers while the U.S. is, and that if we EVER start selling a commodity to the U.S., we CAN'T stop even if it's in short supply back home. Tearing up NAFTA tears those up as well.

At a minimum, seems like that could be renegotiated, right? Maybe the U.S. and Canada could make a better trade agreement?

[Kheldarson]

Wolfie also mentioned that some NAFTA provisions have screwed over Canada.

Any agreement is going to end up screwing both parties over in some fashion. It's the nature of economics and compromise.

The goal is to minimize the amount you're going to be screwed.

At a minimum, seems like that could be renegotiated, right? Maybe the U.S. and Canada could make a better trade agreement?

You’re forgetting the third party member: Mexico.

Yes, it could be renegotiated. But that means all members have to agree it needs to be renegotiated.

By stating he wants to abrogate the deal, he's already put himself in a bad negotiation position. Why should Mexico or Canada work with him if he feels he can arbitrarily abandon deals without talking to signatory members first?