View Full Version : What's Next?
We are coming to the end of a singularly unpleasant election cycle. The major candidates have lied themselves hoarse. The networks are preparing to prove once again America leads the world in over-the-top computer graphics. Lesser and greater pundits will display their historical ignorance by calling this a historically divisive election. It's all been great fun.
But what are your predictions of what happens next?
I think:
We will continue to fail to learn that our social and cultural differences cannot be effectively mediated through the exercise of government power.
We will continue to see that the economy doesn't much care what the President wants.
We will probably see a continuing decline in American military and economic global power, which will delight all the wrong people.
We will almost certainly see a new series of tests of Constitutional checks on executive power, with the degree of subtlety involved depending on which candidate wins.
Ultralight
11-6-16, 2:01pm
"Windmill or no windmill life would go on as it had always gone on -- that is, badly." - Benjamin the Donkey in Animal Farm
"Windmill or no windmill life would go on as it had always gone on -- that is, badly." - Benjamin the Donkey in Animal Farm
I would modify that sentiment to "more badly". I think it likely that we will soon enter the stage where all pretense of the United States as a Constitutional Republic will be abandoned in favor of an Administrative State, un-restrained by constitutional limits on the power and authority of government.
Ultralight
11-6-16, 2:42pm
We're in a fix. That is for sure.
ApatheticNoMore
11-6-16, 3:30pm
I think it likely that we will soon enter the stage where all pretense of the United States as a Constitutional Republic will be abandoned in favor of an Administrative State, un-restrained by constitutional limits on the power and authority of government.
I have abandoned all pretense. Or I used to believe that but it wasn't true.
I think a certain amount of very astute boomers figured this all out in the 60s (from everything that went on there from Kent State to Watergate (actually very minor in terms of crimes that Nixon was booted for frankly), to the Church committee (those were some REAL crimes there), to Vietnam etc.).
But I'm not a boomer and that's all ancient history and the links to rights violations sometimes more tenuous (ok Vietnam was bad, but un-constitutional? Well actually yes Congress should declare war. But that hasn't been true for 70 years so really the U.S. hasn't been a Constitutional republic in 70 years on that basis ALONE). But also we can perfectly well know the U.S. is post-Constitutional, we have laws like the NDAA, to lock anyone up indefinitely, and the Supreme Court that should allegedly protect our Constitutional rights, won't even take the case. Enough said. We have the NSA spying on everyone. Enough said.
I realize Constitutional means something different to everyone. I mean to me if there's anything good about the Constitution it's mostly about the Bill of Rights (and some of the subsequent amendments that expanded it), which much of the world also adopted at some point in addition to much else. But since a lot of that is not actively the law of the land, I'm not sure what I should be defending in defending the Constitution anymore. The electoral college perhaps? Phooey. That it's better than living in Saudi Arabia perhaps, likely so, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really follow the Constitution. And if it's just government structure, I think a parliamentary system would likely be preferable to the U.S. system.
---------------------------------------
Maybe a Clinton administration would mean a new level of well not un-Constitutional, that's not the right term, as the U.S. isn't Constitutional anyway, but I could maybe buy blatant corruption (even more than money has already done) and law-breaking. They are pretty bad.
iris lilies
11-6-16, 3:39pm
The stock market will drop Wednesday morning regardless of who wins, but it will drop more, and for a longer period, if da Trumpster wins. But he wont.
ToomuchStuff
11-7-16, 3:00am
More of SSDD.
Clinton will win by a slim but comfortable margin and Dems will gain control in the senate, which free up at least some of the government deadlocks. Trump win whine like a stuck pig and there will be a few protests and talk of election rigging, but it will die quickly as everyone is just tired of politics. If Clinton is listening to the voice of the people, she will at least try to fix a few things in Obamacare as a first project, which I think was one of the key drivers in Trump popularity. Any success on this is dubious. Given that climate change had about 2 seconds in the debate, I doubt that much will change there. People in the rust belt may eventually realize their factory jobs have been replaced by automation as much as jobs moving overseas and are not coming back. Both parties will at least partially forget all of this and in four years they will continue to put forth lame and uninspiring candidates.
I'm hoping that one silver lining might be for us to realize that our future is in OUR hands. If we want to sit back and let the pundits hand us soundbites that we use to form shallow opinions while we bemoan the state of affairs without doing a damn thing about it, we will most certainly be in the same position in another 4 years.
I'm hoping that what's next is a populace that's mad as hell--whether you're GOP or Dem or third party--I'm hoping we use this time to figure out what we can do on a personal level and at a grassroots level to keep the circus from coming to town again in 2020.
It's all so complicated. So many threads that make the fabric of who we are today. I'm afraid I have a pessimistic view of our future. Seems like we've caused our own problems because of thinking we deserve everything we want and a constitution/bill of rights that guarantees it for everyone (at least in the peoples' minds). The media tells us we need all sorts of things to be happy. We consume too much and throw it into the earth. We don't care about education. We don't give a shit about the environment. We have too many poor. Our healthcare is too expensive, somewhat because we try to save everyone all the time and can't accept aging and death, we're self-centered, some want to continually bring in all the immigrants in the world, some want things not to change. We have this sick notion of progress/growth/development that cannot be sustained. We've created a collective monster.
Even living on 35 acres in the country doesn't seem to help me shut it out, as it's always being threatened to be over-run by the robots that are greedy and the masses who never question anything and want everything.
I'm bummed. :( Like I've said before, the horse is out of the barn and no matter who wins the election, I feel we're doomed and will see chaos and violence like we've never experienced before.
Oh.....and have a nice day.
The Real Decision from the Christian Science Monitor. Do you agree with this view? It is what I am seeing on SLF threads quite often.
This is not partisanship. It’s a fundamental breakdown in trust between two increasingly distinct factions. And it is happening from Facebook to our neighborhoods. We are segregating ourselves into communities that think and act alike. We take absolutist views – even invent our own partisan facts – because we rarely push out of comfort zones to see through others' eyes.
Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson says: “the basis of democracy is the willingness to assume well about other people.” The Founding Fathers established the promise of America as E pluribus unum – “Out of many, one.” Every election is a test of that grand promise to trust and respect neighbors who are different from us. On Tuesday and beyond, that is the greatest decision facing the nation.
Mark Sappenfield
sappenfieldm@csps.com
Ultralight
11-7-16, 10:53am
I will be putting together a more comprehensive bug out bag.
Things could get wacky! haha
iris lilies
11-7-16, 12:02pm
The Real Decision from the Christian Science Monitor. Do you agree with this view? It is what I am seeing on SLF threads quite often.
This is not partisanship. It’s a fundamental breakdown in trust between two increasingly distinct factions. And it is happening from Facebook to our neighborhoods. We are segregating ourselves into communities that think and act alike. We take absolutist views – even invent our own partisan facts – because we rarely push out of comfort zones to see through others' eyes.
Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson says: “the basis of democracy is the willingness to assume well about other people.” The Founding Fathers established the promise of America as E pluribus unum – “Out of many, one.” Every election is a test of that grand promise to trust and respect neighbors who are different from us. On Tuesday and beyond, that is the greatest decision facing the nation.
Mark Sappenfield
sappenfieldm@csps.com
oh agreed. I think people who are voting for both of our Presidential candidates have decent reasons. They are not my reasons, but that doesnt mean those people are crazy or stupid.
I think that in most life situations, for most political opinions, there is a range of thought that seems reasonable to me even though those opinions conflict.
It is the fringe ideas on eiher side that I refuse to respect. But the "fringe" idea holders are a small percentage of the population. And the media whips up the prominence of "fringe" especially if those fringe ideas are on the right.
The Real Decision from the Christian Science Monitor. Do you agree with this view? It is what I am seeing on SLF threads quite often.
This is not partisanship. It’s a fundamental breakdown in trust between two increasingly distinct factions. And it is happening from Facebook to our neighborhoods. We are segregating ourselves into communities that think and act alike. We take absolutist views – even invent our own partisan facts – because we rarely push out of comfort zones to see through others' eyes.
Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson says: “the basis of democracy is the willingness to assume well about other people.” The Founding Fathers established the promise of America as E pluribus unum – “Out of many, one.” Every election is a test of that grand promise to trust and respect neighbors who are different from us. On Tuesday and beyond, that is the greatest decision facing the nation.
Mark Sappenfield
sappenfieldm@csps.com
I take the polar opposite view. The test of democracy isn’t assuming the best about other people. The test of democracy is arriving at a means of living with people you may disagree with or even actively despise. You have to have a certain confidence that it will function even with idiots in charge. At it’s best, it provides for achieving unsatisfactory compromises acceptable to nobody but grudgingly accepted by the great majority. In that sense, it relies on the consent of the losers (who hope they won’t always be the losers). Mutual respect may be desirable, but in a functioning democracy it isn’t necessary. If it was, the Republic would never have survived this long.
Ultralight
11-7-16, 12:45pm
Who was it that said democracy was just mob rule?
Who was it that said democracy was just mob rule?
I believe it's mis-attributed to Thomas Jefferson, although even if he didn't say it, the sentiment is correct. Democracy in action, not tempered by a Republican framework, is chaos.
I take the polar opposite view. The test of democracy isn’t assuming the best about other people. The test of democracy is arriving at a means of living with people you may disagree with or even actively despise.
At least locally, I have seen this breaking down during this election cycle. It will be interesting to see how people manage to live with one another in our very small community, after the nasty way each "side" has been treating the other.
At least locally, I have seen this breaking down during this election cycle. It will be interesting to see how people manage to live with one another in our very small community, after the nasty way each "side" has been treating the other.
The way I see it, only an inferior soul abandons a friendship over politics.
Ultralight
11-7-16, 4:46pm
Ol' man Carville hit the nail on the head. He said Americans don't want to be united.
Right wingers don't want to be united with lefties. Lefties don't want to be united with right wingers.
Ol' man Carville hit the nail on the head. He said Americans don't want to be united.
Right wingers don't want to be united with lefties. Lefties don't want to be united with right wingers.
Perhaps, but that's nothing new. You can't expect a huge country cobbled together from all kinds of cultures with all kinds of contradictory beliefs and interests to link arms and sing in harmony. That's never been the case, and would probably be really creepy if it were.
Democracy in action, not tempered by a Republican framework, is chaos.
I must protest. Canadians don't have a republic and not much chaos either.;)
The US seems more under stress at present, it seems.
I must protest. Canadians don't have a republic and not much chaos either.;)
The US seems more under stress at present, it seems.
Couldn't it be said that a constitutional monarchy with a strong element of federalism has a lot of the same checks on direct democracy that a republic has?
iris lilies
11-7-16, 5:59pm
Couldn't it be said that a constitutional monarchy with a strong element of federalism has a lot of the same checks on direct democracy that a republic has?
How does is explain their strong state/province gvernance? I think that is one thing that keeps the boat steady up there.
frugal-one
11-7-16, 8:08pm
Just watched BBC news and the female moderator said this is her 4th US Presidential election that she has covered. And, there has NEVER been more interest from around the world regarding a US election! It was obvious the wish is for Trump to lose (except by Russia).
I must protest. Canadians don't have a republic and not much chaos either.;)
The US seems more under stress at present, it seems.
If you took away the elements of Monarchy remaining in your governmental structure, you'd be very close to a Republic rather than a Constitutional Monarchy. You're certainly not a Democracy, neither Direct or Representative.
It's the Direct Democracy that's the mischief maker. As Liberals and Progressives in the US get closer to affecting that change in our governmental structure, the closer to chaos we become.
If you took away the elements of Monarchy remaining in your governmental structure, you'd be very close to a Republic rather than a Constitutional Monarchy. You're certainly not a Democracy, neither Direct or Representative.
What's missing for Canada to be a democracy?
If you took away the elements of Monarchy remaining in your governmental structure, you'd be very close to a Republic rather than a Constitutional Monarchy. You're certainly not a Democracy, neither Direct or Representative.
I confess that I had to look up the difference to ensure that I knew the difference between direct and representational democracy. OK, we are not direct, I agree but do have direct access locally driving policy. Other than that, we do vote for representatives who create policy on provincial and federal issues. Not proportional voting as some may wish which would create situations similar to some EU countries who have coalition governments.
That is similar to the US voting for Congress and Senate members, isn't it? I realize that the vote is rotated differently though. The President is unique.
What's missing for Canada to be a democracy?It's not what's missing, it's what's extra, Canada has a Monarch. Without that, Canada could be a representative democracy, unless they also got rid of their Constitution (which limits governmental power) and their representatives, and then they could be a direct democracy.
Liberals and Progressives don't seem to be ruining any other countries, and the oligarchs are rolling in the clover here--I'm sure they're happy.
That is similar to the US voting for Congress and Senate members, isn't it?Yes
flowerseverywhere
11-8-16, 7:57am
What has saddened me the most is the outright lies that have been told that people believed and spread without fact checking. lies about Abortion, immigrants, aid, donations, climate change...I could go on but everyone has seen it from both parties. It is not as much the presidency, which fortunately has checks and balances but the Supreme Court appointments that will have an effect.
Here is my hope. Starting Wednesday the leaders of both parties will be scratching their heads saying what the hell just happened and start to get their act together. So many voters are doing the lesser of two evil vote. But how will they ever get good people to run after all these accusations, name calling and lies?
I am hoping we learned something. I know that I had some ideas about different candidates and I was pushed into doing more research this year, and I believe there have been long standing attacks that are playing out. Not as much truth in them as even I thought. I know I am tiptoeing around, too much anger and reactionary BS. I'd like to send our government to couples counseling,
How does is explain their strong state/province gvernance? I think that is one thing that keeps the boat steady up there.
There have been some friction in the past between the regions. Although I sometimes think Canada has a better idea of what federalism means than we do down here.
I must admit I do not care too much about the political scene anymore. Too many lies, too much talking, too many lobbyists, too few visions, too few actions. Yes you can vote, but what impact does it have? Over here in Germany, it does not really matter which one of the big parties rules - a few minor differences, but you do not really have alternatives you can vote.
So I concentrate more on the things where I can really move something. In my life, the life of my family, my friends and the ones around me. Much smaller than the big politics, but there I have really a choice. I can decide what I buy and where, I can decide who I support, who I ask for help...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.