This sounds like a statement from someone of privileged. You might be willing to take those risks that Donald Trump is not the man he says he is. Either way, the world will likely go on for you. The world might not go on for the Muslim hoping to immigrate to our country. The world might not go on for the citizen of Mexican descent who might see their parents deported. The world might not go on for the poor pregnant women who might not get access to a safe abortion. The world might not go on for the diabetic who can no longer afford insurance because of their preexisting condition. The world might not go on for the teenage girl who seems a president who brags about sexually assaulting women. The world might not go on for the gay man who might lose the ability to marry the person he loves. The world might not go on for the black teen who is stopped and frisked. The world might not go on for the trans person who is no longer allowed in the bathroom in which they feel the most comfortable.
Might is the critical word here, and I appreciate that you chose to use it. All of these things are possible, but as the original commenter suggested, I suspect most if not all of your fears will prove unfounded. I very much doubt much will change for Muslims in our country, or that deportations will change much (aren't they actually higher under Obama than previous administrations?), or that diabetics will not be able to afford their medication, etc. You may be right that limits may be placed on when an abortion can be obtained, but there's no way gay marriage will be reversed.
In short, I agree that in all likelihood the most disappointed voters will be those who voted for Trump expecting him to do all those things you're afraid he'll do. They wanted someone to really shake things up, and he'll give them modest tweaks and proposals with great branding.
"You may be right that limits may be placed on when an abortion can be obtained."
For the women in my life, abortion rights are important rights. Having the government restrict their access to this safe, legal medical procedure is a scary invasion of state power into the doctor-patient relationship.
I care about the women in my life, so when they care about access to abortion, I care about it in sympathy.
"... diabetics will not be able to afford their medication, etc."
Before the ACA, I was uninsurable, thanks to having had my gallbladder out several years prior. "Pre-existing condition." The ACA allowed me to buy health insurance again.
If they repeal that, I'm likely to lose access to the U.S. health care system.
That scares me, personally.
Lots of things about this are scary, because they affect my life and the lives of people I care about.
Abortion is a safe, legal medical procedure. Access to abortion is every woman's right. The SCOTUS has affirmed that the US constitution guarantees this.
"Safe for who?" For the woman, who is the person getting the procedure.
People who argue from the fringe view that "life begins at conception" and "a fetus is a human being" often bring in a lot of other fictions about abortion, like that it isn't safe for women, that it's murder, whatever.
It isn't.
It's also none of your business what other women do with their bodies or with their doctors. Wishing that it was your business (or telling fantasy stories based on your fringe views) does not make it so.
So mention this when you argue with such a person, or someone who specifically argues these points.
I did not argue that "life begins at conception". As for "a fetus is a human being":
A fetus is: "an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception"
Hence, a fetus is not "at conception", but at least 8 weeks later. According to Wikipedia on US law: "Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks, approx. 196 days) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks"; In other words, a fetus may be aborted 24-28 weeks after conception; Arguing that a fetus in this range is a human being is not a fringe view among those who look into the issue, or at least that a fetus might be a human being (it's possible that we don't know enough about human development in the womb to decide).
> It's also none of your business what other women do with their bodies
What women do to the bodies of fetuses is the issue here. A woman who murdered her unborn, viable child would be charged with muder despite it concerning "what she did with her body".
> Wishing that it was your business (or telling fantasy stories based on your fringe views)
Yes, "might" was the most important word in my post and that was intentional. I personally don't fall into any of the groups listed and demographically most of the people reading this probably don't either. We are the lucky ones. We don't personally face the risks of a "might". If you fall into those groups that "might" starts looking awfully scary regardless of the exact odds.
I don't live in the US (anymore), so it doesn't really affect me.
You bring up some valid points. But a lot of what you mention is very much bound to state administration and legislation. Of course federal laws and the supreme court can have a big impact, but the states still have a lot of say in the matter.
And even if Clinton had won, with the current climate, she wouldn't get much through Congress or Senate.
Then again, a different candidate than her might have helped to flip the senate.
What I mostly meant by that: it's done, he won. Have to deal with it now.
> I don't live in the US (anymore), so it doesn't really affect me.
Nor do I, but this person is the standard bearer for the stable world order that has helped lift many of us out of poverty, and has promised to continue doing so.
That world order is pretty chill, in comparison to historical standards. It seems rash to claim maintaining it doesn't matter, and that's exactly what this rich white man has campaigned on.
yes it will... in worst case scenario, US will roll back to a state 20-30 years ago. by your descriptions, people were committing suicides en mass or were put down like feral animals or whatever the heck you meant with your emotional outcry.
It seems not so long ago when Obama was criticized for his inability to do many changes he promised to do, simply because the image of US president holding all the possible power in the US is an illusion, for a very long time.
Personally, I don't care much about his racism, bigotry etc, many powerful people are like that, they just don't admit it openly to the media. What I care about is long-term chances of mankind for survival on this beautiful little blue ball, the only home we will have as a mankind for a very, very long time.
And in this topic, he seemed... pretty horrible in every single way. well, fuck.
> What I care about is long-term chances of mankind for survival on this beautiful little blue ball, the only home we will have as a mankind for a very, very long time.
Exactly. And what we need now is stability, a chance to continue to grow the technological civilization. Because if we fuck it up this time, it's gonna take many thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years before anyone will come close to industrial revolution again. All the low-tech, high-density energy sources have been used up. If the current system stops, there's no restarting. So could we all please focus on stabilizing and improving it, instead of fucking with it in spite, because someone else was born richer than me?
> You might be willing to take those risks that Donald Trump is not the man he says he is
What if the things staying the same are the larger risk? The current status quo (a change from the past) isn't sustainable for many.
> The world might not go on for the Muslim hoping to immigrate to our country.
Be specific - which criteria is keeping them out? Why do they want to come to the US?
> poor pregnant women who might not get access to a safe abortion
You mean who get illegal abort?
> who [sees] a president who brags about sexually assaulting women
because it was publicized as part of a smear campaign. What about the public officials who see the email scandal, and that it didn't hurt president Clinton?
Like Trump said, what of Bill Clintons affair? No moralizing over that?
> trans person who is no longer allowed in the bathroom in which they feel the most comfortable
Lets say this really was a "world-ender"; What about the people who share that bathroom, who are also "uncomfortable"? Are subjective feeling only meaningful if exhibited by the trans community?
This sounds like a statement from someone of privileged. You might be willing to take those risks that Donald Trump is not the man he says he is. Either way, the world will likely go on for you. The world might not go on for the Muslim hoping to immigrate to our country. The world might not go on for the citizen of Mexican descent who might see their parents deported. The world might not go on for the poor pregnant women who might not get access to a safe abortion. The world might not go on for the diabetic who can no longer afford insurance because of their preexisting condition. The world might not go on for the teenage girl who seems a president who brags about sexually assaulting women. The world might not go on for the gay man who might lose the ability to marry the person he loves. The world might not go on for the black teen who is stopped and frisked. The world might not go on for the trans person who is no longer allowed in the bathroom in which they feel the most comfortable.