Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

[ProfessorTomoe 1,308]

I couldn't sit through the "press conference" today. IMHO, too much wordspray and BS. I turned it off while before the lawyer came in.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

Trump says no one cares about his tax returns except reporters.   Ethics experts are already saying his plan for his businesses doesn't go nearly far enough to prevent conflict of interest shenanigans.  He refused to take a question from a CNN reporter because he claims their entire organization is "fake news." I think that's the highlights.

[mlooney 3,417]

2 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Trump says no one cares about his tax returns except reporters.   Ethics experts are already saying his plan for his businesses doesn't go nearly far enough to prevent conflict of interest shenanigans.  He refused to take a question from a CNN reporter because he claims their entire organization is "fake news." I think that's the highlights.

It's going to be a lonnnng four years.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

I have often entertained the fantasy of running for office by shamelessly pandering to the lowest common denominator among the electorate.  Then, upon taking office, launch an aggressive agenda of moderate progressive legislation.

The President Elect executed the first part of that plan flawlessly.

[ProfessorTomoe 1,308]

I don't see the second part of your plan coming to fruition any time soon.

[ijuin 572]

Yes, the problem with any Presidential agenda is that a great deal of it must be approved bu Congress before it can be enacted, as the "legislating by Executive Order" method can be reversed as soon as a contrary President takes office, as we shall soon doubtlessly be seeing happen.

[Vorlonagent 442]

I'm waiting to see what Trump actually does.  He's always been a big-talker, but BS walks.  Money talks.  Where will Trump put his money (defined as time spent off the cameras and bully pulpit time in front of them)?

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

Populist pandering

[ProfessorTomoe 1,308]

All I can say is that after what took place Friday, I need to get some alcohol into my system. Time for a trip to the local craft beer store.

[ProfessorTomoe 1,308]

@The Old Hack : Is your inbox full? I tried to ask you an offline question, but the system says you can't receive messages.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

12 minutes ago, ProfessorTomoe said:

@The Old Hack : Is your inbox full? I tried to ask you an offline question, but the system says you can't receive messages.

Yes, it was. I just cleaned it out. Sorry about the inconvenience.

[ProfessorTomoe 1,308]

53 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Yes, it was. I just cleaned it out. Sorry about the inconvenience.

No problemo.

[ProfessorTomoe 1,308]

I hope I can stay within established (and re-confirmed) boundaries here. The new administration has boggled my mind. Why raise such a stink about the reporting of the inaugural crowd size, then come out and state what they're calling this morning "alternative facts" about the issue? Why is this even an issue in the administration's mind in the first place?

[ijuin 572]

I think it was a test to see how much they could get away with contradicting the media. Trump has repeatedly tried to cast the media as unreliable, and probably wants to see just how much he can get the public-at-large to trust his word over that of mainstream news reports.

[mlooney 3,417]

1 hour ago, ijuin said:

mainstream news reports.

*Only semi related freaking rant follows*

Fox News uses that term a lot.  They also claim to be the most watched cable news channel.

You can't have it both ways!  Either you ARE the mainstream source or you aren't  Pick one a stick to it.

[Vorlonagent 442]

10 hours ago, mlooney said:

*Only semi related freaking rant follows*

Fox News uses that term a lot.  They also claim to be the most watched cable news channel.

You can't have it both ways!  Either you ARE the mainstream source or you aren't  Pick one a stick to it.

"Mainestream Media" (sometimes abbreviated "MSM") is an established term of use.  It includes most traditional news sources: broadcast news, wire services, newspapers and cable news.  Fox is excluded from the definition. 

[Don Edwards 548]

If you look at the major commercial news sources, and look in their NEWS articles for thinly-disguised POLITICAL POSITIONS, you'll find that (a) Fox has less than most, and (b) nearly all of them agree - Fox being the biggest exception.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

News means change.

Those who already have power, privilege, authority, or wealth have acquired those advantages through the way things are or (more likely) the way things were.

So if legislation somehow gives the very poor some advantage, it necessarily means less of an advantage for the privileged class.  If only in that the difference between the classes has been slightly reduced.

[Vorlonagent 442]

36 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

So if legislation somehow gives the very poor some advantage, it necessarily means less of an advantage for the privileged class.  If only in that the difference between the classes has been slightly reduced.

I disagree with the word "necessarily".  Life is not a zero-sum game. 

[BurntAsh 10]

2 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

"Mainestream Media" (sometimes abbreviated "MSM") is an established term of use.  It includes most traditional news sources: broadcast news, wire services, newspapers and cable news.  Fox is excluded from the definition. 

Why is a self-described cable news channel excluded from a definition that includes cable news channels? Especially when there is nothing inherently different from the behaviors of say, Fox, MSNBC or CNN beyond their particular ideology that informs how they report on events and the editorial commentary they add to it (especially on the TV side of things)?

Anything else is Fox trying to create a definition such that they can claim an elevated status that they simply do not have. 

On 1/12/2017 at 5:14 PM, Vorlonagent said:

I'm waiting to see what Trump actually does.  He's always been a big-talker, but BS walks.  Money talks.  Where will Trump put his money (defined as time spent off the cameras and bully pulpit time in front of them)?

Now that he's in office, we can see what he has started to do: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/world/trump-ban-foreign-aid-abortions.html

This tells me he would be willing to sign in a federal TRAP law if congress can get it to his desk, along with the fact that Trump himself is pro-life, has commented about the possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned in post-election interviews, and is backing it up with action.  Yes, congress has to actually get it to his desk, but they don't have to do it in a veto-proof way like they would have had to under Obama. 

For me, one of the big red flags I'm also looking out for is if Trump rolls back the LGBT protections in federal hiring that Obama instituted. That would tell me me he'd be willing to sign in expansions to the RFRA to mimic those like Pence signed into law in Indiana, taking it that step further than the Hobby Lobby ruling alone did (which, while a reproductive rights loss, is also a great wedge for anti-LGBT issues as well). Right now, I honestly don't know where he'd land here, since early on in his campaign he spoke out against the law Pence signed in, but then picked Pence to be VP. So I'm waiting for the red flags to see which way he'll actually go. But he's got enough people surrounding him that are anti-LGBT now that I can't seriously take past Trump at his word, and expect them to be 100% unable to influence or otherwise affect his viewpoint on this particular topic. 

I'm personally less concerned about the economic policy stuff. I don't think it'll do what Trump thinks it will do (I don't think any single candidate or economic ideology will ever actually do the things we think it will do when it comes to economics), but the US has survived in the wake of these sorts of policies, so it will be what it will be. I'm more concerned about the gradual erosion of civil rights that took an awful lot of time to even get a handhold on, and undermine the ability for those in the affected groups to maintain or gain some semblance of economic security. Especially when it comes to a President who talks of deals, but the whole point of a deal is that you get what you want, and maybe you give up something you care less about to get what you want. Last thing I want to see is that the anti-LGBT groups within the Republican party convince him that giving them an expanded RFRA in exchange for a Trump policy that the Republicans are normally not all that enthusiastic about (giant infrastructure bill perhaps) is a "good deal". 

4 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

I disagree with the word "necessarily".  Life is not a zero-sum game. 

On this point, I mostly agree. But I'd argue it depends on the measuring stick you are using as well. Are we talking about a more subjective quality of life, or the actual measure of wealth of a given family? And what is the goal of our economy, and is it moving towards that goal or away, and why? 

I'll be honest in saying if the goal of the economy is growth of the economy, then I don't think we actually have a goal. And I suspect there are a plethora of answers out there if we asked around on what the goal of the economy is. 

[ProfessorTomoe 1,308]

I wish we could set up a separate "alternative facts" thread. I imagine it would be fun to fill.

[Vorlonagent 442]

1 hour ago, BurntAsh said:

Why is a self-described cable news channel excluded from a definition that includes cable news channels? Especially when there is nothing inherently different from the behaviors of say, Fox, MSNBC or CNN beyond their particular ideology that informs how they report on events and the editorial commentary they add to it (especially on the TV side of things)?

Anything else is Fox trying to create a definition such that they can claim an elevated status that they simply do not have.

MSM as a term predates the inception of Fox News.  It connotes old-guard news media, which Fox is not. 

As Don Edwards pointed out, it also connotes liberal-biased news media in conservative circles, which Fox also is not.

1 hour ago, BurntAsh said:

Now that he's in office, we can see what he has started to do: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/world/trump-ban-foreign-aid-abortions.html

This tells me he would be willing to sign in a federal TRAP law if congress can get it to his desk, along with the fact that Trump himself is pro-life, has commented about the possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned in post-election interviews, and is backing it up with action.  Yes, congress has to actually get it to his desk, but they don't have to do it in a veto-proof way like they would have had to under Obama. 

For me, one of the big red flags I'm also looking out for is if Trump rolls back the LGBT protections in federal hiring that Obama instituted. That would tell me me he'd be willing to sign in expansions to the RFRA to mimic those like Pence signed into law in Indiana, taking it that step further than the Hobby Lobby ruling alone did (which, while a reproductive rights loss, is also a great wedge for anti-LGBT issues as well). Right now, I honestly don't know where he'd land here, since early on in his campaign he spoke out against the law Pence signed in, but then picked Pence to be VP. So I'm waiting for the red flags to see which way he'll actually go. But he's got enough people surrounding him that are anti-LGBT now that I can't seriously take past Trump at his word, and expect them to be 100% unable to influence or otherwise affect his viewpoint on this particular topic. 

I'm personally less concerned about the economic policy stuff. I don't think it'll do what Trump thinks it will do (I don't think any single candidate or economic ideology will ever actually do the things we think it will do when it comes to economics), but the US has survived in the wake of these sorts of policies, so it will be what it will be. I'm more concerned about the gradual erosion of civil rights that took an awful lot of time to even get a handhold on, and undermine the ability for those in the affected groups to maintain or gain some semblance of economic security. Especially when it comes to a President who talks of deals, but the whole point of a deal is that you get what you want, and maybe you give up something you care less about to get what you want. Last thing I want to see is that the anti-LGBT groups within the Republican party convince him that giving them an expanded RFRA in exchange for a Trump policy that the Republicans are normally not all that enthusiastic about (giant infrastructure bill perhaps) is a "good deal".

I consider this action in your news story to be small potatoes.  A conservative administration is practically obligated to do something like this.  Trump has fences to mend with his party to govern effectively.  He's going to do some stuff like this just so he can make his big projects happen.  I'm primarily concerned with what the big projects are.

Roe v Wade is a Supreme Court decision.  No amount of legislation can overturn it.  Congress could cut federal support for abortions and attempt to finesse the states into doing the same, but Congress cannot eliminate the option without a Supreme Court decision that strikes down Roe.

Likewise gay rights have been affirmed by the supreme court.  I sincerely doubt that those rights will get a bit more than nibbling around the edges.  Stores and restaurants might gain the ability to refuse to serve GLBTs.  I can't see allowing anything more extreme passing Supreme Court muster.

Anyway, such eroding legislation has to get through the Senate, where it would no doubt get a "hold" slapped on it.  Without 60 votes to break it loose, or the Republicans decide to change the filibuster rules, that's as far as that is going to go.  It's possible some stuff will get slipped into future budget bills, however.  But even a law would still have to survive a Supreme Court challenge. 

Trump will replace a dead conservative Supreme Court Justiice with another one and all that will do is preserve the Court's 4 + 1 + 4 ideological balance at worst.  But that's before we take into account Justice Kennedy as a wildcard or Chief Justice Roberts' occasional breaks from his fellow conservative justices as he sometimes does.  Kennedy or one of the Liberal judges has to die or retire before any Constitutional shifts can take place. 

1 hour ago, BurntAsh said:

On this point, I mostly agree. But I'd argue it depends on the measuring stick you are using as well. Are we talking about a more subjective quality of life, or the actual measure of wealth of a given family? And what is the goal of our economy, and is it moving towards that goal or away, and why? 

I'll be honest in saying if the goal of the economy is growth of the economy, then I don't think we actually have a goal. And I suspect there are a plethora of answers out there if we asked around on what the goal of the economy is. 

I'm more concerned about the economy than you are.  A languid economy such as Obama's policies gave us is an economy with limited opportunity.  A better economy gives better opportunity (life is not a zero-sum game). 

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

32 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

I disagree with the word "necessarily".  Life is not a zero-sum game

Life does not need to be a zero-sum game.

But it can made to appear as such.

That is a significant portion of political spin.  Convincing your target audience that a change for one group either is, or is not, a loss for your target audience group.

[BurntAsh 10]

14 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

MSM as a term predates the inception of Fox News.  It connotes old-guard news media, which Fox is not. 

As Don Edwards pointed out, it also connotes liberal-biased news media in conservative circles, which Fox also is not.

And the thing is, I don't really buy either version of it. Because I'm looking at it from a wider scope where to create a connotation that Fox is somehow unique and special relies on a particular ideology to work. It's not a useful tool other than to be a dog whistle and a wink to the audience you hope to cultivate. Fox is no less an echo chamber than NBC is, and no more or less dangerous to the public at large. 

But I find it a bit funny that CNN, NBC and Fox are all huge conglomerates dating back quite a ways, but somehow Fox is somehow unique in that it isn't old guard, despite being run by the same sort of media moguls that run CNN and NBC. 

14 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I consider this action in your news story to be small potatoes.  A conservative administration is practically obligated to do something like this.  Trump has fences to mend with his party to govern effectively.  He's going to do some stuff like this just so he can make his big projects happen.  I'm primarily concerned with what the big projects are.

Roe v Wade is a Supreme Court decision.  No amount of legislation can overturn it.  Congress could cut federal support for abortions and attempt to finesse the states into doing the same, but Congress cannot eliminate the option without a Supreme Court decision that strikes down Roe.

Defunding equates with limiting access. While it doesn't strike at the letter of Roe v Wade, it does strike at the spirit of it. And you only need to look to Texas' TRAP laws to see the effect that a national TRAP law could have on a larger scale. And as you say, while filibusters could hold things up, that's about the only real roadblock with the way things are right now.

14 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Likewise gay rights have been affirmed by the supreme court.  I sincerely doubt that those rights will get a bit more than nibbling around the edges.  Stores and restaurants might gain the ability to refuse to serve GLBTs.  I can't see allowing anything more extreme passing Supreme Court muster.

This is actually a bigger issue than you suggest, because the bolded is EXACTLY the problem I'm afraid of seeing, because it comes hand in hand with other forms of discrimination. The trans community already faces issues maintaining employment and housing due to this form of discrimination, and codifying it into law that a business can decide to not serve customers due to this, also helps codify the practices of being able to fire someone for coming out as trans, or denying them housing (since it is a business arrangement). Especially if RFRA laws don't include exemptions, which many haven't really done. 

The religious grounds that have been used to justify segregation (and the "right" to deny black people service at stores and restaurants), and bans on interracial marriage, are now being used against the LGBT community, and we are seeing such laws being pushed in many states. Same for various transphobic bathroom bills with varying levels of success. Again, if we talk about erosion, these are the sorts of setbacks that if codified, have wider implications than usually thought about initially, and then have to build effort to undo them with another political landscape change. 

14 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Trump will replace a dead conservative Supreme Court Justiice with another one and all that will do is preserve the Court's 4 + 1 + 4 ideological balance at worst.  But that's before we take into account Justice Kennedy as a wildcard or Chief Justice Roberts' occasional breaks from his fellow conservative justices as he sometimes does.  Kennedy or one of the Liberal judges has to die or retire before any Constitutional shifts can take place. 

Agreed. Although so far, there's been movement to erode what is possible to erode at the state level, so it isn't entirely unfair to be concerned about that trickling up to the federal level with the current political landscape. Considering it's already happening piecemeal around the country.

14 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I'm more concerned about the economy than you are.  A languid economy such as Obama's policies gave us is an economy with limited opportunity.  A better economy gives better opportunity (life is not a zero-sum game). 

And here's the thing, I'm not really sure any President's policies created any particular problem or boon for our economy. We had a massive recession happen not that long ago under Bush's watch. And how much good from lax regulation and enforcement was erased when the economic bubble popped? Would we have had a better recovery with more lax regulations under McCain or Romney? Not really convinced, actually. Short-term, perhaps, but would we just be feeding another bubble down the road and repeat the cycle?

But I'm also not very convinced that Trump's policies will get to the heart of the problem either. He's failed to target offshoring of middle-class tech jobs (which would be a good target for the blue collar jobs of the future), completely ignored H1Bs (which is an educational problem), hasn't really said word one about small businesses, and focused entirely on manufacturing, oil resources and big tech (who are looking for a solution to the educational problem). Manufacturing that will not be coming back to the US in the same shape it left. We still do a lot of manufacturing, despite losing just under 8 million jobs since 1980 on that front. We do more manufacturing now than we did in 1980. The automation that allows us to do more manufacturing with fewer people, is the same thing that would prevent a lot of job creation if we did bring a bunch of manufacturing back to the US through tariffs and other means. And the short term effect of those tariffs would be to hurt consumer spending, not improve it. And in the long term, the best you can hope for is that they produce locally, and provide a few jobs. But odds are automation will prevent us from ever seeing 1980s levels of manufacturing jobs. And at the end of the day, manufacturing is less than 10% of the job market in the US. Maybe you could get it up back into the double digits, but that's still going to leave a lot of people in the lurch looking for good jobs that aren't there. But it sure might help the rust belt a bit, assuming any manufacturing comes back to the rust belt instead of picking a new location. It's too complicated to really even have any idea how any of this will play out or if it will even move the needle in the face of the much larger economic engine.

I'd have loved to see something target small business specifically, because they employ over half the working population, produce roughly 2/3rds of the new jobs, and thus are something worth looking at if you want to move the lever. They'll benefit a bit from tax adjustments, but not nearly as much as the larger corporations. I'd have loved to see something about the protectionist laws that these larger businesses get from government that make it harder for competition to form in certain industries, but so far nothing. So I'm not convinced his policies will be any better or worse than Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc, etc. When you get too focused on a particular lever, or a particular economic ideology as the "correct approach", you wind up fiddling with your lever for four years while the larger economy continues to do what it does. And at the end you are left with the public picking or rejecting you based on the presumption that your little lever did more/less than it actually did. 

Here's the thing, I feel for the folks who are facing economic uncertainty due to how the jobs market has evolved over the last 30 years. It sucks when the growth is in locations you cannot uproot and move to, or in industries you have no experience in, while your industry is shedding jobs. But I've seen nothing from any candidate for 2016 that really gets to the heart of the matter and helps those in that situation in the long-term. Nor have I seen anything about steering the economy towards the industries of tomorrow where we face a constantly growing amount of automation. 

That's why I'm not terribly concerned about it, because I'm honestly not seeing anything coming from anyone that suggests picking someone based on their economic policies actually does jack diddly squat for the economy beyond steering investment decisions that were going to be made anyways, and maybe being able to steer towards certain markets and industries. Not so much how many jobs you'll get out of the deal/etc. So when I compare that to the reality that these newly gained rights are not as solid as they seem to be at first glance, there are areas where the rights are still lacking across the country, and we have members of a party that make it part of their platform to erode rights that we thought were settled decades ago, I'm going to be a bit more concerned about the rights side of things. 

 

EDIT: And I'll just add, that as a likely member of a community that faces discrimination in housing and employment already, it doesn't matter one whit to me what the economy does if people are allowed to limit or prevent me from being able to take part in it through their discriminatory behavior, protected by law. And that reality has already had an impact on how I feel like I can explore who I really am, even without Trump in the picture. But you can bet I am concerned for myself, and my sisters and brothers in similar situations. 

[Vorlonagent 442]

15 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

And the thing is, I don't really buy either version of it. Because I'm looking at it from a wider scope where to create a connotation that Fox is somehow unique and special relies on a particular ideology to work. It's not a useful tool other than to be a dog whistle and a wink to the audience you hope to cultivate. Fox is no less an echo chamber than NBC is, and no more or less dangerous to the public at large. 

But I find it a bit funny that CNN, NBC and Fox are all huge conglomerates dating back quite a ways, but somehow Fox is somehow unique in that it isn't old guard, despite being run by the same sort of media moguls that run CNN and NBC.

I don't know what to tell you then.  You are welcome to your own definitions of things.  I've found they make a hash of discussions like this because we're using the same words for different concepts.

I agree that Fox' news reporting is biased conservative.  It practically can't be otherwise.  Fox is so hated in so many corners, I would think it very easy to want to push back.  But Fox' conservative bias does set it apart from news sources it is otherwise similar to. 

Moreover Fox News is a creature born of politics.  If there wasn't a liberal hegemony in the mainstream media (my version of the term) there would be no conservative audience for Fox to grow so large serving.  By comparison Al Gore's "liberal cable news network", whatever he actually called it, died a quick and miserable death precisely because the market for liberal news was already saturated.  People were already getting what he was selling elsewhere.  Same story for liberals on talk radio, most notably the talk radio network Air America.  People were getting their daily dose of radio-liberalism elsewhere, presumably from NPR.

16 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

Defunding equates with limiting access. While it doesn't strike at the letter of Roe v Wade, it does strike at the spirit of it. And you only need to look to Texas' TRAP laws to see the effect that a national TRAP law could have on a larger scale. And as you say, while filibusters could hold things up, that's about the only real roadblock with the way things are right now.

This is actually a bigger issue than you suggest, because the bolded is EXACTLY the problem I'm afraid of seeing, because it comes hand in hand with other forms of discrimination. The trans community already faces issues maintaining employment and housing due to this form of discrimination, and codifying it into law that a business can decide to not serve customers due to this, also helps codify the practices of being able to fire someone for coming out as trans, or denying them housing (since it is a business arrangement). Especially if RFRA laws don't include exemptions, which many haven't really done. 

The religious grounds that have been used to justify segregation (and the "right" to deny black people service at stores and restaurants), and bans on interracial marriage, are now being used against the LGBT community, and we are seeing such laws being pushed in many states. Same for various transphobic bathroom bills with varying levels of success. Again, if we talk about erosion, these are the sorts of setbacks that if codified, have wider implications than usually thought about initially, and then have to build effort to undo them with another political landscape change. 

Agreed. Although so far, there's been movement to erode what is possible to erode at the state level, so it isn't entirely unfair to be concerned about that trickling up to the federal level with the current political landscape. Considering it's already happening piecemeal around the country.

No argument that it's going to be a bumpy few years. 

But if these social conservative projects are what dominate Trump's agenda, it's the quickest way to lose power.  That's what destroyed the lock on government power that the Democrats got in 2009: Getting drunk with power and deciding to embark on some grand social crusade.  If you are worried about inroads against established rights, it's better for your enemy to overreach, as the Democrats did with Obamacare, and get their wings clipped in the midterms in 2 years.  What you do NOT want is for the Republicans to actually take care of business, shore up the economy, bring down the deficit and roll back social advances with a death of 1000 small cuts.

Really there is no need for concern until and unless the Senate changes the Filibuster rules.  There's only so much anybody can do with the Senate hogtied.  Trump can use his executive power as Obama did and cancel what Obama did but them's the breaks.  Do things the easy way, lose them the easy way.
 

 

16 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

And here's the thing, I'm not really sure any President's policies created any particular problem or boon for our economy. We had a massive recession happen not that long ago under Bush's watch. And how much good from lax regulation and enforcement was erased when the economic bubble popped? Would we have had a better recovery with more lax regulations under McCain or Romney? Not really convinced, actually. Short-term, perhaps, but would we just be feeding another bubble down the road and repeat the cycle?

But I'm also not very convinced that Trump's policies will get to the heart of the problem either. He's failed to target offshoring of middle-class tech jobs (which would be a good target for the blue collar jobs of the future), completely ignored H1Bs (which is an educational problem), hasn't really said word one about small businesses, and focused entirely on manufacturing, oil resources and big tech (who are looking for a solution to the educational problem). Manufacturing that will not be coming back to the US in the same shape it left. We still do a lot of manufacturing, despite losing just under 8 million jobs since 1980 on that front. We do more manufacturing now than we did in 1980. The automation that allows us to do more manufacturing with fewer people, is the same thing that would prevent a lot of job creation if we did bring a bunch of manufacturing back to the US through tariffs and other means. And the short term effect of those tariffs would be to hurt consumer spending, not improve it. And in the long term, the best you can hope for is that they produce locally, and provide a few jobs. But odds are automation will prevent us from ever seeing 1980s levels of manufacturing jobs. And at the end of the day, manufacturing is less than 10% of the job market in the US. Maybe you could get it up back into the double digits, but that's still going to leave a lot of people in the lurch looking for good jobs that aren't there. But it sure might help the rust belt a bit, assuming any manufacturing comes back to the rust belt instead of picking a new location. It's too complicated to really even have any idea how any of this will play out or if it will even move the needle in the face of the much larger economic engine.

I'd have loved to see something target small business specifically, because they employ over half the working population, produce roughly 2/3rds of the new jobs, and thus are something worth looking at if you want to move the lever. They'll benefit a bit from tax adjustments, but not nearly as much as the larger corporations. I'd have loved to see something about the protectionist laws that these larger businesses get from government that make it harder for competition to form in certain industries, but so far nothing. So I'm not convinced his policies will be any better or worse than Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc, etc. When you get too focused on a particular lever, or a particular economic ideology as the "correct approach", you wind up fiddling with your lever for four years while the larger economy continues to do what it does. And at the end you are left with the public picking or rejecting you based on the presumption that your little lever did more/less than it actually did. 

Here's the thing, I feel for the folks who are facing economic uncertainty due to how the jobs market has evolved over the last 30 years. It sucks when the growth is in locations you cannot uproot and move to, or in industries you have no experience in, while your industry is shedding jobs. But I've seen nothing from any candidate for 2016 that really gets to the heart of the matter and helps those in that situation in the long-term. Nor have I seen anything about steering the economy towards the industries of tomorrow where we face a constantly growing amount of automation. 

That's why I'm not terribly concerned about it, because I'm honestly not seeing anything coming from anyone that suggests picking someone based on their economic policies actually does jack diddly squat for the economy beyond steering investment decisions that were going to be made anyways, and maybe being able to steer towards certain markets and industries. Not so much how many jobs you'll get out of the deal/etc. So when I compare that to the reality that these newly gained rights are not as solid as they seem to be at first glance, there are areas where the rights are still lacking across the country, and we have members of a party that make it part of their platform to erode rights that we thought were settled decades ago, I'm going to be a bit more concerned about the rights side of things. 

 

EDIT: And I'll just add, that as a likely member of a community that faces discrimination in housing and employment already, it doesn't matter one whit to me what the economy does if people are allowed to limit or prevent me from being able to take part in it through their discriminatory behavior, protected by law. And that reality has already had an impact on how I feel like I can explore who I really am, even without Trump in the picture. But you can bet I am concerned for myself, and my sisters and brothers in similar situations. 

We haven't seen yet what Trump will or won't do for the economy or what segment.  Don't talk like we're 3 years into his term.  We're not.  All you have to go on are Clinton Campaign rhetoric for predictions of what Trump will do and that stuff was designed to scare you.  Get a few data points before you start drawing lines.

And CERTAINLY do not write yourself out of the economy because you feel you won't be allowed in.  That's just self-inflicted pain and you don't need that.

Social conservatives are going to make some inroads.  That's to be expected, but don't blow small losses into big ones or you'll never have any peace of mind, ever.  Separate what you're concerned a loss would mean from what it actually means.  Comfort your fears and strive for the reassurance of an honest, not emotionally-charged assessment.