Presidential Election Aftermath: What Now / What Next?

I don't have any issue with it at all. It's funny how a lot of the rhetoric on the right is about how the left gets easily offended over everything and how that damages free speech. And then Trump gets all butt hurt when a few actors exercise their free speech to deliver a civil message.

 

I thought it was appropriate. It wasn't like the cast was yelling profanities at Mike Pence. He was referred to as "sir". If it wasn't appropriate, I would like to know when and where the cast would ever get another chance to have the VP-elect as an audience.

 

Yeah, at least he was respectful in his address... I guess the media on both sides are just blowing it up.

 

I don't know, I kinda feel like private businesses don't really exist in a vacuum. They exist in a community to serve that community. They benefit from the protections provided to them by the state. The roads and other services paid for by the municipality benefit them as well. They essentially operate legally and socially as a quasi-public space. In other words, the kitchen in my house is not exactly the same as the restaurant down the street. The restaurant owner has much more responsibilities than the dude sitting at home on his couch.

And on that note, the thing with the whole "the free market will handle this" argument is that it sounds nice in theory, but how will it actually work in reality?

I honestly don't know. It's my opinion that you'll have so many micro-environments where the free market won't operate ideally. For example, if you have a grocery store in the deep south and the owner chooses to only sell to the 85% white community and not the 15% non-white community. In theory, another grocery store would open to fill this need. But due to it's distance from everyone else, the capitol costs are too high to justify opening another grocery store to service 15% of the community. Now the 15% non-white community is materially affected and likely unable to continue living in the town.

Also, are people really going to stop going to an establishment even if the owner(s) are blatantly discriminatory and racist?

Most good willed people fall under the category of not racist, totally denounce racist actions and words, but not bothered enough by racism/discrimination towards others to change their habits. Isn't that what essentially happened with the election? You have people who say they detest his bigoted campaign rhetoric, but voted for Trump anyways, because of lower taxes and stuff. Hell, I stopped eating at Chick-fil-A for a couple of years when I found out their CEO doesn't think gays should be allowed to marry, but I eventually went back and ate there again anyways. And from a historical perspective, before the Civil Rights movement, there was no indication the market would quickly change things. Why would anyone at the bottom support waiting for the market to eventually work it out on its own?

 

1) Businesses don't exist to serve the community. They exist to serve their own interests. They're not charities offering free lunches.

2) Roads and services aren't paid by the municipality. They are paid by taxpayers. Which includes businesses.

3) No. Private property is private property. There is no quasi-public space. A person's private business is the same as their private home.

4)

You forget to mention that before the Civil Rights act, Jim Crow laws forbade businesses from deciding on their own if they wanted to segregate or not. Businesses were forced to segregate. If they didn't, they would be prosecuted.

After the Civil Rights Act, they are now forced to serve everyone.

So these businesses in Jim Crow territories have never really been allowed to discriminate on their own.

When a business is actually allowed to decide if they want to refuse service to anybody, how many would actually do it? I doubt many would in the 21st century. Even whites would be appalled at such treatment of non-whites since many whites have friends and even relatives who aren't white. So you risk alienating all people from your store.

Also, brick and mortar stores face another non-discriminating factor. The internet. Internet stores cannot discriminate even if they wanted to. There's no way for them to know who's purchasing their products. Brick and mortar stores simply cannot afford to discriminate at all in the 21st century. There's too much competition from too many sources.

 

And their own interests are often aligned with the community they wish to profit off of.

Yea that's what I mean, they are paid for by the community as a whole. They benefit from many government services, therefore they have some basic societal responsibilities to uphold.

I disagree, a business is not the same as an individual. The moment you create a business you have a high impact on your community compared to someone sitting at home. A business owner that discriminates hurts us all. Business owners have additional legal obligations compared to people in truly private spaces.

Discrimination began when humans on earth first met each other. Market forces were left to operate for thousands of years prior to Jim Crow laws. During that time market forces didn't stop discrimination from happening.

And yeah, I agree people would be appalled, but do you and I really know if that's enough to actually change people's habits long term to the point where it significantly influences a businesses' bottom line? I personally don't think so. Again, from my own personal view for example, I consider myself an ardent supporter of gay rights, way before it was actually popular to support it. I'm talking about like 07-08 on the front lines of No on Prop 8 campaign in CA. That being said, after a short boycott of Chick-fil-A I still ended up eating there anyways because their establishment is close to where I live, is convenient, and honestly delicious.

I agree about the internet, urban and suburban areas, but not in rural places, where you often have just one gas station, one grocery store, one pharmacy etc. Hence my reference to micro-environments. I just don't believe the invisible hand of the free market is going to work the way a lot of libertarians think it's going to work.

 

Stein wants a recount now in WI, MI, and PA.

Why not suggest a re-do where you drop out and let Hillary win WI and MI? PA would have been very close, too.

 

There's going to be no re-count.... There's also all this talk about California separating from the States.... So dumb, not going to happen.

 

I'm glad things are calming down. At least I'm not hearing about it any longer. I think everyone is just in wait and see mode to see if there are positive changes that are long overdue. The course we've been on as a country has not been sustainable, so my hope is that any changes that are made are towards that effect in a positive way.

 

Every President would need to play his/her part in reducing that number.

Unfortunately that would mean massive cutbacks everywhere, and no President wants to be known for cutting everyone's pay and slowing the economy. Nor would any President who promised to do that would even have a chance at election.

Unless...unless the country gets a wake-up call. We got one by electing Trump, how about another when America goes bankrupt?

 

Recounts are fairly common and they occur after every election.

 

Not really, but okay.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ed-klein-hillary-recount/2016/11/30/id/761363/

Again it's Newsmax so not a grain of ... but whole shaker of salt to be taken with.

But if true, the last paragraph ..... Bill's still pissed she marginalized him and wouldn't listen to him.

Hillary hitting the wine hard .....?