Just like they would kill everyone on a bus, or in a tight group of cars, or on a plane, or in a building next to a large gas line, or, or, or - the ability of a person willing to deploy high explosives to kill people is not suddenly going to go from a current impossible/improbable to Big Risk because of this form of transit, should it get built. People are ALREADY killed in large numbers by other people with explosives on a fairly regular basis, and have been for decades (not counting shooting wars, which of course have been doing that for centuries).
The difference is that Clinton is the one who has spent years in and around public office lying and collecting huge amounts of money while selling access via her or her husband's executive power. She's the one who did things, while in public office, that would put anyone else under her into jail... and she lied about that non-stop and is still doing so. She's the one who was taking mountains of cash from foreigners and foreign governments, including from people who are the very antithesis of the positions she claims to stake out when pandering to the demographic she's pretending to serve. Both of them say lots of nonsense, but she's the one who destroyed government documents under subpoena, played fast and loose with classified information, and enriched herself - to the tune of millions of dollars - by selling access and campaign influence, including to foreign governments. The liberal media has the entire narrative so perfectly, absolutely, exquisitely backwards that it would be hilarious if it weren't so squalid and ugly.
Point is you don't even have to look at decades past - the Democrats lost control at the state and federal level during Obama's watch, and Hillary's whining about this having happened just to her is just another example of how disingenuous a liar she is.
Everyone knows that Hilary was by far the better candidate and has a brilliant record of public administrator
Hilarious. She was a terrible candidate, hated by much of her own party, and has a career full of lying, corruption, feckless management, carelessness with classified information (and more lying about that), endless throwing-under-the-buss of her friends, associates and staff, and lots of backing up of her husband's abusive sexual predation, even to taking advantage of her power and connections in the White House to dispatch people YOU pay with your tax dollars to smear the reputations of the women he abused. She's a raving hypocrite famous for yelling obscenities at her protective details and coming unglued under pressure. She was a terrible Secretary of State and would have made an especially corrupt, awful president.
Yeah, doing things like blowing up Putin's client states aircraft, not undoing many Obama-era executive movements against Russia, that sort of thing. Nothing but warm and fuzzy.
No, it wasn't the Russians. It was the Democrats. Since the day Obama took office, it's been going down hill. There's a reason that over those years and right up through the most recent election, they've lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who left in disgust. If you really think that the Russians buying a few hundred thousand dollars worth of FB ads overturned Hillary's 140 MILLION in ad spending, to make her fail despite her consistent honesty, genuine affability, long string of tremendous policy and executive successes, and careful tending to matters of security and whatnot... never mind. You know why she lost.
Your only specific example is DC, a jurisdiction under the explicit control of Congress
No, congress does not run the DC school board or the DC school system. Which you know, though you're implying they do so you can cravenly dodge the substance of the matter. Nice attempt to avoid the reality of the situation. I cite DC because YOU, along with me, get to pay for a large portion of that very high per-student expense and its historically awful per-student results. Shall we examine the exact same problem in Baltimore, or Detroit, or Chicago?All cities run for decades, of course, by liberal Democrats. That contributes to the problem, but the root of it is the historically recent collapse of the family unit in the worst of those environments. It's simply become unfashionable to father a child and stick around to provide any sort of support, let alone help in getting educated and in forming a constructive world view when the kid's young and still malleable that way.
The examples of this problem are well studied, well known, and obvious to anyone who can momentarily open their eyes and pay attention. But because it's become politically incorrect to identify a kid's parents as the most important part of what shapes their character, their curiosity, their sense of discipline and all of the other features that allow them to actually make something out of being at school... we end up with people like you who will do anything to change the topic while whining like little anonymous bitches about it. Where'd you learn the lazy, juvenile, completely ineffective rhetorical distraction technique - at a bad school, or in a home where there wasn't an adult helping you to see how transparently obvious it is?
"Spending on schools" doesn't mean a damn thing. It's cultural, beginning and ending in the household. Why doesn't a single mom have the time to make sure her kid is studying and learning things? Because she's a single mom. Why? For many reasons, but mostly for having chosen to have a kid without the involvement of a father that gives a damn. When 70+% of a given demographic is born and raised in an environment where they have effectively no parental involvement, what on earth do you think that throwing more cash at failing schools is going to do to improve matters? Places like DC spend well over $10k per student per year, with far inferior results compared to other jurisdictions that spend half that. Why? Local culture. Period. It's not about the cash. A certain amount is required to provide the facilities, staff, and materials required. But when the kid's home culture is hostile to education and dismissive of the parent's role in creating a useful human being, that money - or three times that much money - is wasted.
If the people didn't give a fuck about what celebrities thought, they wouldn't have put one in the white House.
You weren't paying attention. The vast majority of high-profile celebrities (from the music, TV/Film, fashion, sports, and wider entertainment spectrum) breathlessly instructed you to vote for their chosen celebrity (Hillary Clinton), and poured the huge resources of their visibility, their shows, their concerts, and their social media machinery into making sure that their designated queen get the power to which she felt so entitled. And despite that enormously lopsided media environment, their celebrity-ness utterly failed to get her into office. It also didn't prevent the Democrats from having lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, and millions of two-time Obama voters who turned their backs on all of that celebrity finger-wagging and condescending lecturing and mockery, and decided that Clinton was exactly the corrupt, lying incompetent that she has demonstrated herself to be. Almost the entire celebrity industrial complex was denied the results they demanded.
And yet on any other day the users don't seem to destroy the equipment. It's like there was some mitigating event that people weren't prepared for.
In other news, all the home owners in Texas destroyed their own houses because they didn't have them built just right to withstand the right amount of water.
Really? That's what you're going with?
As even TFS you didn't read pointed out, the rental business went to enormous lengths to tell people how not to rack up repair charges by damaging equipment while shooting the sun. The eclipse, unlike a hurricane, came and went without a CHANGE of destroying any of that equipment until a human being set it up and pointed it directly at the sun without taking the precautions they were repeatedly told to take. As for people who choose to build a house in a regular flood plain and hurricane magnet like the gulf coast and then choose not buy flood insurance... actually that's not all that different. Gulf coast hurricanes can't damage a building you choose to build and occupy somewhere else.
No. No it did not. All of that rental equipment showed up in the users' hands in boxes or cases. The USERS are the people who destroyed the equipment. It's like saying the brick is what destroyed the chef's knife that someone was using to try to cut it in half. Why does any of that matter? Because usage like that just drip-drip-drip reinforces the notion that people aren't responsible for their own actions, and that particularly cancerous concept spreads into all sorts of dangerous places.
It must have really pissed them off to have a bunch of deplorables from the surrounding rural areas come in with their bass boats and gladly help them out despite the person they voted for insisting that those guys are all irredeemable racists, misogynists, xenophobes and homophobes. Yup, clinging to their out-dated hunting and fishing culture, nothing but ignorant hillbillies. Who dropped everything and came to help the urbanites who hate them so much. Hope the water recedes quickly so those loathsome guys will get their camo-painted duck hunting boat trailers out of the Starbucks parking lot ASAP. It's embarrassing to have to see them out there. Maybe antifa will help out and run them out of town with baseball bats and bear spray once those bubbas are done saving people's grandmas and house pets. Resist!
So who's the asshole that enforces the no-asshole rule?
What? Not putting up with assholes is the reasonable action. NOT enforcing the no-asshole rule is the assholish thing to do. Why would all of other employees consider the person who fires the asshole to be an asshole?
The problem, as I see it, is that far too many companies are more interested in the bottom line than in anything else.
Because we're in a highly competitive global economy. And if a company isn't focused on the bottom line, they cease to be company at all, and then hire and retain exactly zero employees because they have gone bankrupt. Would you buy the goods and services you use to run your life and household without always being aware of what those expenditures would do to your bottom line?
Because most people who risk everything they have to start and run a business don't like the idea of the government telling them who they have to hire.
The day after companies can effectively evaluate technical schools, they can evaluate company culture fit. Otherwise there is always one jerk at the table saying "I don't like him or personality" whenever they feel threatened.
It can take quite a while to find that someone's technical work isn't up to standards. But you can usually tell within a week that they're an asshole. Why stick with a problem that you know can't be solved? Next week you might, after some training, be a better coder or technical writer. But if you're an asshole, you're still going to be an asshole next week. The quickest way to chase away your good people is to ask them to put up with an asshole. And just like you, whether or not you'll admit it, everyone else can spot an asshole more or less instantly. Why would you want to work for someone who thinks that hiring a non-stop religious proselytizer, or raving SJW, or loud few chewer, or non-stop backstabber is a good thing to do?
Sure, it's just that the magic hand tends to press people downward rather than lift them up.
It's the magic hand's very reason for existing - to press down on costs and thus inspire competition. It's YOUR job to differentiate yourself from the next person (or company, or product, or service) so you can press upwards on price. It's almost like it's not someone else's job to simply make you comfortable while still somehow arranging for you to have a competitive marketplace in which to shop for cars, bananas, and portable electronics.
ah, still butthurt that Trump dealings with Moscow keep on piling up?
No, still highly amused that anonymous coward trolls think they're scoring some sort of rhetorical points in their safe space echo chamber by continuing to trot out the delusional narrative that Clinton lost the election, and the Democrats over years have lost nearly a thousand legislative seats and most of the governorships and both houses of congress, because Trump was working with the Russians... in some way that nobody can cite, and for which there is no evidence.
No surprise that he's already begun to done so though.
Really! Please, do tell. Which people working on his campaign has he pardoned because they were convicted of working with the Russians? Can't wait for your citation, since you obviously know things that even CNN isn't willing to lie about. Please, some links to those pardons. That would be great. No? Ah, I see.
What's fun is watching you stamp your feet and insist that someone is lying, when Clinton's own words on the subject are a quick Google search away. You know that, because you've already DONE it, and your shrill tone is a sure sign of how uncomfortable even YOU are that she came right out and prioritized finding Justices who "understand how the real world works" (not to be confused with how the constitution works - which is the territory in which the SCOTUS operates, as opposed to the legislature, which Clinton knew she'd have no control over. She repeatedly said that she'd be looking at what judges LOOK like. As with all of her base pandering, she was focused on the judge's heritage, gender, and political disposition, not the integrity of the constitution. She cited Sotomayor (she who proudly pointed out that being female and a Latina makes her a better interpreter of the Constitution than someone with different looking parents or different reproductive organs).
So, what's your problem with Gorsuch? Let me guess: he treats the actual words of the constitution as is they were deliberate and intentional and actually mean something. Intolerable! Another "wise Latina" would definitely be better, by definition, because of gender and heritage, right? That was Clinton's take on it, echoed not only during interviews but even during the debates. All of which you know, but that never stops you from lying in hopes that you'll score some more lazy ad hominem points in your childishly craven little anonymous posts. Coward.
No, they voted for the guy who published a list of prospective Supreme Court justices, and stuck to his promise - seating someone who actually understands the constitution and its checks and balances. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, even though she simply presumed that she'd be president, knew that she wouldn't have the legislature. Her part and supporters knew that too. Which is why she promised that she'd nominate SCOTUS justices that didn't have a background in constitutional law, but instead "knew what people were going through," so she could get around the legislature with judges willing to work around the constitution's only mechanism by which to change it (amendments).
Either one of those two people as president would be gone in a few years, and any executive orders they made or rescinded could be magic-wanded the other direction by a subsequent president. But SCOTUS nominations play a major role for decades. And on the table now or soon are some really important issues that require proper constitutionalists, not wanna-be legislators in those seats.
Meanwhile, I'll also happily take other actions Trump promised and has stuck to: dramatic reductions in redundant and destructive federal regulatory burdens, and already hugely reduced flow of illegal aliens streaming across our southern border, and more. I personally don't like the guy. But I'll take his mixed bag over Hillary's long history of crime and corruption any day. But mostly I'll take any SCOTUS nomination he picks (Gorsuch was ideal) over the sort of insanity that Clinton was promising to inflict on the constitution.
but the reality is they elected Trump because they have given up on truth
No, because they got tied of Hillary looking them in the eye and lying over and over and over again, and a huge media/celebrity/academia complex that knew she was lying but still doing their very best to giver her back the political power she and her husband had already used twice to enrich themselves. Trump's a blowhard, but you're confusing his tone with her extremely deliberate, systematic, and backed-by-the-media career of corruption and lying and she and her husband raked in millions of dollars selling political access. All while she took votes from places like Wisconsin for granted even as she called the people there irredeemably deplorable racists, and couldn't trouble her patronizing, condescending self to set foot in that state even once as the anointed Democratic queen to in waiting.
People who voted from Trump did so as a solid and resounding rebuke to her, her political camp, and people like you who still pretend they don't understand how disingenuous and phony was all of the establishment support for her candidacy.
Yes. They chant and march along with violent racist activists who call for the deaths of white people and cops. So yes, along with being good old fashioned fascist brown shirts who beat people to silence them, they're also just plain old racists.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like they would kill everyone on a bus, or in a tight group of cars, or on a plane, or in a building next to a large gas line, or, or, or - the ability of a person willing to deploy high explosives to kill people is not suddenly going to go from a current impossible/improbable to Big Risk because of this form of transit, should it get built. People are ALREADY killed in large numbers by other people with explosives on a fairly regular basis, and have been for decades (not counting shooting wars, which of course have been doing that for centuries).
The difference is that Clinton is the one who has spent years in and around public office lying and collecting huge amounts of money while selling access via her or her husband's executive power. She's the one who did things, while in public office, that would put anyone else under her into jail ... and she lied about that non-stop and is still doing so. She's the one who was taking mountains of cash from foreigners and foreign governments, including from people who are the very antithesis of the positions she claims to stake out when pandering to the demographic she's pretending to serve. Both of them say lots of nonsense, but she's the one who destroyed government documents under subpoena, played fast and loose with classified information, and enriched herself - to the tune of millions of dollars - by selling access and campaign influence, including to foreign governments. The liberal media has the entire narrative so perfectly, absolutely, exquisitely backwards that it would be hilarious if it weren't so squalid and ugly.
Point is you don't even have to look at decades past - the Democrats lost control at the state and federal level during Obama's watch, and Hillary's whining about this having happened just to her is just another example of how disingenuous a liar she is.
Everyone knows that Hilary was by far the better candidate and has a brilliant record of public administrator
Hilarious. She was a terrible candidate, hated by much of her own party, and has a career full of lying, corruption, feckless management, carelessness with classified information (and more lying about that), endless throwing-under-the-buss of her friends, associates and staff, and lots of backing up of her husband's abusive sexual predation, even to taking advantage of her power and connections in the White House to dispatch people YOU pay with your tax dollars to smear the reputations of the women he abused. She's a raving hypocrite famous for yelling obscenities at her protective details and coming unglued under pressure. She was a terrible Secretary of State and would have made an especially corrupt, awful president.
but with Putin, he's been a pussy-cat
Yeah, doing things like blowing up Putin's client states aircraft, not undoing many Obama-era executive movements against Russia, that sort of thing. Nothing but warm and fuzzy.
No, it wasn't the Russians. It was the Democrats. Since the day Obama took office, it's been going down hill. There's a reason that over those years and right up through the most recent election, they've lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who left in disgust. If you really think that the Russians buying a few hundred thousand dollars worth of FB ads overturned Hillary's 140 MILLION in ad spending, to make her fail despite her consistent honesty, genuine affability, long string of tremendous policy and executive successes, and careful tending to matters of security and whatnot ... never mind. You know why she lost.
Your only specific example is DC, a jurisdiction under the explicit control of Congress
No, congress does not run the DC school board or the DC school system. Which you know, though you're implying they do so you can cravenly dodge the substance of the matter. Nice attempt to avoid the reality of the situation. I cite DC because YOU, along with me, get to pay for a large portion of that very high per-student expense and its historically awful per-student results. Shall we examine the exact same problem in Baltimore, or Detroit, or Chicago?All cities run for decades, of course, by liberal Democrats. That contributes to the problem, but the root of it is the historically recent collapse of the family unit in the worst of those environments. It's simply become unfashionable to father a child and stick around to provide any sort of support, let alone help in getting educated and in forming a constructive world view when the kid's young and still malleable that way.
... we end up with people like you who will do anything to change the topic while whining like little anonymous bitches about it. Where'd you learn the lazy, juvenile, completely ineffective rhetorical distraction technique - at a bad school, or in a home where there wasn't an adult helping you to see how transparently obvious it is?
The examples of this problem are well studied, well known, and obvious to anyone who can momentarily open their eyes and pay attention. But because it's become politically incorrect to identify a kid's parents as the most important part of what shapes their character, their curiosity, their sense of discipline and all of the other features that allow them to actually make something out of being at school
He's too chickenshit to say it, but you know what he's talking about. It's the *coloreds*, and those greasy mexicans swarming across the borde
Wow, you're a racist, aren't you.
"Spending on schools" doesn't mean a damn thing. It's cultural, beginning and ending in the household. Why doesn't a single mom have the time to make sure her kid is studying and learning things? Because she's a single mom. Why? For many reasons, but mostly for having chosen to have a kid without the involvement of a father that gives a damn. When 70+% of a given demographic is born and raised in an environment where they have effectively no parental involvement, what on earth do you think that throwing more cash at failing schools is going to do to improve matters? Places like DC spend well over $10k per student per year, with far inferior results compared to other jurisdictions that spend half that. Why? Local culture. Period. It's not about the cash. A certain amount is required to provide the facilities, staff, and materials required. But when the kid's home culture is hostile to education and dismissive of the parent's role in creating a useful human being, that money - or three times that much money - is wasted.
If the people didn't give a fuck about what celebrities thought, they wouldn't have put one in the white House.
You weren't paying attention. The vast majority of high-profile celebrities (from the music, TV/Film, fashion, sports, and wider entertainment spectrum) breathlessly instructed you to vote for their chosen celebrity (Hillary Clinton), and poured the huge resources of their visibility, their shows, their concerts, and their social media machinery into making sure that their designated queen get the power to which she felt so entitled. And despite that enormously lopsided media environment, their celebrity-ness utterly failed to get her into office. It also didn't prevent the Democrats from having lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, and millions of two-time Obama voters who turned their backs on all of that celebrity finger-wagging and condescending lecturing and mockery, and decided that Clinton was exactly the corrupt, lying incompetent that she has demonstrated herself to be. Almost the entire celebrity industrial complex was denied the results they demanded.
You couldn't have it more backwards.
Yeah, getting marked as flamebait when telling the truth is actually a badge of honor in this case. Thanks!
And yet on any other day the users don't seem to destroy the equipment. It's like there was some mitigating event that people weren't prepared for.
In other news, all the home owners in Texas destroyed their own houses because they didn't have them built just right to withstand the right amount of water.
Really? That's what you're going with?
... actually that's not all that different. Gulf coast hurricanes can't damage a building you choose to build and occupy somewhere else.
As even TFS you didn't read pointed out, the rental business went to enormous lengths to tell people how not to rack up repair charges by damaging equipment while shooting the sun. The eclipse, unlike a hurricane, came and went without a CHANGE of destroying any of that equipment until a human being set it up and pointed it directly at the sun without taking the precautions they were repeatedly told to take. As for people who choose to build a house in a regular flood plain and hurricane magnet like the gulf coast and then choose not buy flood insurance
No. No it did not. All of that rental equipment showed up in the users' hands in boxes or cases. The USERS are the people who destroyed the equipment. It's like saying the brick is what destroyed the chef's knife that someone was using to try to cut it in half. Why does any of that matter? Because usage like that just drip-drip-drip reinforces the notion that people aren't responsible for their own actions, and that particularly cancerous concept spreads into all sorts of dangerous places.
Houston (Harris county) voted for Hillary.
It must have really pissed them off to have a bunch of deplorables from the surrounding rural areas come in with their bass boats and gladly help them out despite the person they voted for insisting that those guys are all irredeemable racists, misogynists, xenophobes and homophobes. Yup, clinging to their out-dated hunting and fishing culture, nothing but ignorant hillbillies. Who dropped everything and came to help the urbanites who hate them so much. Hope the water recedes quickly so those loathsome guys will get their camo-painted duck hunting boat trailers out of the Starbucks parking lot ASAP. It's embarrassing to have to see them out there. Maybe antifa will help out and run them out of town with baseball bats and bear spray once those bubbas are done saving people's grandmas and house pets. Resist!
So who's the asshole that enforces the no-asshole rule?
What? Not putting up with assholes is the reasonable action. NOT enforcing the no-asshole rule is the assholish thing to do. Why would all of other employees consider the person who fires the asshole to be an asshole?
The problem, as I see it, is that far too many companies are more interested in the bottom line than in anything else.
Because we're in a highly competitive global economy. And if a company isn't focused on the bottom line, they cease to be company at all, and then hire and retain exactly zero employees because they have gone bankrupt. Would you buy the goods and services you use to run your life and household without always being aware of what those expenditures would do to your bottom line?
Because most people who risk everything they have to start and run a business don't like the idea of the government telling them who they have to hire.
The day after companies can effectively evaluate technical schools, they can evaluate company culture fit. Otherwise there is always one jerk at the table saying "I don't like him or personality" whenever they feel threatened.
It can take quite a while to find that someone's technical work isn't up to standards. But you can usually tell within a week that they're an asshole. Why stick with a problem that you know can't be solved? Next week you might, after some training, be a better coder or technical writer. But if you're an asshole, you're still going to be an asshole next week. The quickest way to chase away your good people is to ask them to put up with an asshole. And just like you, whether or not you'll admit it, everyone else can spot an asshole more or less instantly. Why would you want to work for someone who thinks that hiring a non-stop religious proselytizer, or raving SJW, or loud few chewer, or non-stop backstabber is a good thing to do?
Sure, it's just that the magic hand tends to press people downward rather than lift them up.
It's the magic hand's very reason for existing - to press down on costs and thus inspire competition. It's YOUR job to differentiate yourself from the next person (or company, or product, or service) so you can press upwards on price. It's almost like it's not someone else's job to simply make you comfortable while still somehow arranging for you to have a competitive marketplace in which to shop for cars, bananas, and portable electronics.
ah, still butthurt that Trump dealings with Moscow keep on piling up?
No, still highly amused that anonymous coward trolls think they're scoring some sort of rhetorical points in their safe space echo chamber by continuing to trot out the delusional narrative that Clinton lost the election, and the Democrats over years have lost nearly a thousand legislative seats and most of the governorships and both houses of congress, because Trump was working with the Russians ... in some way that nobody can cite, and for which there is no evidence.
No surprise that he's already begun to done so though.
Really! Please, do tell. Which people working on his campaign has he pardoned because they were convicted of working with the Russians? Can't wait for your citation, since you obviously know things that even CNN isn't willing to lie about. Please, some links to those pardons. That would be great. No? Ah, I see.
A phishing scam is not technically a "hack,"
Unless you're Clinton's campaign man Podesta or the DNC, in which case it's a Super Powerful Russian Hack That Only Trump Could Have Payed For.
What's fun is watching you stamp your feet and insist that someone is lying, when Clinton's own words on the subject are a quick Google search away. You know that, because you've already DONE it, and your shrill tone is a sure sign of how uncomfortable even YOU are that she came right out and prioritized finding Justices who "understand how the real world works" (not to be confused with how the constitution works - which is the territory in which the SCOTUS operates, as opposed to the legislature, which Clinton knew she'd have no control over. She repeatedly said that she'd be looking at what judges LOOK like. As with all of her base pandering, she was focused on the judge's heritage, gender, and political disposition, not the integrity of the constitution. She cited Sotomayor (she who proudly pointed out that being female and a Latina makes her a better interpreter of the Constitution than someone with different looking parents or different reproductive organs).
So, what's your problem with Gorsuch? Let me guess: he treats the actual words of the constitution as is they were deliberate and intentional and actually mean something. Intolerable! Another "wise Latina" would definitely be better, by definition, because of gender and heritage, right? That was Clinton's take on it, echoed not only during interviews but even during the debates. All of which you know, but that never stops you from lying in hopes that you'll score some more lazy ad hominem points in your childishly craven little anonymous posts. Coward.
No, they voted for the guy who published a list of prospective Supreme Court justices, and stuck to his promise - seating someone who actually understands the constitution and its checks and balances. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, even though she simply presumed that she'd be president, knew that she wouldn't have the legislature. Her part and supporters knew that too. Which is why she promised that she'd nominate SCOTUS justices that didn't have a background in constitutional law, but instead "knew what people were going through," so she could get around the legislature with judges willing to work around the constitution's only mechanism by which to change it (amendments).
Either one of those two people as president would be gone in a few years, and any executive orders they made or rescinded could be magic-wanded the other direction by a subsequent president. But SCOTUS nominations play a major role for decades. And on the table now or soon are some really important issues that require proper constitutionalists, not wanna-be legislators in those seats.
Meanwhile, I'll also happily take other actions Trump promised and has stuck to: dramatic reductions in redundant and destructive federal regulatory burdens, and already hugely reduced flow of illegal aliens streaming across our southern border, and more. I personally don't like the guy. But I'll take his mixed bag over Hillary's long history of crime and corruption any day. But mostly I'll take any SCOTUS nomination he picks (Gorsuch was ideal) over the sort of insanity that Clinton was promising to inflict on the constitution.
but the reality is they elected Trump because they have given up on truth
No, because they got tied of Hillary looking them in the eye and lying over and over and over again, and a huge media/celebrity/academia complex that knew she was lying but still doing their very best to giver her back the political power she and her husband had already used twice to enrich themselves. Trump's a blowhard, but you're confusing his tone with her extremely deliberate, systematic, and backed-by-the-media career of corruption and lying and she and her husband raked in millions of dollars selling political access. All while she took votes from places like Wisconsin for granted even as she called the people there irredeemably deplorable racists, and couldn't trouble her patronizing, condescending self to set foot in that state even once as the anointed Democratic queen to in waiting.
People who voted from Trump did so as a solid and resounding rebuke to her, her political camp, and people like you who still pretend they don't understand how disingenuous and phony was all of the establishment support for her candidacy.
Yes. They chant and march along with violent racist activists who call for the deaths of white people and cops. So yes, along with being good old fashioned fascist brown shirts who beat people to silence them, they're also just plain old racists.