bcking

I'm not trying to negate the success of Trump. He has won. I just don't want people calling it something it is not. He won without a majority. It was an incredibly narrow race. That is the truth. Trying to argue he "covers" the entire country is just a lie. He has won and will be President, but he will be only the second President to not win the popular vote in more than the last 100 years (1888, prior to Bush).

Depends on how you define coverage.
If a cell phone company could only "cover" 47% of the total population, most people would see that as wholly insufficient. That is the extent of Trump's coverage. Yes geographically it is wide, but that isn't the point of coverage. Doesn't matter if you "cover" cornfields. You need to cover actual people. It's a failed metaphor.

Couldn't care less I imagine. You couldn't care less.

"The people have finally wised up"
Last I checked more people voted for her, though barely. Stop acting like Trump won a landslide with the entire country behind him. He had a better distribution of people voting so he won because our system isn't actually democratic. He won very the method he would have likely contested had he lost.
It doesn't mean he didn't win. He clearly won. But "the people" are still only 47% and change of those who voted.

The FBI said the new emails didn't add anything to the investigation.
The only way she would end up in prison at this point is if Trump decided to go after her. Yes he threatened to do that, but based on his acceptance speech he at least seems to be wanting to move forward beyond the election process. I imagine there will be several "promises" or "campaign points" that were made that he won't follow-up on. At least so far he seems (or the people behind him) to recognize the difference between running for the office, and actually preparing to run the office.

Then I just hope he remembers to shake her hand, and not something else.

You have to admit that a victory via the electoral college without the popular vote does soften the "mandate" that people argue Presidents have when they take office.
Regardless of who wins presidential elections, the convoluted "semi"-democracy we have is a little wonky. Again while I don't question the validity of his victory, I would argue that saying things like "The people spoke and they chose him" is a little bit false considering if you actually just took what the people voted for Hillary would have won. He won mostly because the people that voted him were more sufficiently spread out to win him more states. The total number of people however, not so much.

You have to admit that a victory via the electoral college without the popular vote does soften the "mandate" that people argue Presidents have when they take office.
Regardless of who wins presidential elections, the convoluted "semi"-democracy we have is a little wonky. Again while I don't question the validity of his victory, I would argue that saying things like "The people spoke and they chose him" is a little bit false considering if you actually just took what the people voted for Hillary would have won. He won mostly because the people that voted him were more sufficiently spread out to win him more states. The total number of people however, not so much.

You have to admit that a victory via the electoral college without the popular vote does soften the "mandate" that people argue Presidents have when they take office.
Regardless of who wins presidential elections, the convoluted "semi"-democracy we have is a little wonky. Again while I don't question the validity of his victory, I would argue that saying things like "The people spoke and they chose him" is a little bit false considering if you actually just took what the people voted for Hillary would have won. He won mostly because the people that voted him were more sufficiently spread out to win him more states. The total number of people however, not so much.

Again I'm not agreeing that all of Trump's white voters are racist, but your comparison to Obama is ignoring the argument that the other person is trying to make.
Obama didn't run on a platform of excluding non-black people. Trump campaigned saying things like lets ban all muslims from the country. Now you could argue whether Trump was serious about a lot of his campaign promises (even people in his own camp many times would argue that he "didn't mean it"). However, you have to concede that that rhetoric MAY have attracted certain people to him.
Were all white people who voted for him attracted to the idea of kicking out non-white people? Of course not, but if someone who has a deep mistrust of non-white people sat down to vote and had the option of voting for Clinton or Trump, Trump would have been a more attractive option for them.

Journalism is a dying art in America. No rational reasonable person would actually believe that the country would implode, or the stock market would crash etc... after the election, regardless of the winner. The stock market is a fickle thing, but nothing has actually immediately changed between yesterday and today. Trump isn't even President yet.
The true test will be to look at where we are at in 2 years or 4 years time.

It takes a little bit of extrapolation to reach that conclusion. Not saying the conclusion is right or wrong. You're right it isn't a direct corrolation. There isn't an exit poll asking people "Are you racist?".
I think most people's reasoning is that if you look at the exit polls the population that Trump won was essentially White male voters. Combine that with a lot of his campaign "promises" regarding immigration, muslims etc... and people interpret that to mean that those white male voters who voted for him like the promises he was making, and therefore they are racist.
Whether or not that is true I can't say. But I believe that is the common reasoning.

Then I just hope he remembers to shake her hand, and not something else.

Keep in mind though that, while it was a narrow margin, Clinton won the popular vote. So the "people", at the very least, are incredibly divided. Trump just happened to have his people spread across more states.
I'm not questioning whether he deserved the win. Our system is the way it is and we live with it. Just saying that both winners and losers have to admit that our country is incredibly divided. This isn't like a vast majority of Americans voting against the "establishment". This is near half and half (48 v 47), and both sides reporting that they are equally afraid of the other.

We can agree to disagree then. I feel quite confident that it all died with the election. For better or worse (depending on the person's opinion of her), she is going to fade away a bit. She won't have the drive to try again in 4 years, but no one is going to beat the dead horse. (I'm trying to talk about this without letting partisan politics influence things, which I realize is very hard given the circumstances)

We can agree to disagree then. I feel quite confident that it all died with the election. For better or worse (depending on the person's opinion of her), she is going to fade away a bit. She won't have the drive to try again in 4 years, but no one is going to beat the dead horse. (I'm trying to talk about this without letting partisan politics influence things, which I realize is very hard given the circumstances)

It dropped due to uncertainty. Doesn't matter what the cause of uncertainty is. No one can deny that based on polls and expectations Hillary was going to win. So for that to change very quickly make people get worried, so things tanked.
Once that "surprise" was over it rebounded. It also helped that Trump during his acceptance speech was essentially the most respectable he has been the entire election process. He didn't use the time to bring up his crazy ideas for China, Mexico etc... so people seem to be "reassured" at least right now that he recognises the difference between running to President, and being President.

I would just add the caveat that not all salaries in NYC are high. There is a lot of competition for jobs so that can drive pay down.
In medicine (at least as a physician) NYC is notoriously one of the lowest paying areas of the city despite the atrocious cost of living. Same job you make at least 20-30% less than other big cities.

Vancouver, WA is not a bad idea. It's getting better, and honestly is very close to Portland. The benefit living there is you pay Washington state income taxes (lower), but can go to Portland for shopping where you pay no sales tax. At least the last time I checked. They may have "closed" that loophole but when I was growing up my parents always talked about moving up there because of that.

I have fond memories of life as a child in Portland we had awesome snow days when there was essentially no snow on the roads. There were a few blizzards in the late 90's/early 00's that were newsworthy though.
I just want to say for all the Texas naysayers that I am the furthest thing from a Texan (Oregonian), but I happen to live in Houston right now. I can still find many many nice things to say about it so far. It's not nearly as bad as all the people who have never lived (some never even visited) in Texas had to say when I told them I was moving here. I imagine Austin/San Antonio is even better. There are way more Clinton/Kaine signs out on my commute to work than Trump/Pence (I actually don't think I've seen any Trump/Pence). Houston has a lot of scientists, doctors, engineers and geologists so a fairly educated bunch. Plus even the right-wing "Texans" are generally incredibly kind to strangers as long as you don't start talking about politics. Everyone says "Good morning" to strangers, people call me "Sir" (Never been called Sir in my life) when they have no idea who I am.

Absolutely right. The "bad" areas ended up just being labeled because they were the lower income places. Sad because they are also beautiful neighbourhoods with wonderful old houses.
Bend, Oregon is nice but a little isolated. I guess if a job in your field is there maybe it works. I used to go as a kid for winter holidays, but not sure what it would be like living there.
Traffic in Houston isn't so bad, but I guess it depends where you live and where you work. I work in med center and live in the Heights. Takes me about 30 minutes. Really love the food in Houston, and the lack of state income tax.

I'm from Portland, Oregon (born, raised, went to college) and I would also add that to your list. It isn't as expensive as Seattle, at least I have found. It has no sales tax, though one of the highest income taxes in the country so that can be a trade off (don't be put off by the higher state income tax, since that sales tax loss is quite significant if you do the math).
The schools are great. It is incredibly safe and very healthy. The "bad neighborhoods" in the East side of town have places like Whole Foods and organic stores...kind of funny.
Having recently moved to Texas I would however say don't immediately cross it off your list. I'm in Houston, though I've heard Austin is nicer. I came from NYC (and before that San Diego) and I have to say so far Houston has been very good to me. Salaries are good, rent/cost of living is low (bought my first home! Impossible in San Diego/NYC).
Now I don't have children yet so the issue of what they are taught in school isn't an issue for me. If your kids are older (You are looking at Middle/High Schools you mentioned), I wouldn't necessarily worry as much about what they are "taught" since they will be old enough to smell the bullsh**. As far as being able to take guns into school legally...not being able to take guns into schools hasn't stopped the US from having an obscene number of school/mass shootings. That fear should apply to pretty much anywhere in the US. This is coming from someone who is very very strongly pro-gun control (honestly I would prefer going the way of the UK and basically banning them). The only thing I've really done differently in Texas is not honk at people...don't want to piss anyone off

I'm from Portland, Oregon (born, raised, went to college) and I would also add that to your list. It isn't as expensive as Seattle, at least I have found. It has no sales tax, though one of the highest income taxes in the country so that can be a trade off (don't be put off by the higher state income tax, since that sales tax loss is quite significant if you do the math).
The schools are great. It is incredibly safe and very healthy. The "bad neighborhoods" in the East side of town have places like Whole Foods and organic stores...kind of funny.
Having recently moved to Texas I would however say don't immediately cross it off your list. I'm in Houston, though I've heard Austin is nicer. I came from NYC (and before that San Diego) and I have to say so far Houston has been very good to me. Salaries are good, rent/cost of living is low (bought my first home! Impossible in San Diego/NYC).
Now I don't have children yet so the issue of what they are taught in school isn't an issue for me. If your kids are older (You are looking at Middle/High Schools you mentioned), I wouldn't necessarily worry as much about what they are "taught" since they will be old enough to smell the bullsh**. As far as being able to take guns into school legally...not being able to take guns into schools hasn't stopped the US from having an obscene number of school/mass shootings. That fear should apply to pretty much anywhere in the US. This is coming from someone who is very very strongly pro-gun control (honestly I would prefer going the way of the UK and basically banning them). The only thing I've really done differently in Texas is not honk at people...don't want to piss anyone off

I'm from Portland, Oregon (born, raised, went to college) and I would also add that to your list. It isn't as expensive as Seattle, at least I have found. It has no sales tax, though one of the highest income taxes in the country so that can be a trade off (don't be put off by the higher state income tax, since that sales tax loss is quite significant if you do the math).
The schools are great. It is incredibly safe and very healthy. The "bad neighborhoods" in the East side of town have places like Whole Foods and organic stores...kind of funny.
Having recently moved to Texas I would however say don't immediately cross it off your list. I'm in Houston, though I've heard Austin is nicer. I came from NYC (and before that San Diego) and I have to say so far Houston has been very good to me. Salaries are good, rent/cost of living is low (bought my first home! Impossible in San Diego/NYC).
Now I don't have children yet so the issue of what they are taught in school isn't an issue for me. If your kids are older (You are looking at Middle/High Schools you mentioned), I wouldn't necessarily worry as much about what they are "taught" since they will be old enough to smell the bullsh**. As far as being able to take guns into school legally...not being able to take guns into schools hasn't stopped the US from having an obscene number of school/mass shootings. That fear should apply to pretty much anywhere in the US. This is coming from someone who is very very strongly pro-gun control (honestly I would prefer going the way of the UK and basically banning them). The only thing I've really done differently in Texas is not honk at people...don't want to piss anyone off

the BCG can create a false positive PPD test, however the rates of that happening are blown out of proportion to the point where usually most people don't even bother with a PPD when they hear someone has had a BCG vaccine in the past. If you are 20 years out from your BCG vaccine, the PPD could very well come up negative. The risk is with a false positive, not a false negative. So honestly what we should be doing is trying a PPD anyway because if it's negative even with the BCG vaccine, you are really negative (the BCG is pretty bad at doing what it's supposed to do). That would avoid a chest X-ray, which exposes people to unnecessary radiation. In addition, when the prevalence of a disease gets very low (Like Tb in the US/UK), the risk of a "false positive" being more common than a true positive goes up. The number of false positive Chest X-rays (ones that may having something that triggers an additional workup) is likely higher than the number of actual Tb cases they catch.
Anyway, none of us can change anything. Just pointing out that their "routine Chest X-ray" is not very evidence based and basically irradiates a lot more people than you likely need to.
EDIT:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17131776
If you received BCG <1 year of age and had a TST/PPD done >10 years later the chance of a positive test was 1%. If you received BCG when you were a child (but >1), and got tested >10 years later the rate was 21%.
So at the very least 4 out of 5 people would still test negative if they just did the skin test first and save people the radiation. Of course the price you pay to see the doctor at Knightsbridge they could also do a Quantiferon (blood test). That would impact their bottom line and unfortunately they are likely the designated examination site because they make money from it.