...a moment in history where it is almost hard to catch your breath.
August 12, 2016 5:10 PM   Subscribe

Today, the Hillary Clinton campaign launched a new "With Her" podcast, chronicling her historic run for office. Clinton also released her 2015 tax returns while Sen. Tim Kaine released 10 years’ worth of his. With just 87 days until Election Day, 538's "Election Forecast" looks dire for Republican nominee Donald Trump, who continues to rely on wild, desperate claims to capture each news cycle.
posted by zarq (2661 comments total) 105 users marked this as a favorite
 
these days it looks less like capturing the news cycle and more like trying to hold on as long as he can until he's thrown clear and…the rodeo clowns can intervene…

sorry, my metaphor got away from me.
posted by murphy slaw at 5:13 PM on August 12, 2016 [34 favorites]


I think the 538 link is wrong.
posted by roll truck roll at 5:14 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's been increasingly incredible to me how Everytime some new stuff comes out that could hurt Clinton (her speaking fees, Clinton foundation connections with state department recently), instead of capitalizing on that moment and benghazing it to death like they have always done Trump just comes back with something more insane to redominate the headlines.
posted by Karaage at 5:14 PM on August 12, 2016 [58 favorites]


Today, the Hillary Clinton campaign launched a new “With Her” podcast,

My demographic has been captured.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:16 PM on August 12, 2016 [21 favorites]


for reals, i feel like if it came out that Hillary Clinton assaulted a voter at one of her events, Trump would be on tv that afternoon proclaiming that she invented fluoridation and chemtrails
posted by murphy slaw at 5:16 PM on August 12, 2016 [58 favorites]


Tim Kaine tax scandal: deducted a necktie as a business expense, wore it to church once for Midnight Mass.
posted by box at 5:16 PM on August 12, 2016 [140 favorites]


Reporters need to ask Trump campaign officials whether they really want to have Trump campaign 2016 on their resumes after November. It will be delicious to see the panic spread over their faces.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:16 PM on August 12, 2016 [33 favorites]


The rodeo clowns can intervene…

Send in...the clowns
posted by ian1977 at 5:17 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also I didn't think I had any more respect left to lose for GOP leaders but there is some serious ride or die stuff going on right now with Ryan, McCain and Co.
posted by Karaage at 5:17 PM on August 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


I think the 538 link is wrong.

Yup, goes to 270towin.
posted by waitingtoderail at 5:17 PM on August 12, 2016


Ack! Sorry, here's the correct 538 link.
posted by zarq at 5:18 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


aaaaaah she’s just folks like me.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:18 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


Okay, what pisses me off is NPR's take on Clinton and Kaine releasing their taxes - they won't read the obvious from Trump inciting violence, but they'll allow as how Clinton released her taxes so she could "bash" Trump.

Up yours, NPR.
posted by Mooski at 5:20 PM on August 12, 2016 [114 favorites]


Fun thing from 538's current predictions: They say Clinton is more likely to win Kansas than Trump is to win the election.
posted by nat at 5:20 PM on August 12, 2016 [17 favorites]


Trump just comes back with something more insane to redominate the headlines.

If this were merely a rout, it would be sad and uninteresting to watch. As it is, every time I open up a browser, I wonder if today Trump will have gotten into a scuffle with a wildebeest, or doxxed Chelsea Clinton, or gotten a Chester A. Arthur tattoo. The Onion writers have to be really on their game to stay ahead of him.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:22 PM on August 12, 2016 [47 favorites]


[Fixed the link. I think this can be the new thread. From the previous thread, let's continue the marking fake things "fake."]
posted by LobsterMitten at 5:22 PM on August 12, 2016 [26 favorites]


Okay, what pisses me off is NPR's take on Clinton and Kaine releasing their taxes - they won't read the obvious from Trump inciting violence, but they'll allow as how Clinton released her taxes so she could “bash” Trump.

Indeed! Clinton is releasing her taxes because candidates should release their taxes. Bashing Trump is a perk, but she’d be releasing them anyway.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:23 PM on August 12, 2016 [16 favorites]


I still tend to favor the idea that Trump's real purpose in all of this is to set up Trump TV, unless he's just literally losing his mind, and maybe even if he is.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:25 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


murphy slaw posted this at the tail-end of the previous thread, but I think it's worth putting in again for those who might have missed it:

"Trump has brought us something we haven't seen in at least 30 years: a cool cover on Time magazine" (click image for full pic)

I might actually spend money an honest-to-God print magazine for the first time in forever (and Time, no less!), just to frame that cover.
posted by tzikeh at 5:25 PM on August 12, 2016 [42 favorites]


I try and take solace in 538 these days as I visit them daily. But I don't really enjoy it, because I know anything can happen between now and November.

I feel the same way I did eight years ago reading the political blogs: Sarah Palin couldn't possibly become vice president! Obama is doing fantastic in the polls! We got it in the bag!

Wait until November. Then I'll relax.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 5:25 PM on August 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


(obama if you want to start a podcast if you retire that’s fine too.)
posted by Going To Maine at 5:26 PM on August 12, 2016 [44 favorites]


LobsterMitten: From the previous thread, let's continue the marking fake things "fake."

For the love of sanity, YES please.
posted by tzikeh at 5:27 PM on August 12, 2016 [15 favorites]


The Onion writers have to be really on their game to stay ahead of him

I love that this is LITERALLY true. This isn't 'ha ha ha how dumb can W be?' Trump is so beyond those dynamics we are in uncharted territory. If there were an article that said trump is proof of the singularity approaching I would not discount it out of hand. Trumpypool indeed.
posted by ian1977 at 5:28 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


Just time traveling for a moment to say "Hi!" to Tehhund, whenever you are!
posted by rp at 5:28 PM on August 12, 2016 [28 favorites]


Reporters need to ask Trump campaign officials whether they really want to have Trump campaign 2016 on their resumes after November. It will be delicious to see the panic spread over their faces.

I'm sure they'll just leave it off. Like how if a potential employer asks Mitt Romney what he was doing during the 2007-2012 gap on his resume he'll just say he was hiking the Appalachian Trail the whole time.
posted by ckape at 5:32 PM on August 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


The Onion writers have to be really on their game to stay ahead of him

This one's
damn good. This one's... kind of terrifying.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:34 PM on August 12, 2016 [13 favorites]


God help us all. This is getting dangerous. And ridiculous. And worse every day.
posted by cashman at 5:34 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


"Onion Staff Quit En Masse After Latest Trump Comment" would be a good headline.

"We just don't know what to do anymore," one staffer, who asked to remain anonymous, said. "I mean, it used to be you'd just extrapolate a bit to a slightly crazier reality, and bang out a story, maybe go home early. But now...well, there's no shame in being beaten by the best, right?"
posted by uosuaq at 5:36 PM on August 12, 2016 [164 favorites]


I feel the same way I did eight years ago: Sarah Palin couldn't possibly become vice president! Obama is doing fantastic in the polls! We got it in the bag!

I'm actually pretty chill about this now. Trump has no idea what he's doing. I think these are the scenarios in which Trump could still win:
  1. Something really horrible but true is revealed about Clinton that tanks her. Maybe baby eating?
  2. Or, it's revealed that Clinton really does have some horrible health condition.
  3. Or, Clinton dies.
Only (3) is within the realm of possibility (we are a violent nation), (2) is just wing-nut bullshit and if (1) were the case, the multidecade ratfucking brigade aimed at the Clintons would surely have uncovered something devastating if there was something there. I have my issues with the Clintons, but when it comes to scandals that could tank HRC, there's no there there.

My panic has faded, anyway. Not that one should no longer work to win, but the Trumpian apocalypse seems less likely every day.
posted by dis_integration at 5:36 PM on August 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


3. Or, Clinton dies.

You really think Trump beats Kaine in that scenario?
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:38 PM on August 12, 2016 [20 favorites]


I'm actually pretty chill about this now.
My panic has faded, anyway.

Are you still paying attention to what's being said? Trump is whipping up people into a fury and violence might not be far behind.
posted by cashman at 5:40 PM on August 12, 2016 [13 favorites]


From today's trump rallies: I think the voter disenfranchisement dog whistle is what has pissed me off the most about a very despicable campaign. People pass it off as trump's unique stream of conscious manner of "speaking", but it's clear that he has intent here, which is to make election day as messy and unpalatable as possible. At first to stop the vote, and then to make any result questionable in the eyes of his voters. I hate it. It's acidic to the democratic process of this country, and will have lasting deleterious effects.
posted by codacorolla at 5:40 PM on August 12, 2016 [73 favorites]




Multidecade Ratfucking Brigade = new band name
posted by uosuaq at 5:40 PM on August 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


You really think Trump beats Kaine in that scenario?

That scenario is too fuggin horrible to contemplate. I don't even know what happens if the nominee dies during the campaign, but I'm not sure I want to know, either.
posted by Mooski at 5:41 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]




What I'm interested in is how much pull Johnson and the libertarians are getting at the end of the day- that's where I see a split.
posted by eclectist at 5:43 PM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


So, it doesn't count as self-posting if it's a comment, right? McSweeney's didn't like it, so here's my "Who Said It: Trump Or Hitler?" quiz:

1. When somebody challenges you, fight back. Be brutal, be tough.
2. Without passion you don't have energy, without energy you have nothing.
3. Der Erfolg ist der einzige irdische Richter über das Recht oder Unrecht.
4. What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
5. Ich gehe mit der Sicherheit eines Schlafwandlers entlang des Pfades, den mir die Vorsehung geebnet hat.
6. I try to learn from the past, but I plan for the future by focusing exclusively on the present.
7. Ich kann mich nicht täuschen, was ich sage und tue, ist historisch.
8. Mache die Lüge groß, mache sie einfach, wiederhole sie immer wieder, und letztendlich wird man sie glauben.
9. Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.
10. We need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around.
11. Der Terrorismus ist die beste politische Waffe, nichts macht den Menschen mehr Angst, als die Furcht vor plötzlichem Tod.
12. Anyone who thinks my story is anywhere near over is sadly mistaken.
13. Was für ein Glück für die Regierenden, daß die Menschen nicht denken!

Trump: 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12
Hitler: 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13

posted by uosuaq at 5:46 PM on August 12, 2016 [121 favorites]


Does anyone else think that Trump might be trying to forfeit the election on purpose? Sure, it's crazy, but is it any crazier than the absolutely bug-humping nuts stuff that hourly comes out of his mouth?

BTW, I check RealClear Politics for regular updates from a number of polls.
posted by dfm500 at 5:47 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


Are you still paying attention to what's being said? Trump is whipping up people into a fury and violence might not be far behind.

I mean, he's been doing that for a year now. Violence is terrible, and I hope his incitement doesn't lead to any more real political violence. And as someone who has been assaulted by strangers for "looking like a fag" I sympathize with the fear that kind of violent atmosphere can put in people. But it's not, like, you know, nuclear apocalypse levels. It's just back to American mob fury, mass shooting and cops murdering black americans levels-of-violence. So, how we were before Trump. Which is to say: Shit is bad. But Trump can only do so much as a loser.
posted by dis_integration at 5:47 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


Also I didn't think I had any more respect left to lose for GOP leaders but there is some serious ride or die stuff going on right now with Ryan, McCain and Co.

In my head, the movie made out of all of this ends somewhat like The Devil's Rejects, where the GOP marches proudly into its own political demise with Freebird cranked up to 11.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:50 PM on August 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


Aww come on. The Firefly family doesn't deserve that comparison.
posted by ian1977 at 5:52 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


> Just time traveling for a moment to say "Hi!" to Tehhund, whenever you are!
posted by rp at 5:28 PM on August 12
[7 favorites −] [!]


What's great is thinking about Tehhund is right now probably getting close to where/when we started talking about how Tehhund is behind...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:57 PM on August 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


Reporters need to ask Trump campaign officials whether they really want to have Trump campaign 2016 on their resumes after November. It will be delicious to see the panic spread over their faces.

The writers of the podcast Keeping 1600, Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer, who were advisers on Obama's campaign, have said most definitely these people will never work again. I know Katrina Pierson is going to have trouble finding work. I say that...yet somehow I know she will show up as the new CNN correspondent.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:57 PM on August 12, 2016 [20 favorites]


The Rude Pundit: A Brief Note About Donald Trump and "You Can't Always Get What You Want"

Trump fact: That song was actually his third choice, after "Warning" by Biggie and "O Superman (For Massenet)"
posted by theodolite at 5:59 PM on August 12, 2016 [12 favorites]


I think Trump will benefit from any acts of terrorism that may occur before the election (which is an election technique credited to Putin). Therefore, Hillary should raise the subject sooner than later.
posted by Brian B. at 6:00 PM on August 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


Trump Encourages His Supporters to Patrol Polling Places, Says He Will Lose Pa. Only If There is Cheating

See...this is something that's been grinding on me of late. Election day. I find it entirely possible, if not completely assured, that I'm going to have to negotiate past a phalanx of Trump's brown-shirts in order to get to my polling place. Some, no doubt, open-carrying. Election day will be...interesting?
posted by Thorzdad at 6:02 PM on August 12, 2016 [37 favorites]


I am always surprised when people say that if Hillary did something wrong she would be charged.

If I had a charitable organization getting million dollar donations from someone who I had official government dealings with and I then went and gave them a favorable deal. I would be sunk.

Or if a company that I managed payed me millions of dollars while I was in office, while I gave them very favorable billion dollar contracts, that is a clear conflict of interest. Again I would be sunk.

Clinton and Cheney both benefit from being in a position that no one has the political capital to prosecute. If they are not criminals, then it is because the same laws don't apply.

Can't wait to see how she monetizes her newest political office.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 6:02 PM on August 12, 2016 [15 favorites]


The greatest thing about this election right now is that Trump isn't even the most insane person on his own TEAM. Trump can say or do anything and Pierson will be on CNN shortly afterwards making Trump seem almost rational. You can set your watch by it.

Pierson threatened to wear a necklace of metal fetuses on the air. Trump could wear a stack of ACTUAL fetuses on the air like a horsecollar and Pierson would declare him a champion of the unborn and accuse Hillary of sending agents to steal it and sell their parts on eBay.
posted by delfin at 6:02 PM on August 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yeah I've been wargaming what a large scale, domestic strike would do to this election, and seem to think the Clinton people would have to really mishandle it for it to actually tip this.
posted by vrakatar at 6:04 PM on August 12, 2016


Trump and Pierson is like a meet-cute between NPD and Dunning-Kruger.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 6:05 PM on August 12, 2016 [28 favorites]


Trump is scheduled to appear at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, CT tomorrow night at 7:30. The President of the school is taking some heat over it. Think of that. In any other election year no one would question a college hosting a Presidential Candidate.
"Some also have questioned whether — as a Catholic university — we should allow him access to our facilities, as some of his stances and proclamations appear contrary to our religious beliefs and values."
Yet the white Southern Evangelicals have embraced Trump whole-heartedly. I guess the difference is that Evangelicals don't care about Trump's morality, they just care whether he will return some of their political power.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:05 PM on August 12, 2016 [27 favorites]


I dunno, I'm guessing Clinton might not be mega rich, but I'm sure she's comfortable. Do you really think money is a prime motivation for sane multimillionaire 60something old? If she just wanted to get rich(er) she could have skipped the presidency and just concentrated on $$$.
posted by ian1977 at 6:05 PM on August 12, 2016 [65 favorites]


What's great is thinking about Tehhund is right now probably getting close to where/when we started talking about how Tehhund is behind...

I'll let you know if they favorite my first comment.

(Tehhund has been diligently catching up on the election threads and frequent commenters have been noting their progress in our favorited by others pages. It's only a matter of time til they read about themselves. )
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:06 PM on August 12, 2016 [20 favorites]


What happened to that Evan Dando guy?
posted by Artw at 6:08 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


Fun thing from 538's current predictions: They say Clinton is more likely to win Kansas than Trump is to win the election.

i just unleashed the ugliest shrill witch cackle of unholy vindictive glee
posted by poffin boffin at 6:08 PM on August 12, 2016 [71 favorites]


I've signed up to phone bank for Hillary from home; I forgot how being able to phone bank anytime, anywhere is like being back at school with the black cloud of homework hanging over your head. I'm also phone banking in person for the local congressional race- I signed up partially in hopes of meeting some new local friends and the first night, it was all SUPER young staffers from around the US. Me and Baby Rob Lowe still had a great time.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:10 PM on August 12, 2016 [29 favorites]


Can't wait to see how she monetizes her newest political office.

Yeah, she's been playing a long game to get rich. I'm impressed she's kept her eye on the prize for this long!
posted by OmieWise at 6:11 PM on August 12, 2016 [64 favorites]


More about that Sacred Heart visit
The last time a Republican presidential candidate campaigned in Connecticut during the general election was when Ronald Reagan made a stop in Fairfield in 1984. Gary Rose, chair of the department of government and politics at Sacred Heart University, says Trump might have considered Connecticut in play a month ago, but the polls are going in the other direction. Rose says that’s why he suspects there’s more to Trump’s visit.

“This is not a self-funded campaign any longer, and so I wouldn’t be surprised if there is also a fundraising motivation involved in this visit as well.”
Or it may be that Trump is campaigning in CT because he doesn't have a clue as to what he is doing and besides CT is only a short plane ride from home.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:12 PM on August 12, 2016 [16 favorites]


how she monetizes her newest political office

1. Get elected
2. Serve 2 terms
3. Write book.
4. Profit!
posted by vrakatar at 6:14 PM on August 12, 2016 [47 favorites]


The Smoking Gun: Hacker Publishes List Of Cell Phone Numbers, Private E-Mails For Most House Democrats
In a post to his WordPress blog, the vandal--who previously provided nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee e-mails to Wikileaks--uploaded an Excel file that includes the cell phone numbers and private e-mail addresses of nearly every Democratic member of the House of Representatives.

The Excel file also includes similar contact information for hundreds of congressional staff members (chiefs of staff, press secretaries, legislative directors, schedulers) and campaign personnel.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 6:16 PM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


1. Get elected
2. Serve two terms
3. Lucrative public speaking career!
posted by ian1977 at 6:17 PM on August 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


What happened to that Evan Dando guy?

He knows a place that's safe and warm.
posted by LionIndex at 6:17 PM on August 12, 2016 [14 favorites]


Also,
Along with the Excel file, “Guccifer 2.0” also uploaded documents that included the account names and passwords for an assortment of subscription services used by the DCCC, from Lexis-Nexis to Glenn Beck’s web site (password: nutbag).
[real, emphasis added]
posted by zachlipton at 6:19 PM on August 12, 2016 [25 favorites]


I keep thinking the best "who said it" game would be Trump vs. L Ron Hubbard. Recently rekindled my long interest in Scientology, and it's amazing what similarities exist between the two men. Especially the parts about "always attack, never defend", "why tell the truth when you can lie", "give the marks a good show", and the fondness for word salad passed off as something profound.
posted by honestcoyote at 6:22 PM on August 12, 2016 [20 favorites]




Oh for crying out loud... a Trump campaign office opened in Orlando across the street from the Pulse nightclub.
posted by Servo5678 at 6:24 PM on August 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


Clinton also released her new 2015 tax returns.

The Clintons had previously released over 30 years of tax returns.

A few observations from the Clintons' new 2015 tax return.

Together they made a little less $11 million and gave away more than $1 million to charity, close to a 10% tithe.

Although Hillary is 68 and Bill is 69, neither has elected to collect their Social Security benefits yet. If you don't need your SS benefits, you can increase their amount by delaying to a maximum of age 70 and a half.

Bill is collecting $226,000 in pension benefits, most of which is from his term as President. If Hillary also serves as President, they will together retire with about half a million dollars a year in pension payments.

They have interest of about $25,000 from a cash account at JP Morgan which I estimate represents about $25 million in cash deposits.

They have dividends of $84,000 from a Vanguard S&P 500 mutual fund which I estimate represents a market value of about $4.2 million. This is the same Vanguard fund that is a favorite among AskMeFi financial experts. Maybe they are reading AskMeFi. They executed no trades in 2015, buy and hold as recommended in AskMeFi.

This seems to be the extent of their investments -- a $25 million cash account and a $4.2 million Vanguard mutual fund. This is a quite conservative and non-controversial investment portfolio.

Their earned income came from four sources reported on four Schedule C reports. Hillary had $28,000 in book royalties and Bill had $29,000 in book royalties. Hillary had $1.5 million in speaking fees and Bill had $4.4 million in speaking fees. Neither had any wage income. This is the bulk of their total income.

They paid a total of $3.6 million in taxes which consists of income tax plus self-employment tax. If you just look at their income tax as a percentage of their adjusted gross, they paid about 30% of their income as taxes. In addition they paid $300,000 in self-employment taxes (social security and Medicare taxes).

They paid $1.3 million in New York state income taxes and an addition $100,000 in property taxes.

They also paid $85,000 in new taxes on high income households that were put in place to pay for Obamacare. So you can thank the Clintons for your health insurance subsides or expanded Medicaid.

All and all a quite simple and uncontroversial tax return for such high income earners.
posted by JackFlash at 6:25 PM on August 12, 2016 [216 favorites]


[A few comments deleted. Maybe let's not kick this thread off with a dive into What the Sheeple Must Know or What If Clinton Gets Killed.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 6:28 PM on August 12, 2016 [16 favorites]




Clinton and Cheney both benefit from being in a position that no one has the political capital to prosecute. If they are not criminals, then it is because the same laws don't apply.
Trump has had the same benefit for over 30 years without ever being elected or appointed to any government position. The Rich are just as immune as the Politically Powerful and use that immunity even more often.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:30 PM on August 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


Otherwise, if Hillary were forced to withdraw (and I see only two scenarios: a terrible health crisis or an actual indictment for something requiring a camera-ready 'perp walk'), Tim Kaine

I don't think Kaine would necessarily be the nominee. From what I've read, similar to if Trump died or dropped out, the DNC would choose the candidate to replace Clinton. Could be Kaine, but could be someone else (while he has a fraught relationship with the DNC, Sanders would be a logical choice as well, or they could go with everyone's favorite hypothetical candidate Joe Biden, or whatever).
posted by thefoxgod at 6:30 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


Booker!
posted by vrakatar at 6:32 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


McSweeney's didn't like it, so here's my "Who Said It: Trump Or Hitler?" quiz:

If it makes you feel better, I submitted one awhile back that they rejected, too. (Although mine threw in a few quotes from Mussolini, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Walter White as well, just for kicks.)

posted by the return of the thin white sock at 6:32 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


How do you fight the voter intimidation thing? Is this the kind of thing that the people who do "get out the vote" drives and the like take care of, or are there...like...teams of anti-voter-intimidation patrols or...what's the tried 'n' true tactic against this garbage?
posted by infinitywaltz at 6:33 PM on August 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


Recruit some people with experience as Planned Parenthood Clinic escorts and have them train others. It's the GOTV we need, not the one we want.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:36 PM on August 12, 2016 [30 favorites]


Amen to the frustration about NPR's coverage. Write them a letter. Tell them how you feel.

In the last couple days I've noticed less of: Trump says moon is made of Trump cheese. Hillary denies this.
posted by persona au gratin at 6:36 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


How do you fight the voter intimidation thing? Is this the kind of thing that the people who do "get out the vote" drives and the like take care of, or are there...like...teams of anti-voter-intimidation patrols or...what's the tried 'n' true tactic against this garbage?

Legal associations sometimes have election observer programs where lawyers can volunteer their time to be impartial polling place observers on election day.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:37 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


The inciting voter intimidation thing is scary. In all honesty, if I lived somewhere that was open-carry and a bunch of Angry White Men stood around my polling place with guns strapped to their backs on Election Day, I would definitely think twice about going in to vote, and I'm white. I can't imagine the intimidation voters of color would feel.
posted by tzikeh at 6:38 PM on August 12, 2016 [12 favorites]


I just now realized that the VP debates between Kaine and Pence are going to be as close as we get to a real policy debate this year.
posted by codacorolla at 6:39 PM on August 12, 2016 [16 favorites]


To be safe, just invest in a Trump T-shirt before you go to your polling place. Think of it as a sort of...tax.
posted by uosuaq at 6:40 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


The answer to voter intimidation, for those who feel it within acceptable risk, is to patrol the polls yourself as an election protection observer.
posted by corb at 6:45 PM on August 12, 2016 [16 favorites]




Okay, what pisses me off is NPR's take on Clinton and Kaine releasing their taxes - they won't read the obvious from Trump inciting violence, but they'll allow as how Clinton released her taxes so she could “bash” Trump.

The Clintons have previously released their tax returns going all the way back to the early 1980s. Over a year ago Clinton released eight more years. This latest release is just her most recent return filed this year.

So, yeah, NPR is pretty stupid.
posted by JackFlash at 6:46 PM on August 12, 2016 [18 favorites]


The "does not specify if he is being sarcastic" is gold. The news media has clearly had it with Trump's crap. Except apparently NPR?
posted by Justinian at 6:49 PM on August 12, 2016 [50 favorites]


trump's razor and all, but I wonder if making Pence a non-entity in the campaign is a way to distance him from trump's bombastic personality and then have him "win" the VP debates by putting forward relatively modest (in terms of A Modest Proposal in addition to the standard meaning) R. policy? That would give Hillary leaning Republicans a figleaf for holding their nose on the SCOTUS vote. Perhaps I'm ascribing too much forethought to a campaign that is just now opening up battleground state campaign offices.
posted by codacorolla at 6:49 PM on August 12, 2016


We're at a point where "does not specify if he's being sarcastic" is a part of election coverage.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:50 PM on August 12, 2016 [40 favorites]


In the last thread there was a question about a missing $63 million in Trump campaign funds? I am still suspicious that that $80 million figure was made up, given that there had been reporting earlier in the day of a much, much lower number raised on Trump's side. My theory is that Trump's ego couldn't let the opposition appear to be more successful in any measure so they inflated the number passed off to press once he heard Clinton's figures.

I feel conspiracy-theorist and like I've gone over the edge to even suspect this, and yet, and yet, the most ridiculous thing has proven to be true so many times this cycle. I guess we'll find out soon, huh?
posted by Andrhia at 6:54 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm really excited about Hillary's campaign launching their own podcast, I hope once Hillary becomes president she keeps up a semi-regular podcast, it could be like the 21st century version of the fireside chats! Everything I've read about Hillary makes her seem like a great person to know and work with in person, and I feel like the one-way intimacy that a podcast offers would allow those parts of her personality to come through.
posted by airish at 6:55 PM on August 12, 2016 [38 favorites]




They have interest of about $25,000 from a cash account at JP Morgan which I estimate represents about $25 million in cash deposits.

They have dividends of $84,000 from a Vanguard S&P 500 mutual fund which I estimate represents a market value of about $4.2 million.


This doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would you have a savings account six times as large as your investment account, especially if it's only insured up to $250,000 and, by your estimates, is only getting 0.1% interest? I'm admittedly not terribly familiar with dealing with wealth of these amounts, but that seems really weird to me.
posted by one_bean at 6:56 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


A republic, if you can keep it.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:57 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


interest of about $25,000 from a cash account at JP Morgan which I estimate represents about $25 million in cash deposits.

That seems off by an order of magnitude. It's not that hard to get 1% interest on cash which would make that $2.5 million.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:01 PM on August 12, 2016 [21 favorites]


How do you fight the voter intimidation thing?

At this rate, states may have to start sending in their National Guard(s), with temporary federalizing of troops in non-compliant states like we did in Arkansas in 1957. Getting enough judges to overturn the completely predictably racist outcomes of Justice "I Was Literally Hired To Destroy The VRA" Roberts' decision in Shelby v. Holder would also help, as most (if not all) laws passed both before and since are coming under scrutiny for being blatant voter suppression tools and/or poll taxes.

In this case, elections matter for elections.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:02 PM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]



Legal associations sometimes have election observer programs where lawyers can volunteer their time to be impartial polling place observers on election day.

As I remember, Election Protection does more than this -- they actually have a hotline you can call if you need help dealing with shenanigans. I do not know whether their volunteers wear capes, but the name alone makes them sound like a superhero from Schoolhouse Rock.

If you are an attorney, law student, paralegal or legal assistant, you can find out for yourself what the deal is with the cape.
posted by feral_goldfish at 7:02 PM on August 12, 2016 [15 favorites]


I hope once Hillary becomes president she keeps up a semi-regular podcast

You mean like the President's weekly address (previously the "weekly radio address")? It's a longstanding tradition. Jazzing it up into a more informal podcast style could be interesting; Obama made some changes to the format by adding video, and sometime under W they started publishing them as a podcast feed.
posted by zachlipton at 7:03 PM on August 12, 2016 [12 favorites]


But, like, what does he do with all his awakened hours? I have a good human non-parent sleep schedule of something like seven to nine hours a day, and I work a job and learn and learn things about the world and the people in it with me? How does he know and care so little? Seriously, what does he do with a day?
posted by lauranesson at 7:04 PM on August 12, 2016 [29 favorites]


This doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would you have a savings account six times as large as your investment account, especially if it's only insured up to $250,000 and, by your estimates, is only getting 0.1% interest?

Yeah I think these estimates must be wrong. They must surely be earning more than 0.1%. I can get a better rate than that at my credit union. But having a few million in a cash account is probably not that unusual for the very rich, especially if you have a lot of ongoing expenses and need ready access to cash.
posted by dis_integration at 7:06 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


Tweet at 3am, apparently.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:06 PM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


Seriously, what does he do with a day?

Stare at a mirror to make sure his orange sheen is up to spec? Yell at Meredith? Take a riding crop to Chris Christie?

Upon preview:
Oh, right. Twitter.
posted by mordax at 7:07 PM on August 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


Seriously, what does he do with a day?

Well, a good three hours per day goes to the care and feeding of the thing on top of his head.
posted by briank at 7:08 PM on August 12, 2016 [16 favorites]




Seriously, what does he do with a day?

I get the feeling it involves a lot of watching cable news and reading his Twitter stream.
posted by EarBucket at 7:10 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


Donald Trump's supporters are LESS likely to be affected by trade and immigration, not more
What they're interested in is using trade and immigration to hurt somebody else while they stand by an laugh.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:11 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


For any fence sitters, the ultimate endorsement is in: RuPaul on His First Emmy Nomination, Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton:
What do you think about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats?

[Laughs.] I fucking love them. I have always loved them. And let me just say this: If you're a politician — not just in Washington but in business and industry, you have to be a politician — there are a lot of things that you have to do that you're not proud of. There are a lot of compromises you have to make because it means that you can get this other thing over here. And if you think that you can go to fucking Washington and be rainbows and butterflies the whole time, you're living in a fucking fantasy world. So now, having said that, think about what a female has to do with that: All of those compromises, all of that shit, double it by ten. And you get to understand who this woman is and how powerful, persuasive, brilliant, and resilient she is. Any female executive, anybody who has been put to the side — women, blacks, gays — for them to succeed in a white-male-dominated culture is an act of brilliance. Of resilience, of grit, of everything you can imagine. So, what do I think of Hillary? I think she's fucking awesome. Is she in bed with Wall Street? Goddammit, I should hope so! You've got to dance with the devil. So which of the horrible people do you want? That's more of the question. Do you want a pompous braggart who doesn't know anything about diplomacy? Or do you want a badass bitch who knows how to get shit done? That's really the question.
posted by palindromic at 7:12 PM on August 12, 2016 [281 favorites]


states may have to start sending in their National Guard

Given that the military was recently polling 2-to-1 for Trump, that sounds in itself intimidating.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:15 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


God, there are times when I really do love RuPaul. I know he's not perfect, but as he says, no one can judge him but Judy.
posted by erinfern at 7:15 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


Given that the military was recently polling 2-to-1 for Trump, that sounds in itself intimidating.

Oh, gross.
posted by tzikeh at 7:16 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


Seriously, what does he do with a day?

If he's like me, continuously hits refresh and chews another antacid? His Internet K-Hole is more mirrorlike than mine, but if there's one thing that makes him tragically human to me, it's that we're probably both online at 3am wondering where the evening went. Clinton is sound asleep.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 7:16 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


Does anyone else think that Trump might be trying to forfeit the election on purpose?

Many people have asked "if Trump were a Clinton plant, what would he do differently?"
posted by gyc at 7:16 PM on August 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


I bet Trump spends a lot of time combing his hairs
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:17 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


Many people have asked "if Trump were a Clinton plant, what would he do differently?"

Probably not gin up the idea that the entire democratic process is invalid if Clinton is elected.
posted by codacorolla at 7:18 PM on August 12, 2016 [99 favorites]


Many people have asked "if Trump were a Clinton plant, what would he do differently?"

I don't think he'd incite violence if that were the case.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:19 PM on August 12, 2016 [29 favorites]


Who was it that interviewed him recently and found him unable to stop watching himself on TV? It was a print interview.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:20 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


Given that the military was recently polling 2-to-1 for Trump

Every result I can find for that is referring to a Military Times poll, which is a completely unscientific voluntary poll (like an Internet poll). I can't find any actual poll data on military support.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:20 PM on August 12, 2016 [19 favorites]


This doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would you have a savings account six times as large as your investment account, especially if it's only insured up to $250,000 and, by your estimates, is only getting 0.1% interest? I'm admittedly not terribly familiar with dealing with wealth of these amounts, but that seems really weird to me.

For people in their late 60s they have plenty of money for a comfortable retirement, including likely half a million a year in pensions for the rest of their life and a generous inheritance for their grandchildren. They simply have no need to take risk in the stock market. Bill can pull down a spare half million any time he likes with a 30 minute speech.

As to the low interest rate, you simply don't get more than about 0.1% for large deposits in cash accounts in large banks or money market funds (back in 2015, by the way). Those higher rates you are citing are for limited amounts, not $25 million. Contrary to popular belief, there are no "special rates" for large depositors.

They aren't worried about the $250,000 FDIC insurance limits. That is why they put all their cash into a too big to fail bank.
posted by JackFlash at 7:21 PM on August 12, 2016 [14 favorites]


(And a different unscientific poll claims that Johnson beats both Trump and Clinton among servicemembers)
posted by thefoxgod at 7:21 PM on August 12, 2016


Does anyone else think that Trump might be trying to forfeit the election on purpose?

Many people have asked "if Trump were a Clinton plant, what would he do differently?"


Trump lacks both the discretion and capacity for long-term planning for such a scenario.
posted by palindromic at 7:21 PM on August 12, 2016 [8 favorites]


I just tried to look up where tehhund actually was in the Threads and became inadvertently caught in an ouroboros hall of Trumpist mirrors DO NOT TRY AT HOME
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:22 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


As to the low interest rate, you simply don't get more than about 0.1% for large deposits in cash accounts in large banks or money market funds

Hmm, I know this is not true up to like $500k or so, so I'm dubious. Money market accounts can handle pretty large deposits and the rate is the same as long as you hit the minimum.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:23 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also, I signed up to be a poll worker for elections, which also makes me personally feel a bit better. At least I can spot shenanigans in whatever corner of NYC they stick me in. Might be useful also to hear that the poll-worker training takes four hours here (down from six) and is real wrapped up in the undoing and redoing of plastic seals on machines and maybe low on the parts where you learn about affidavit ballots and whatnot. But there's a big old instruction book that I'll plow through a couple more times before the primaries in September here. Later come the generals.

It's not a good gig. I think the pay is 200 bucks for election-day work from 5am to 10-ish pm, but it kind of is ridiculously important to me that at least a singular nerd is in attendance to make sure that things go according to plan. And they are so desperate for poll workers that I stepped onto the bus to get back home from training and saw a bunch of ads about it. NYC Mefites, I hereby call you to arms.
posted by lauranesson at 7:24 PM on August 12, 2016 [45 favorites]




Who was it that interviewed him recently and found him unable to stop watching himself on TV? It was a print interview.

It was this WaPo interview with Philip Rucker, which is worth rereading.
posted by dis_integration at 7:25 PM on August 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


Thanks, JackFlash. That was really enlightening and lent a really useful, reality-based perspective to the "just wants to get rich" narrative. If anything, what's remarkable about HIllary is that she's actually chosen to spend her life and deploy her legal talents almost exclusively in public service. That's not the behavior of someone whose central goal is money. Speaking fees are one of their main sources of income, and given their roles as authors and leaders, I don't see much wrong with that. And now that you've broken it down for us - well, the Clintons do very well, but they are not among the global super-elite rich; many of us probably interact with doctors, lawyers, real estate brokers and bankers who do equally well or better, and that's worth knowing. Also, the 10% that you note matches the goals of tithe is probably no accident.
posted by Miko at 7:25 PM on August 12, 2016 [32 favorites]


Also also, poor Tehhund. When/if you get here, I would like to say that I like that your name is an internet/German version of "the dog," and thus maybe some kinda uber joke on, "On the internet..."
posted by lauranesson at 7:26 PM on August 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


The thing I worry the most about is 2020. Hillary will likely take the White House with all that that entails (foreign policy stay-the-course bad, domestic vaguely-liberal good) and see her huge victory as something indicating public approval. Then the Republicans will somehow position someone on-the-surface respectable next time, Hillary will get her clock cleaned electorally, and the R's candidate will turn out to be Bush III.

The country desperately needs to turn around in terms of foreign policy. We're going into our fifteenth year in Afghanistan, and the way it's looking we'll be there at least eight more. All that money, flushed down the drain, when it could be actually fixing our education system, or helping the poor, or improving our health care, or....
posted by JHarris at 7:28 PM on August 12, 2016 [18 favorites]


Tehhund appears to be in late July.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:28 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


On the internet, everyone knows Tehhund is dogged in election threads.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:28 PM on August 12, 2016 [12 favorites]


flug researched the fascinating story of the bizarre Trumpchart-same-as-David-Duke-graphic phenomenon. The mystery deepens.
posted by Don Pepino at 7:28 PM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


Gotta love Krugman's opening in today's NYT piece:
By now, it’s obvious to everyone with open eyes that Donald Trump is an ignorant, wildly dishonest, erratic, immature, bullying egomaniac. On the other hand, he’s a terrible person.
And Huffpo has a good round-up of Trump supporters’ excuses for his shitty poll numbers.
posted by zakur at 7:29 PM on August 12, 2016 [14 favorites]


I think that Trump's best and winning brain is telling his mouth that the only way to explain him not winning is people must be cheating. There is just no way his genius is not a winner.

Of course other people are saying it (Alex Jones et al) too so it must be true. Right? Therefore his mouth is spewing the words out without a whole lot of forethought. I'm not certain his brain is actually capable of much thought beyond how something directly affects him. He also doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything else. All he cares about is coming up with some way to explain away his loss that has nothing to do with himself. His brain has to be placated and soothed somehow and that's what we're watching occur.
posted by Jalliah at 7:29 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


Can someone please explain to me how Trump can have 41% of the popular vote in polls right now?

I understand why electoral college results are different from popular vote, hell we all got that education in 2000. I'm asking how he can have TWELVE PERCENT in electoral college but 41% of popular in current polling. that boggles my mind.

Also, for those who want predictions from someone with a better track record in this election than 538: Carl Diggler's predictions.
posted by shmegegge at 7:29 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


Donald seems to have an astounding lack of imagination, paired with his lack of curiosity about the world outside his narrow view. He never had any understanding of what the job of President means beyond maybe watching movies and accidentally catching a newsclip if it's on. He thinks being President means you get to say whatever you want, and people will have to do it. Like Putin. Like Harrison Ford in Air Force One, Bill Pullman in Independence Day. You know, it'll be like reality [sic] tv. He's probably never seen a press conference, so he's pissed that the press asks questions, and once in a while, a tough question. Of course he doesn't want this job, he'll be expected to work. He is in so far over his head, and he might be getting a glimmer of understanding that. His ego isn't going to let him really get it. I don't think he's terribly intelligent, but not actually stupid. So his brain must be working awfully hard to keep his illusions intact.
posted by theora55 at 7:30 PM on August 12, 2016 [16 favorites]


You know, since his campaign is essentially a Jon Bois "breaking the presidential election" bit at this point... He should just go out there and tell all his followers to lie to pollsters. Tell 'em you're voting for Hillary. Get 'em going real good.

Even if they don't do it, it spreads maximum FUD and gives him a talking point if anyone brings up polls. Oh, 85% for Crooked Hillary? I'm not worried. You'll see on election day. [wink]
posted by ctmf at 7:30 PM on August 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


Lauranesson, I seriously have been thinking about signing up for poll work myself. I just need to have a conversation about that with my boss.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:31 PM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


Seldom is it asked: who fucks the ratfuckers?

Angry Karl Rove blisters ‘impulsive’ Trump in epic rant: ‘Does he want to win?’:
The former George W. Bush chief-of-staff grew visibly aggravated and launched into an increasingly angry tirade questioning whether Trump “wants to win.”

“Yeah, well, you know what?” Rove began. “If he does that between now and the election, what do you think is going to happen? The Clinton campaign is going to provoke him everyday to stay off of message. And he is going to fall for all of these things and waste valuable time. Does he want to win or does he want to respond? If he wants to be the New Yorker and punch back at everybody who comes his way — fine! That’s an open invitation for everybody to come his way with things like this.”
posted by palindromic at 7:32 PM on August 12, 2016 [15 favorites]


Can someone please explain to me how Trump can have 41% of the popular vote in polls right now?

He's a Republican and they're Republicans. Party loyalty is a real thing. Also, people don't pay that much attention, so are not overwhelmed by the immensity of his horribleness. He's a man. He's a white man. He's not Hillary Clinton, who is very unpopular.
posted by dis_integration at 7:32 PM on August 12, 2016 [32 favorites]


Reporters need to ask him explicitly and specifically if he is being sarcastic after every statement now.
posted by ctmf at 7:32 PM on August 12, 2016 [51 favorites]


Man, also I wanna say that NYC poll worker pay is better than it is almost anywhere. It's definitely above minimum wage, where it's I think mostly just voluntary elsewhere? So what I mean is that I call any and all Mefites that can to work the polls. Here, we just get one-day rich for doing so. Go get trained (or often not!) and work them polls and talk to normal voters like they are fellow humans.
posted by lauranesson at 7:35 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


He's a Republican and they're Republicans. Party loyalty is a real thing.

but that doesn't explain the disparity. party loyalty would give him a much higher than 12% showing in electoral polling, right now. where does the disparity between 12 and 41 really come from? I've never heard of that much difference between electoral and popular vote before. ever.
posted by shmegegge at 7:37 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also his brain and body is really, really tired and part of it wants to sleep. Other parts are saying 'no you are a great and strong man you can not be tired. You must fight.' Since his brain also tells him how perfect and awesome he is it won't allow itself to admit weakness. Weak is bad. Weak is for losers. Hillary is a loser. Right?. Hilary is weak. She must be tired. Look she sleeps. Sleep is for the weak. Look at her weakness people. Sad.

Trump is running against himself and it's the oddest thing to watch play out.
posted by Jalliah at 7:38 PM on August 12, 2016 [36 favorites]


Here's the NYC application. https://nyc.electiondayworker.com/r/2016
posted by lauranesson at 7:39 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm inspired to sign up to work the polls, thanks. Of course, because digital government is so far behind, it's going to require me to wait 'til tomorrow and make a phone call to the city clerk. But I will do it. In an ideal world I'd be able to apply online or via email.
posted by Miko at 7:39 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


Clinton also released her new 2015 tax returns.

BUT WHAT ABOUT HER 2016 RETURNS WHAT IS SHE HIDING
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:40 PM on August 12, 2016 [27 favorites]


Also his brain and body is really, really tired and part of it wants to sleep. Other parts are saying 'no you are a great and strong man you can not be tired. You must fight.' Since his brain also tells him how perfect and awesome he is it won't allow itself to admit weakness. Weak is bad. Weak is for losers.

His campaign is my self-talk at the gym? This sudden realization is weird and frightening and I have to go lie down now.
posted by infinitywaltz at 7:40 PM on August 12, 2016 [16 favorites]


He's a Republican and they're Republicans. Party loyalty is a real thing.

but that doesn't explain the disparity. party loyalty would give him a much higher than 12% showing in electoral polling, right now. where does the disparity between 12 and 41 really come from? I've never heard of that much difference between electoral and popular vote before. ever.


He's not going to win 12% of the EVs. He has a 12% chance of getting past 270 and winning, that's all. Even if Clinton wins 350+ EVs Trump will still get around 200.
posted by dis_integration at 7:41 PM on August 12, 2016 [15 favorites]


And Huffpo has a good round-up of Trump supporters’ excuses for his shitty poll numbers.

I love that Newt has to go back to 1948 to find an example where polls called the election wrong.
posted by octothorpe at 7:41 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


Reporters need to ask him explicitly and specifically if he is being sarcastic after every statement now.

Sure, but Hugh Hewitt already tried this [real]:
HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.

DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.

HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.

DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?
He gave Trump a giant flaming exit sign, the voice of the fireman saying "it's going to be all right just crawl toward the light," and Trump instead plunged himself deeper into the flames. It was subsequent to this that Trump said he was being sarcastic, and then his spokeswomen tried to walk that back.

What's the point in asking him to apply real world [real] or [fake] tags to his own statements when he changes his mind on what's real and fake on a daily basis?
posted by zachlipton at 7:41 PM on August 12, 2016 [37 favorites]


party loyalty would give him a much higher than 12% showing in electoral polling, right now. where does the disparity between 12 and 41 really come from?

Uh where are you getting the 12% number from? Are you confusing 538's probability of winning with poll numbers?
posted by speicus at 7:41 PM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


Reporters need to ask him explicitly and specifically if he is being sarcastic after every statement now.

My thoughts exactly.

"Mr. Trump, are you being sarcastic?"

"No."

"Was that sarcastic?"

"No."

"How about now?"

"Maybe."
posted by octobersurprise at 7:41 PM on August 12, 2016 [82 favorites]


Probably not gin up the idea that the entire democratic process is invalid if Clinton is elected.


Well there's something going on. Believe me.
posted by gyc at 7:43 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


I've never heard of that much difference between electoral and popular vote before. ever.

In 1980 Reagan got 489 electoral votes with 50.7% of the vote. It's just math, man. If every single state voted for one candidate by 50.0000001%, that person would get 100% of the electoral votes.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:43 PM on August 12, 2016 [27 favorites]


In 1980 Reagan got 489 electoral votes with 50.7% of the vote. It's just math, man. If every single state voted for one candidate by 50.0000001%, that person would get 100% of the electoral votes.

Well, except that Nebraska and Maine are not winner-take-all. And I think DC is different too.
posted by dis_integration at 7:46 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


Perhaps of some interest -- compare 538's blue vs. red map with the Nobody Lives There map (green=0% population).
posted by tzikeh at 7:47 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


If every single state voted for one candidate by 50.0000001%, that person would get 100% of the electoral votes.


There's three states that allow splitting the electoral vote - but it looks like it's winner-take-all per-district, rather than proportional EV's, so a sufficiently smooth & creamy 50.000001% distribution would still result in a shutout.
posted by aubilenon at 7:47 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, and in 1984 Mondale got 40% of the vote but only about 2.5% of the electoral vote. But I'd be surprised if we got a comparable result today. It's kind of weird how the red state/blue state thing seems to have ossified in the 90s and now we're stuck with it.
posted by speicus at 7:47 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


His campaign is my self-talk at the gym? This sudden realization is weird and frightening and I have to go lie down now.

Yes if you listen to some of his speeches and interviews as if they are just his self talk being verbalized it does get really, really weird. Plus it kinda explains their disjointed nature.

I don't know about others but I know I don't self talk think in complete sentences and logically coherent blurbs.
posted by Jalliah at 7:47 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


Correction: two states. Sorry.
posted by aubilenon at 7:47 PM on August 12, 2016


NBC Nightly News: NEW: Donald Trump says only way Hillary Clinton can win Pennsylvania "is if cheating goes on;" does not specify if he is being sarcastic.

The best response.
posted by wallabear at 7:48 PM on August 12, 2016 [45 favorites]


Philly mefites, stand up!

Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 11:15am – 2:15pm
Pennsylvania Democratic Party Voter Registration Event with Hillary Clinton
posted by cashman at 7:48 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


"Was that sarcastic?"

"No."

"How about now?"

"Maybe."


Oh, I'm not being sarcastic! Nooo! This is just a little speech impediment. I can't help it!
posted by bibliowench at 7:49 PM on August 12, 2016 [19 favorites]


Looking forward to Trump's pivot to 'I'm not touching you!'
posted by palindromic at 7:50 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


“Yeah, well, you know what?” Rove began. “If he does that between now and the election, what do you think is going to happen? The Clinton campaign is going to provoke him everyday to stay off of message.

*raises hand*

Mr. Rove? petebest, MeFi Threads; What message would that be, sir?

Are you being sarcastic?
posted by petebest at 7:51 PM on August 12, 2016 [12 favorites]


What really strikes me about the Clinton tax return (per Jack Flash) is its simplicity. Those investments do not at all reflect people who are money hungry. Most of us try to maximize return ... at least, leverage our money to its best use.

A cash account and money in a 500 fund? That's beyond Spartan in its simplicity, and that speaks loudly to me about the values and goals of its holders.
posted by Dashy at 7:54 PM on August 12, 2016 [37 favorites]


I've never heard of that much difference between electoral and popular vote before. ever.

In 1984 Reagan got 58% of the popular vote and 98% of electoral votes. The discrepancy is the nature of winner-takes-all state electors.
posted by JackFlash at 7:54 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


The JP Morgan account is probably in something like broker CD's which would get reasonable interest rates but spread out the risk over a number of banks.
posted by humanfont at 7:55 PM on August 12, 2016


Holy fuck, man. [WARNING: LINKS TO TRUMP WEBSITE] Actual volunteer form for 'election observer' role in trump campaign.

I'm sick to my stomach with this shit.
posted by codacorolla at 7:58 PM on August 12, 2016 [34 favorites]


the R's candidate will turn out to be Bush III.

Bush II only made into office with a little shove from the Supreme Court which shouldn't be quite so motivated in 2020.
posted by srboisvert at 7:59 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


NBC Nightly News: NEW: Donald Trump says only way Hillary Clinton can win Pennsylvania "is if cheating goes on;" does not specify if he is being sarcastic.

The best response.


I want to favorite this so hard, wallabear, but the image of SO MUCH TRUMP wearing SO LITTLE SUIT forces me not to.
posted by mochapickle at 7:59 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


A cash account and money in a 500 fund? That's beyond Spartan in its simplicity, and that speaks loudly to me about the values and goals of its holders.

To me, it says that Hillary Clinton really wants to be President, so she's going to have exceptionally clean and simple financials and remove them as a question in the campaign (being long on US stocks and the US Dollar are generally not considered bad things for a Presidential candidate). I don't think it says a ton about values and goals beyond that.
posted by zachlipton at 8:00 PM on August 12, 2016 [20 favorites]


Really tempted to fill out the Trump election observer form just to see what happens. I'm registered as a Democrat, but they're not organized enough to check that, right?
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:01 PM on August 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


Is that "election observer" shit legal? In a better campaign they'd have been sure to run it by lawyers but here, God only knows
posted by Countess Elena at 8:03 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


I was just having the exact same thought.
posted by infinitywaltz at 8:03 PM on August 12, 2016


A cash account and money in a 500 fund? That's beyond Spartan in its simplicity, and that speaks loudly to me about the values and goals of its holders.

I guess I take it more as evidence that two people who are insanely wealthy and have incredible earning potential just in giving talks don't really have any need to participate very much in rich-people money-into-more-money stuff. It looks bad.

Mostly it's just that they are already profoundly wealthy and have numerous options for making money any time they want simply by being them. They really don't need to do much to continue being fabulously wealthy. This is not bad, but it's not a mark in favor either.
posted by neonrev at 8:04 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's kind of weird how the red state/blue state thing seems to have ossified in the 90s and now we're stuck with it.

A lot of that, I think, is plain old gerrymandering.
posted by Miko at 8:04 PM on August 12, 2016 [14 favorites]


I just want to say that two of the most fun days of my life were doing GOTV on election day in Richmond, VA in 2008 and Easton, PA in 2012. In both cases there were many lawyers standing by, eager to help.
posted by maggiemaggie at 8:04 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


Has Katrina Pierson passed Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf yet for "most obviously insincere PR flack"?
posted by ctmf at 8:04 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


To me, it says that Hillary Clinton really wants to be President ....I don't think it says a ton about values and goals beyond that.

Even if that's true, I've just never seen any value in judging people for doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 8:05 PM on August 12, 2016 [15 favorites]


I think we need to look for the return of Terry Tate in our hour of need.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 8:05 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


Really tempted to fill out the Trump election observer form just to see what happens. I'm registered as a Democrat, but they're not organized enough to check that, right?

Considering the RNC sent me (a registered Democrat who votes straight D) a census form/donation plea, no, I doubt they're organized enough to check.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:05 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


I have these little dreams about making sure that whatever Trump observer is x-hundred feet away from a polling site and singing "Electioneering" in my head all day, but let's be clear that most of my time will be much better used in the NYC reality of making sure the not-ever-Trump people in my neighborhood (or one much like it) get every chance to cast their vote.

This is why I have amended the request for y'all real Americans to sign up, if you can, to work as election workers and polite those jerks to death if they appear. It seems really rude to leave it up to nice retired people who have polited enough in their time.
posted by lauranesson at 8:06 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't think it says a ton about values and goals beyond that.

Whatever else it says, it says that the primary value is not maximizing personal income, which is more than we can say for many candidates present and past.
posted by Miko at 8:07 PM on August 12, 2016 [19 favorites]


Do you really think money is a prime motivation for sane multimillionaire 60something old?

It hasn't slowed down Sen. Feinstein. Sure, she tosses her plums to her married-filing-separately husband but California is a Community Property state. Add the two together and they are obscenely rich.

And, no- I don't think Clinton's 2015 return shows anything but a carefully sanitized view. She's known for a few years what was coming and has had time to make 2015 look positively Simple Life.
posted by small_ruminant at 8:08 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


Being Canadian I am an outside observer of sorts. What Trump and his campaign are trying to set up right now with his whole rigged thing is horrible.

With the way that Hilary's campaign is being run so far I have a lot of confidence that she has people, good people, who are hyper aware of it and the potential for problems on election day. They will have a response of their own, even if it's some sort of observer of the observer thing and legal help up the wazoo. With what they've done so far I'd be very surprised if they didn't already have a strategy in place to meet this sort of crap head on. And even if they don't it seems she has people with enough competence to whip it up now.
posted by Jalliah at 8:10 PM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


I can't believe it hasn't happened yet, but I bet Trump is going to screw up and say something stupid. Soon.
posted by AugustWest at 8:10 PM on August 12, 2016 [25 favorites]


Donald Trump says only way Hillary Clinton can win Pennsylvania "is if cheating goes on;"

He should totally hire Chiefy Kessler. Remember, that half-ass police Chief from some PA podunk town who was going to fight the Messicans on the border, then claimed to be a Fed Agent, then got fired. Last I heard he was still unemployed and his wife left him. So he definitely needs a purpose in life.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:10 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


Holy fuck, man. [WARNING: LINKS TO TRUMP WEBSITE] Actual volunteer form for 'election observer' role in trump campaign.

Filled one out for WA State - which is 100% Vote By Mail. Just to see what'll happen. Naturally, I used a throwaway email address and name, and didn't include my phone or mailing address.

Suck it, Trump.
posted by spinifex23 at 8:12 PM on August 12, 2016 [21 favorites]


has had time to make 2015 look positively Simple Life.

So what do you make of the previous 30 years and the CGI?
posted by Miko at 8:13 PM on August 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


She's known for a few years what was coming and has had time to make 2015 look positively Simple Life.

You can go back and look at every one of her returns for the past 30-some years. There's nothing particularly different in there.

From looking at their previous returns, what is clear is that the Clinton's will be giving up about $20 million each year to serve in the Presidency. Easily $100 million of forgone money over one or two terms.

They ain't in this for the money.
posted by JackFlash at 8:15 PM on August 12, 2016 [103 favorites]


Saving Mike Pence

Trump's complete unfitness and idiosyncrasies is going to let the rest of the Republican party walk away unscathed, no matter how much they supported, enabled and created the environment that allowed him to win. They're already acting like Mike Pence, Trump's fucking running mate, had no responsibility for any of it, hell he took one for the team. Good Ole Mike, he was out in Indiana anyway, it's a good thing he took the hit so Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz didn't have to do it.

Meanwhile Hilary is eagerly embracing any Republican willing to step a little towards the center line, she's thus far unwilling to hang Trump around their necks, which just bolsters the Republican serving narrative that Trump is sui generis, and they of course bear no responsibility whatsoever.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:16 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


Has Katrina Pierson passed Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf yet for "most obviously insincere PR flack"?

Can we make Baghdad Kat stick?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:17 PM on August 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm kind of ... So what if they intentionally kept their finances clean and politically uncontroversial (as much as you can being rich)? Like isn't it kind of a smart thing to do if politics and public service is your life's work? Maybe also during much of the Arkansas years and (first) Whitehouse years they didn't really have time or interest to hyper-optimize their wealth gains?
posted by R343L at 8:18 PM on August 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


I have not looked at her previous returns so I'll take your word for it.
posted by small_ruminant at 8:19 PM on August 12, 2016


Re: observers: here is, at least, the (pdf version of the) NYC Poll Worker's Manual. The "Poll Watchers, Observers, and Media" pages are 12 and 13 in this format. It states what observers can and cannot do.

(ED here means "Election District," and BMD means "Ballot Marking Device," which is an accessibility alternative to the normal pencil-and-paper-and-then-scanner thing the city does.)

Relevant bit: "Each poll watcher must be certified in writing by one of the following: a candidate, a chairperson of a political committee, or a chairperson of an independent body. Each poll watcher must show a certificate for each Election District to the poll site Coordinator or Chairperson." (emphases in original)

The "each" Election District part matters because in my experience in the city, Assembly Districts might have a poll place encompassing multiple Election Districts, meaning they should have a few pieces of paper and not just one.
I promise I'll shut up about it after this. Sign up already!
posted by lauranesson at 8:20 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


The fact that the Clinton's finances are completely above board and non-controversial is yet more evidence of the corrupt and rigged nature of our politics.
posted by Justinian at 8:21 PM on August 12, 2016 [139 favorites]


Is that "election observer" shit legal? In better campaign they'd have been sure to run it by lawyers but here, God only knows

The campaigns have sent election observers for as long as I've been aware of elections.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:22 PM on August 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


So my wife's conservative parents got very upset recently when their catholic church was observed by filmmakers tied to a muslim community. It strikes me that for some observation is seen as intimidation when it involves those outside your tribe, and that this is not lost on Trump supporters.
posted by Bistle at 8:22 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


Possibly needs joke tag Justinian.
posted by R343L at 8:23 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


Can I just ask someone to explain the jokes about Tehhund? Because I'm baffled, and I'm even more curious than I would have been because they apparently need no explanation.
posted by teponaztli at 8:23 PM on August 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


Possibly needs joke tag Justinian.

I was being sarcastic.
posted by Justinian at 8:26 PM on August 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


But not that sarcastic. /trump
posted by Justinian at 8:26 PM on August 12, 2016 [28 favorites]


I think normally campaigns don't solicit election observers in quite so public and partisan ways. That is, local campaign organizers recruit them. It's not usually the candidate themself while in the next breath claiming the election might get stolen.
posted by R343L at 8:27 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


Justinian: I was pretty sure but someone who hasn't been reading all these threads or who knows you might not get it. I mean. The entire election has me just jaw dropped and when the Onion can't really manage actual absurd jokes...
posted by R343L at 8:28 PM on August 12, 2016


Can I just ask someone to explain the jokes about Tehhund?

I thought I did here.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:29 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


(I think it's a common experience for prolific commentators in these threads to have noticed a series of favorites from them from a long time in the past and then investigating and realizing that they are reading the elections threads in order, and are still a ways back. I at least had that experience.)

When you get here Tehhund, whenever that is, just keep on truckin' through. I sincerely hope it gets better.)
posted by neonrev at 8:29 PM on August 12, 2016 [17 favorites]


The fact that the Clinton's finances are completely above board and non-controversial is yet more evidence of the corrupt and rigged nature of our politics.

Seriously, talk about there being no right answer. The accusation boils down to "she wants to be President and has for a while," which, like, how dare a person want that I guess?
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:30 PM on August 12, 2016 [65 favorites]


Can I just ask someone to explain the jokes about Tehhund? Because I'm baffled, and I'm even more curious than I would have been because they apparently need no explanation.

Based on favorites activity, the MeFi user Tehhund is still somewhere back on DNC Day 2 or so trying to catch up with election threads, but has been very diligently working his way forward. He'll get here someday and we'd like to celebrate that day in advance.

Ironically, the more we make comments about Tehhund here, the father behind he gets. It's sort of an odd variant on the Sisyphus story really.
posted by zachlipton at 8:30 PM on August 12, 2016 [112 favorites]


Tehhund is unstuck in time
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:30 PM on August 12, 2016 [33 favorites]


And what a slog that must be, I can barely bring myself to load the '643 new posts' tabs and these threads are incredibly unhealthy and addictive to me. Doing it all, without social media context, in order seems incredible.
posted by neonrev at 8:32 PM on August 12, 2016 [8 favorites]


Ohh, thanks for the explanations, everyone. That's actually pretty charming.
posted by teponaztli at 8:33 PM on August 12, 2016 [23 favorites]


To be clear, I wasn't saying that there was anything bad about the Clinton's finances being incredibly boring, just that they are clearly boring on purpose because she knew she wants to run for President and so she, in a typically professional fashion, ensured there would be nothing there to look at. They're swell, and I think they say "competent professional taking this issue off the table."

(And because earning a low rate of return on your investments isn't really a big deal if both you and your husband can speak your way to anything you might want to buy.)
posted by zachlipton at 8:35 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


Reince Priebus: 'Don't Believe The Garbage You Read' About Trump

I hate to link Borowitz, but how is Reince at all different than "TRUMP BLASTS MEDIA FOR REPORTING THINGS HE SAYS"?
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:41 PM on August 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


If you are an attorney, law student, paralegal or legal assistant, you can find out for yourself what the deal is with the cape.
posted by feral_goldfish at 9:02 PM on August 1


NO CAPES!
posted by Reverend John at 8:42 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't think there's any real meat on those Tax Report bones. Regardless of any considerations for appearances, I really have a terribly difficult time imagining them having any reason at all to engage in any serious money making venture. They are already quite wealthy, have names and histories that all but guarantee future financial comfort for limited effort, and if they wanted to they could fuck off to a mountaintop mansion an emerge ten times a year to talk for 40 minutes and make far more money than the vast majority of people make in a year. It's like a non-issue.

Like, bully for them being so rich and choosing not to be complete money-grubbing assholes about it, but I also don't find solace in the narrative of the very wealthy and powerful seeking political power either. That's just business as usual.

This topic bores me to tears, makes me annoyed about money, and ugh.
posted by neonrev at 8:45 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


I think that Trump's best and winning brain is telling his mouth that the only way to explain him not winning is people must be cheating. There is just no way his genius is not a winner.

It would be easy to take Republicans seriously about voter fraud if they'd accept UN or other independent oversight of elections, but there's no way that would happen, because it would show Republicans as the slimy, dishonest cheaters that they are.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:45 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


I would just like to thank everyone in these threads. I'm stuck in a hotel room with my back acting up, taking too many meds to do much but reading these threads has kept me entertained. You are the best filter through which to experience this trainwreck.
posted by threeturtles at 8:48 PM on August 12, 2016 [30 favorites]


Trump Spokeswoman Says He Was 'Very Serious' About Obama 'Founding ISIS':
When Pierson was first asked if Trump was being sarcastic, she replied, "yes and no."
posted by kirkaracha at 8:51 PM on August 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


The Gospel According to Donald Trump:
For the record, I do not think I am God. I believe in God. If God ever wanted an apartment in Trump Tower, I would immediately offer my best luxury suite at a very special price. I believe God is everywhere and in all of us, and I want every decision I make to reflect well on me when it’s time for me to go to that big boardroom in the sky. When I get permanently fired by the ultimate boss, I want the elevator to heaven to go up, not down.
[real]
posted by kirkaracha at 8:52 PM on August 12, 2016 [35 favorites]


The kind of people who think Trump's right about rigging the election probably already believe the UN is the headquarters of the New World Order and/or completely ineffectual. So I'm worried that nothing short of a landslide will make victory clear and send them grumbling back to their holes.
posted by Countess Elena at 8:52 PM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


༼ノಠل͟ಠ༽ノ-︵-┻━┻
posted by Justinian at 8:53 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


Jesus, they really don't know what they're doing any more, do they?
posted by yhbc at 8:53 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]




You are the best filter through which to experience this trainwreck.

I

feel strangely validated
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:54 PM on August 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


Ah, hell, I wrote a really long and thought out thing about Trump talking about cheating and voter ID and long-term effects and how Demographics are Destiny has a dark side when the fading former majority doesn't acknowledge that they are no longer an assumed 'everybody' and political parties start trying to appeal directly to voters who do not look like them, but also that former majority lives in a largely segregated country and legitimately don't see POC or poor people on their day-to-day, and is thus inclined to believe false 'voting more than once' claims, and this giving 'evidence' to gin up concern over voter fraud, but then I started talking about the tax returns and it got lost to the sands of the clipboard.

Pretend like that stream of consciousness is multiple paragraphs with a thesis and examples and anecdotes and was actually kinda good. Dangit.

So I'm worried that nothing short of a landslide will make victory clear and send them grumbling back to their holes.

Part of my concern is that his whining about cheating might resonate with some people who either don't know or hate the fact that the US is increasingly less White Men with Wives and Jobs, and actually cause a major backlash because "No way does he lose that bad without SOMETHING fishy going on!"
posted by neonrev at 8:56 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


it's clear that he has intent here, which is to make election day as messy and unpalatable as possible.

I agree with this, and it's been expressed in multiple ways. Trump has told his supporters to register for absentee ballots / early voting. He's also offered a completely bullshit description of Voter ID. (Remember, he votes in New York which has no early voting, complicated party registration rules, and requires filing an absentee ballot request with a good-faith excuse.) So his ideal scenario is that all those old white dudes vote early / absentee and head into the city to patrol Those People.

Of course, there'll be no organisation to do this, because Trump -- they're sending invites to the CT event to people in Maine, so how's that for targetting? -- but there's surely going to be some freelance bullshit.
posted by holgate at 8:58 PM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


Exit polling helps validate election results.

If there are polling people when you exit, talk to them.
posted by yesster at 8:58 PM on August 12, 2016 [15 favorites]


Hillary Clinton Vows To Do What Obama Hasn’t — Reschedule Marijuana:
“As president, Hillary will build on the important steps announced today by rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II substance,” she continued. “She will also ensure Colorado, and other states that have enacted marijuana laws, can continue to serve as laboratories of democracy.”
posted by kirkaracha at 8:59 PM on August 12, 2016 [80 favorites]


CA will likely legalize weed this November. That's going to be an awful lot of tax revenue coming in. Yay, CA!
posted by Justinian at 9:03 PM on August 12, 2016 [17 favorites]


Ironically, the more we make comments about Tehhund here, the father behind he gets. It's sort of an odd variant on the Sisyphus story really.

Tehhund's corollary to Zeno's paradox
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 9:03 PM on August 12, 2016 [20 favorites]


> Hillary Clinton Vows To Do What Obama Hasn’t — Reschedule Marijuana:

Well, I don't even see why Trump is going to bother visiting Oregon at all then.
posted by mrzarquon at 9:04 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


> If God ever wanted an apartment in Trump Tower, I would immediately offer my best luxury suite at a very special price.

This is clearly sarcasm. Trump's best luxury suite is obviously the one he's living in; God would have to make do with the second best. Which I'm sure is nevertheless very nice.

Also I'm not clear on what the point of offering God a discounted suite would be. If anyone's capable of paying whatever price you set, it'd be God, right? I mean, no wonder Trump's not a billionaire, with this kind of business sense. (Sad!)
posted by Spathe Cadet at 9:07 PM on August 12, 2016 [17 favorites]


> Hillary Clinton Vows To Do What Obama Hasn’t — Reschedule Marijuana:

In an unrelated story, both Johnson and Stein's poll numbers drop precipitously in favor of Clinton. [fake]
posted by nonasuch at 9:08 PM on August 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


Hi. I'm Steve. Is it safe to come out now?
posted by double block and bleed at 9:10 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


Nice to see Clinton going after the Reddit vote.
posted by Yowser at 9:12 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


All Steves please report to the decontamination room. All Steves please report to the decontamination room.
posted by salix at 9:15 PM on August 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


anarch: "Strategic cheerleading for the lesser evil aside, let's be clear that there's nothing to be happy about in this election. Period. We do all know this, right?"

Maybe for you. As a former Bernie supporter, my opinion of Hillary Clinton has made a complete and sincere 180 in the past couple months.

I'm about 1000% sure after 10,000 comments on the subject, nobody here wants to relitigate Bernie vs. Hillary, so don't.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:20 PM on August 12, 2016 [103 favorites]


Can someone please explain to me how Trump can have 41% of the popular vote in polls right now?

Some of the people, all of the time.
posted by JHarris at 9:21 PM on August 12, 2016 [56 favorites]


It would be easy to take Republicans seriously about voter fraud if they'd accept UN or other independent oversight of elections, but there's no way that would happen, because it would show Republicans as the slimy, dishonest cheaters that they are.

There's no way it could happen because there is no common standard that election observers can use as a benchmark for monitoring. The US basically has 3000 or so separate elections -- 50+1 state laws with a lot of administrative authority devolved to the county board level -- and so it doesn't meet the basic requirement for anything other than limited advisory missions.

There's a real need for a new VRA that acknowledges the Article I powers that give Congress the ultimate constitutional authority over elections. If you look at the IPU's declaration on free and fair elections (the US is not an IPU member state) you'll see a lot of things that aren't particularly controversial in most developed nations, but simply don't apply to how America Does Electin'.
posted by holgate at 9:21 PM on August 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


[A few comments deleted. Let's not jump back into "must everyone hate Clinton?" -- that's just not a place we need to go again.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:22 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


FYI, my estimate of how many posts the political megathreads have had from the RNC onward is approximately 30000.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:22 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


Hillary is an amazing candidate, and I am thrilled to vote for her.

Way past happy!!
posted by yesster at 9:23 PM on August 12, 2016 [30 favorites]


We'll have several novels worth of comments by election day. And not, like, 1970s pulp paperback novels but GRRM size doorstoppers.
posted by Justinian at 9:24 PM on August 12, 2016 [8 favorites]


Can someone please explain to me how Trump can have 41% of the popular vote in polls right now?

Some of the people, all of the time.
"Half the people are stoned and the other half are waiting for the next election
Half the people are drowned and the other half are swimming in the wrong direction."
-- Paul Simon, as gifted to Leonard Bernstein
posted by zachlipton at 9:26 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


how are you going to get redditors to the polls once they learn you can't downvote
posted by murphy slaw at 9:26 PM on August 12, 2016 [32 favorites]


In an unrelated story, both Johnson and Stein's poll numbers drop precipitously in favor of Clinton. [fake]

Johnson, Stein: "legalize it"
Clinton: "treat it like cocaine instead of like heroin"
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:26 PM on August 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


I'd say that rescheduling cannabis is a lot more important than just appealing to Reddit dudebros. For starters, it might ease up a little bit on the whole racist carceral state chokehold. I suspect it would give the cartels less wiggle room, too. And beyond all that, the DEA's drug schedule classification is totally fucking ridiculous. Take a look at the rundown from DEA.gov:

Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are: heroin, LSD, cannabis, MDMA, methaqualone, and peyote

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are: Vicodin, cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, Dilaudid, Demerol, oxycodone, fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin

Schedule III

Schedule III drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs abuse potential is less than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs but more than Schedule IV. Some examples of Schedule III drugs are: Products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit (Tylenol with codeine), ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone


So, um. Notice anything weird about those classifications? Does it seem like, oh, maybe 80% of those drugs are being flagrantly misclassified? I was disappointed that Obama's DEA is keeping cannabis at Schedule I, and I'm quite pleased that Clinton is at least talking about nudging this list toward sanity and evidence-based, non-moralizing policy.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 9:31 PM on August 12, 2016 [39 favorites]


> Johnson, Stein: "legalize it"
Clinton: "treat it like cocaine instead of like heroin"


And don't mess with the states that have legalized it. Thus setting the stage for greater decriminalization. Unlike alcohol, which was only under prohibition for 13 years, marijuana has quite a few decades (and a generation or two) of criminalization behind it to shift.
posted by mrzarquon at 9:33 PM on August 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sterling Archer 2016 campaign t-shirts now available in a limited edition release. Available in two colors, which aren't quite "black and slightly darker black," but are darn close.
posted by zachlipton at 9:34 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


i'd be more likely to vote for johnson if I didn't suspect that his dismantling of the DEA wouldn't be accompanied by similar treatment of the FDA and the EPA…
posted by murphy slaw at 9:34 PM on August 12, 2016 [34 favorites]


Speaking of cannabis, I just hope Tehhund isn't reading these while stoned. I mean can you even imagine? It'd be like that time I got high and decided to watch some of those Buzzfeed Try Guys videos (don't judge) and the very first one I clicked on happened to be the one that begins with Eugene looking directly into the camera and saying "Okay, I'm going to take my shirt off for you, YOUTUBE" and I knew in an instant that he had looked into the depths of my soul and seen the uncleanness there. I mean the events of this year alone are already enough to make you think you're losing it, and then as you make your way through the election threads random people start cheering your progress? Duuuuuude.
posted by sunset in snow country at 9:34 PM on August 12, 2016 [20 favorites]


Does it seem like, oh, maybe 80% of those drugs are being flagrantly misclassified?

Are you saying LSD doesn't have a high potential for abuse? I'm sick to death of all the Beatles I see outside of my front door each morning, sprawled across the sidewalk and desperately begging for one little set of tracers to tide them over so they can see Lucy sky some diamonds
posted by Greg Nog at 9:35 PM on August 12, 2016 [33 favorites]


it's been well established that lsd leads to jam bands, and if that's not abuse I don't know what is
posted by murphy slaw at 9:39 PM on August 12, 2016 [70 favorites]


i'd be more likely to vote for johnson if I didn't suspect that his dismantling of the DEA wouldn't be accompanied by similar treatment of the FDA and the EPA…

and the Department of Education, and the Social Security Administration.....
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 9:40 PM on August 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


Speaking of cannabis, I just hope Tehhund isn't reading these while stoned. I mean can you even imagine?

You mean the rest of you people are sober when reading this? How on earth do you manage?
posted by neonrev at 9:40 PM on August 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


Another thought: it's been noted that these evening rallies in places like Altoona are bringing out a kind of weariness, which may be down to the polls or Trump's physical capacity for the long campaign, but I think it's also because Mr NYC Penthouse / Florida country club / etc. is actually starting to dislike the small/medium-sized cities that he's having to campaign in and pretend to champion, even though he's filling venues.

(Pence gets to commute from New Mexico to New Hampshire next week. Trump's going 40-odd miles from Milwaukee to West Bend on Tuesday, both evening events. West Bend will get the "yadda yadda, when can I fly back to NYC" rally.)
posted by holgate at 9:41 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


these days i rely on election coverage to grant me that pervasive sense of unreality that i used to get from bong hits
posted by murphy slaw at 9:41 PM on August 12, 2016 [19 favorites]


We'll have several novels worth of comments by election day. And not, like, 1970s pulp paperback novels but GRRM size doorstoppers.

Game of Drones
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:42 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


Are you saying LSD doesn't have a high potential for abuse?

In my acid days I always knew who the lizardoids were. Undoubtedly, that is an election year skill to cultivate.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:44 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


yesster: Exit polling helps validate election results. If there are polling people when you exit, talk to them.

Not if they've got an AK-47 strapped to their back. No thank you.
posted by tzikeh at 9:45 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just went to check my post history to see that Tehhund is now only a week behind! We're rooting for you. And here's a pup with Trump hair for your dedication and trouble. <3
posted by stolyarova at 9:46 PM on August 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


i'd be more likely to vote for johnson if I didn't suspect that his dismantling of the DEA wouldn't be accompanied by similar treatment of the FDA and the EPA…

LBJ took the IRT
Down to 4th Street USA
When he got there, what did he see
The youth of America on LSD
posted by salix at 9:46 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


well what really scares me is those peyote addicts holding up liquor stores and having peyote babies
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 9:47 PM on August 12, 2016 [32 favorites]


Greg Nog: " Does it seem like, oh, maybe 80% of those drugs are being flagrantly misclassified?

Are you saying LSD doesn't have a high potential for abuse? I'm sick to death of all the Beatles I see outside of my front door each morning, sprawled across the sidewalk and desperately begging for one little set of tracers to tide them over so they can see Lucy sky some diamonds
"

I decided I was done with hallucinogenics after a long talk with the giant spider with the purple bow tie and banjo.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:49 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


Can anyone explain what sense it possibly makes to group marijuana in with cocaine, meth, and a host of opioids, instead of with heroin and some super-psychedelics? Seems painfully silly either way.
posted by anarch at 9:53 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


anarch, REEFER MADNESS.
posted by stolyarova at 9:53 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


[Another few deleted. I'm sorry, I know folks are joking in a friendly way with this, but maybe let's not fill up this whole thread with notes to Tehhund -- we don't know how they'll feel about it, probably better to leave it at that for now.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:54 PM on August 12, 2016 [25 favorites]


The Clinton's probably keep their investments and financials simple because their lives are already complicated enough.
posted by humanfont at 9:55 PM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


Can anyone explain what sense it possibly makes to group marijuana in with cocaine, meth, and a host of opioids, instead of with heroin and some super-psychedelics? Seems painfully silly either way.
The depressing realization that the world is totally out of touch with reality and needs gentle shifting to make it comfortable moving towards anything like fair and reasonable from it's current utter horrors. Damned near everything is a painfully silly compromise, but people better at this than me tell me that's how it's gotta be, so I guess that's how it's gotta be.
posted by neonrev at 9:56 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


stolyarova, I said *sense* =D
posted by anarch at 9:57 PM on August 12, 2016




There should be an "all of the above" choice.
posted by Justinian at 10:01 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


Can anyone explain what sense it possibly makes to group marijuana in with cocaine, meth, and a host of opioids

It's acknowledging that "no currently accepted medical use" is just plain untrue for cannabis in 2016, and the FDA (not the DEA) regulates drugs. Small steps.
posted by holgate at 10:01 PM on August 12, 2016 [12 favorites]


I have to say, after spending 1.5 years lurking on this site, I finally realized that it was high time to make a Metafilter account when, in the span of 12 hours, I recommended these election threads to two separate people and described them as "the only things keeping me sane in this election season... but also a massive abyss that's sucking up all my productivity."

So thanks for all the mindless internet looping, guys.
posted by the wine-dark sea at 10:02 PM on August 12, 2016 [145 favorites]


No, but seriously, thanks for making this awesome community. I'm glad to finally be a part of it. I just wish it could be during better times.
posted by the wine-dark sea at 10:02 PM on August 12, 2016 [35 favorites]


The Clinton's probably keep their investments and financials simple because their lives are already complicated enough.

For the complicated stuff, there's the family Foundation. (Also where almost all the claimed charitable donations went.)
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:03 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


For reference (NSFWish)
posted by Yowser at 10:03 PM on August 12, 2016


Welcome n00b!
posted by stet at 10:05 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


Welcome, you wine-dark formulaic epithet. You're welcome here.
posted by lauranesson at 10:07 PM on August 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


Nope. The Foundation's financials are also uncomplicated and available online.
posted by humanfont at 10:13 PM on August 12, 2016 [28 favorites]


The thing about drug scheduling is that "no medical use" kinda automatically gets Schedule I (if it's also any fun), even if it's relatively harmless. Of course even beyond weed psychedelics and such absolutely could have medical use, so it's stupid on all sorts of counts, but really a lot of things in Schedule I shouldn't be scheduled at all.

Even if you did want cannabis to remain a controlled substance for some reason Schedule II is also silly though. I mean benzos are schedule IV for chrissake.
posted by atoxyl at 10:15 PM on August 12, 2016 [8 favorites]


For the complicated stuff, there's the family Foundation. (Also where almost all the claimed charitable donations went.)

Oh yeah, right back into into the pockets of ol' Slick Willy. That Tanzanian agronomic training game is widely known to be lucrative af.

Seriously though, are you suggesting that the Clinton family uses their philanthropic fund to take care of...what "complicated stuff," exactly? Try not to attack their marriage or speculate on other details of their private lives.
posted by witchen at 10:16 PM on August 12, 2016 [9 favorites]




Oh my god, if "copping a Hillary" can really become a new slang term for going to bed, it can be my birthday present AND my Christmas present!
posted by infinitywaltz at 10:22 PM on August 12, 2016 [17 favorites]


I usually don't read the small fonts because I'm old and lazy, but I scanned that and read "I'm going to top Hillary and get some sleep", which is cool and all, but maybe not necessary to share.
posted by bongo_x at 10:27 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


You're welcome, and I sincerely apologize.
posted by wallabear at 10:29 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton doesn't sleep; she waits.
posted by Yowser at 10:30 PM on August 12, 2016 [41 favorites]


Anyone topping Orangina, on the other hand, please, I'm all ears.
posted by riverlife at 10:34 PM on August 12, 2016


Anyone topping Orangina, on the other hand, please, I'm all ears.

Well, I always thought they should make a V8-style drink and call it Vegina.
posted by snofoam at 10:39 PM on August 12, 2016 [8 favorites]


For the complicated stuff, there's the family Foundation. (Also where almost all the claimed charitable donations went.)

The Clinton Family Foundation is actually a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation and is supremely uncomplicated; the last 10 pages or so of the 2014 return list all the random charities they supported, plus the Clinton Foundation which received about half of the total contributions that year.
posted by acidic at 10:40 PM on August 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


So far, I got a thank you email, and that 'someone will be contacting me shortly'.

I hope they like talking to 'Dbag' at 1-206-555-1234.... (I checked ahead; the number is unused and gives a 'disconnected' message when called.)
posted by spinifex23 at 10:46 PM on August 12, 2016 [5 favorites]




Man, McMuffin's obviously got this in the bag anyway. Why don't we all just pack it in and go home?
posted by Itaxpica at 10:49 PM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


I would vote for an actual literal McMuffin to be President before I'd vote for DJT.
posted by stolyarova at 10:53 PM on August 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


Dirt, Jam, & Tomato?
posted by aubilenon at 10:56 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


McGuffin?
posted by rp at 11:25 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


plus the Clinton Foundation which received about half of the total contributions that year.

Someone (not here) called it labyrinthine, but if the Clintons didn't give any of their own money to their own charity, people would complain that if it was such a great charity why aren't they putting their money in it?
posted by nom de poop at 11:29 PM on August 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


Actual McGuffin Evan McMullin
posted by mmoncur at 11:41 PM on August 12, 2016 [14 favorites]


if the Clintons didn't give any of their own money to their own charity, people would complain that if it was such a great charity why aren't they putting their money in it?

Would people really be saying that? I think it's probably a tax write-off, which, whatever. If that's the sketchiest thing in their taxes it's fine. I had exactly zero expectation that there would be something fishy, and it's not a surprise that their taxes are just rich people taxes. It would be painfully boring if not for the huge sums of money involved.

Anyway, if you're cynical you could say they cleaned up for election season, but eh, if that's the case it would just be another example of something she's smarter at than Trump. She released them because Trump won't, because Trump seems like the kind of person who wouldn't even bother trying to tidy up his taxes before running.
posted by teponaztli at 11:42 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


Stately, plump Evan McMulligan
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:44 PM on August 12, 2016 [26 favorites]


My more wing-nutty facebook friends have been on a tear lately about how Hillary Clinton apparently leaves a trail of mysterious murders and suicides everywhere she goes. I don't argue with them. It's interesting to see the right-wing propaganda machine in action. The narrative seems to be that she will destroy anyone who tries to get in her way, which fits neatly with the "election is rigged" garbage from Trump.

2016 is truly The Year of the Ratfuck.
posted by double block and bleed at 11:45 PM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


Dirt, Jam, & Tomato?

Coincidentally, the title of an episode of The Young Ones .

[this is fake]
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:45 PM on August 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


The Clinton Family Foundation is actually a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation and is supremely uncomplicated; the last 10 pages or so of the 2014 return list all the random charities they supported.

Yep, the Family Foundation is just a convenient container for their charity contributions. They toss a million or two dollars into the Family Foundation each year and then the Foundation doles out a few thousand dollars to each of the 60 or so charities they support.

It's an interesting list. Typical stuff like the WAMU public radio in Washington DC probably to make them stop the annoying pledge week. The American Heart Association. NAACP of Hot Springs, AK. Their Yale, Wellesley and Sidwell Friends alma maters. Hey, the Chappaqua Volunteer Ambulance Corp. A lot of charities in Little Rock, including Hippy USA (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters).

And then you get into the conspiracy bait. The Ron Brown Scholar Fund, which is obviously hush money for the family survivors. And finally the Rose Hill Cemetery Association in Arkansas where all the bodies are buried.
posted by JackFlash at 11:46 PM on August 12, 2016 [15 favorites]


Anyway, if you're cynical you could say they cleaned up for election season.

Going all the way back to 1977? That's foresight!
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 11:59 PM on August 12, 2016 [38 favorites]


Would people really be saying that?

I wanna live in your universe where there's something recognized as too petty to criticize Hillary Clinton about.
posted by nom de poop at 12:06 AM on August 13, 2016 [63 favorites]


he best "who said it" game would be Trump vs. L Ron Hubbard. Recently rekindled my long interest in Scientology.

Russell Miller's Bare-Faced Messiah changed my life.

Never has a book made my jaw hit the table as often.
posted by rokusan at 12:23 AM on August 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


You mean the rest of you people are sober when reading this? How on earth do you manage? -- neonrev

Do you mean at the start or the end of the thread? Because... different.
posted by rokusan at 12:25 AM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


Going all the way back to 1977? That's foresight!

How deep does this thing go?
posted by stet at 12:27 AM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Deep enough, I guess.
posted by stet at 12:27 AM on August 13, 2016


Trump Encourages His Supporters to Patrol Polling Places

Too late to trademark Orange Panthers?
posted by rokusan at 12:29 AM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


^^Kingsman joke, not some weird-assed homophobic, misogynistic bullshit. It's too late at night for me.
posted by stet at 12:34 AM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: The best filter through which to experience this trainwreck.
posted by quinndexter at 12:52 AM on August 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


> You mean the rest of you people are sober when reading this? How on earth do you manage? -- neonrev

Do you mean at the start or the end of the thread? Because... different.


Remember: comment while drunk. Frantically edit during the five minute window while sober.
posted by sebastienbailard at 3:08 AM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


There are 33,497 surviving comments in all of the election threads since the start of the RNC 26 days ago. During that time, there have been about 54,470 comments total on the blue. That means that over 61% of all comments since the RNC have been in election threads, at an average rate of about 1,288 comments per day, or about 0.9 comments per minute.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 3:42 AM on August 13, 2016 [58 favorites]


Game of Drones

Tame of Groans
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:48 AM on August 13, 2016


There are 33,497 surviving comments in all of the election threads since the start of the RNC 26 days ago. During that time, there have been about 54,470 comments total on the blue. That means that over 61% of all comments since the RNC have been in election threads, at an average rate of about 1,288 comments per day, or about 0.9 comments per minute.

Mefites begin to post at a geometric rate.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:30 AM on August 13, 2016 [26 favorites]


If we don't, we'd run around screaming our heads off like the orange faced freak.
posted by infini at 4:48 AM on August 13, 2016


Prediction: DJT criticizes Hillary for not being smart enough to use tax loopholes.
posted by DanSachs at 4:51 AM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


I have to say, after spending 1.5 years lurking on this site, I finally realized that it was high time to make a Metafilter account when, in the span of 12 hours, I recommended these election threads to two separate people and described them as "the only things keeping me sane in this election season... but also a massive abyss that's sucking up all my productivity."

Yes but do you believe your friends think you sane or insane after such disclosure
posted by polymodus at 4:55 AM on August 13, 2016


Yesterday I was driving past the cemetery where Matilda Joslyn Gage lies and thought I'd drive in and give her a "cheers!"

After I did so, I spotted an elderly woman walking the cemetery with trekking sticks and greeted her. "It's a beautiful morning," I commented, "and I thought I'd remind Tilly that soon we'll have a woman in the White House! She'd be so happy and proud."

The woman made a very sour face.

"I'm glad someone will be happy."

Suddenly I was yanked backward to the 60s when I was always finding "No Third Term" stickers at my grandparents' homes. When I asked what they meant, someone would inevitably say something mean about Mrs. Roosevelt "sticking her neck out" into things that "weren't her business." Sadly, this sort of sexism still exists. I'm starting to call this sort of thing "The Eleanor Effect."
posted by kinnakeet at 4:59 AM on August 13, 2016 [53 favorites]


The only thing helping me to sleep at night vis-a-vis his voter intimidation rhetoric is that no way is his campaign organized enough to actually have a targeted strategy or send people to particular places in an organized way. His supporters tend to be like him: big talkers, not much with action. And the vast majority of them won't want to bother going in to the scaaaaary "certain places" where "those people" live on a work day and stuff. Doesn't mean there won't be some freelance Y'all Quaeda wannabes and I hope they get run out on a rail by election staff, but I'd be way more concerned if the Trump campaign had, like, any kind of a ground game whatsoever.

Meanwhile, I finally got an invite for Hillary volunteering that's on a weekend so I can actually go! Saddle up!
posted by soren_lorensen at 5:26 AM on August 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


WaPo: Ah to be a Fly on the Wall at the RNC-Trump Meeting
"Short of pulling the financing on Trump or Priebus resigning — which are both measures we favor — what could the RNC and top Republicans do at this point? They shouldn’t beg Trump to get on message or “stick to the script.” That’s absurd, an impossibility. Trump cannot distinguish between what is sane-sounding and what is not; he won’t stay off TV. "
Apologies if article has been linked earlier. But as Mike the Cool One says, who can tell? These are complicated threads.
posted by valetta at 5:33 AM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


The fact that the Clinton's finances are completely above board and non-controversial is yet more evidence of the corrupt and rigged nature of our politics.

I know this is supposed to be a joke, but Clinton and her husband have become multimillionaires giving 30 minute speeches to bankers, big business, and other wealthy and powerful interest groups. the fact that this is totally legal and declared on their "boring" taxes is evidence that the society that is going to put her in the highest elected office is completely corrupt.

But what is even more amazing is that people in this thread can look at a couple who made close to 6 mil in income last year and declare their taxes to be "Spartan" or their income evidence of people who aren't interested in money. Are you all that rich, so used to tech Babylon, that 6 million is nothing?
posted by ennui.bz at 5:46 AM on August 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


the fact that this (giving speeches to bankers) is totally legal and declared on their "boring" taxes is evidence that the society that is going to put her in the highest elected office is completely corrupt.

And that cats are sleeping with dogs and children are running manically through the streets. And that the First Amendment is still in existence.

Can we end this derail? I was bored of it when I heard it from the Bernie bros on my Facebook feed, and I'm even more bored of it now.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 5:51 AM on August 13, 2016 [72 favorites]


Or maybe we feel there are bigger fish to fry than being het up about famous people getting legally paid a lot to legally talk to other people and then doing very boring, legal things with that money? I mean, I love a good complete burning down and salting the earth of the underpinnings of an entire society as much as the next person, but let's focus for a little bit.
posted by soren_lorensen at 5:54 AM on August 13, 2016 [97 favorites]


I know this is supposed to be a joke, but Clinton and her husband have become multimillionaires giving 30 minute speeches to bankers, big business, and other wealthy and powerful interest groups. the fact that this is totally legal and declared on their "boring" taxes is evidence that the society that is going to put her in the highest elected office is completely corrupt.

Fees for speeches in America are utterly ridiculous. Granted. But Hillary Clinton's $200,000 speeches just put her in the same category of speaker as Blake Lively and Larry the Cable Guy. Which means it's not evidence society is completely corrupt in the sense of pay for legal but in the sense of there being too much inequality and some people having a ridiculous amount of money to waste.
posted by Francis at 6:00 AM on August 13, 2016 [83 favorites]


I know this is supposed to be a joke, but Clinton and her husband have become multimillionaires giving 30 minute speeches to bankers, big business, and other wealthy and powerful interest groups. the fact that this is totally legal and declared on their "boring" taxes is evidence that the society that is going to put her in the highest elected office is completely corrupt.

You don't have a problem with Clinton's honesty, you have a problem with capitalism. She is literally one of the best people in the world at giving speeches and talking to people because that's what politicians do. That's why she has a very good shot at being the president. Because she is good at those things.

Now it sucks that the people who can hire the best of the best are by definition the rich and elite, and not nonprofits and organizations with shoestring budgets trying to do good in the world. But that is a feature of capitalism, not feature of any particular person's honesty.

Blaming individuals for systemic problems is useless.

Blaming someone who has shown an interest in fixing some of those problems is worse than useless.
posted by Zalzidrax at 6:03 AM on August 13, 2016 [140 favorites]


In my career one of the things I do is book speakers, sometimes high-profile ones. The highest I have ever paid is $50K, but you'd be surprised how common that level is - NPR hosts and bestselling authors can easily get that. If speaking fees were my major source of income, I would certainly charge as high a fee as I could command (even while making exceptions for pro bono speeches) and that would mean few organizations could afford me. There's nothing corrupt about it, it's SOP. This is a pretty good writeup on her speaking fees and what she does with them. She has waived her fee on several occasions, such as commencement speeches and local events. Sexism is also at play in critiquing her speaking fees.
posted by Miko at 6:18 AM on August 13, 2016 [121 favorites]


From personal experience, introducing a friend to Metafilter through one of the massive DNC threads did not turn out as I had hoped. I have found these threads to be the only way I can take this election season, while my friend was completely overwhelmed by them. I should have gone easier on him. Cats in copiers, taters, and rescues of people from their own bathrooms and such.
posted by thebrokedown at 6:20 AM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


I mentioned this in one of the older threads but I was at one of these talks to "special interest groups" that you mentioned. It was a Simmons Women's Leadership event, sponsored by many companies including my own. I got to sit at a table with some women execs very close to the stage and I've no doubt my company paid handsomely for the privilege. The room was full of top corporate executives. For all that, the speech was totally innocuous. She talked about her motivations to an extremely sympathetic audience. This was just before she officially started running so it felt like a mini stump speech. I'm sure she enjoyed basking in that 67% approval rating before her ratings plummeted as soon as she officially started running.

People love to talk about that Goldman Sachs speech like it's some smoking gun, but notice that it's also for some women's leadership type group. Hillary Clinton is one of the world's foremost experts on how to survive in a man's world and she, not surprisingly, is paid extremely well for her speeches on the topic.

Finally, companies are not monoliths. An audience of Goldman employees is likely to have at least some people who are left wing who would go straight to the press if Clinton said anything remotely compromising.
posted by peacheater at 6:28 AM on August 13, 2016 [79 favorites]


I can't believe it hasn't happened yet, but I bet Trump is going to screw up and say something stupid. Soon.

*Cries*

[highpitchedwhinyvoice] I can't tell if it's real, fake, or sarcastic (but not that sarcastic)! [/highpitchedwhinyvoice]

*Chortles*
posted by petebest at 6:29 AM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


How many days till the election is done with and we can think Supreme Court?
posted by Postroad at 6:31 AM on August 13, 2016


How many days till the election is done with and we can think Supreme Court?

If Democrats win the Senate? January 3rd. If the Democrats don't win the Senate? Never.
posted by Talez at 6:39 AM on August 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


Also, for anyone parsing a certain PR flunkie's name incorrectly:

KATE PIERSON: AWESOME
KATRINA PIERSON: NOT AWESOME
posted by petebest at 6:43 AM on August 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


Great news. You must donate in order to get details on how to become a Trump election bully. Also, there is no way to cancel your recurring donation once it's set up.

This may help keep the Goon Squad numbers down.
posted by stolyarova at 6:47 AM on August 13, 2016 [17 favorites]




Great news. You must donate in order to get details on how to become a Trump election bully. Also, there is no way to cancel your recurring donation once it's set up.

Totally Not A Grift there
posted by the phlegmatic king at 7:02 AM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


I still sincerely think the whole Hillary Clinton six figure payoff for speeches to bankers thing is super sketchy and corrupt-sounding.

I am also not angry at all about any other politician's speaking fees because no one has ever brought this up about any other politician to this degree, as far as I know, and as I participate in this thread there's no need to mention that I pay pretty close attention to politics.

What does this mean?

It means that I have been propagandized.

If you're reading this, particularly if you're male: put your thumb real hard on the scale. We're thoroughly compromised.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:05 AM on August 13, 2016 [83 favorites]


So I spent the last ten minutes writing another disappointed email to the NPR Ombudsman about their false equivalency this election season. Last time, they did respond - to their credit - but only to casually dismiss my concerns. I quoted Dan Rather at them this time, and it's good stuff, so I'll quote it at you, too:
Our Bill of Rights may protect Trump's lies, but it does not mean he should be allowed to get away with them. That is the role of a free and independent press, to separate out the truth. And here is where we must beware of false equivalencies. Many have construed Hillary Clinton's statements about her email server as lies. And critics also point to other statements from her past where she has been perhaps less than truthful. Clinton should be held accountable for those statements. The press should vigorously question her and investigate where the truth lies. But the sheer amount of the verbal fertilizer being spewed by Trump must not be reported as a "he said, she said."

Calling him on it is not partisanship, it's citizenship.
Holding Trump accountable for his bullshit is good citizenship. I wish more journalists would do their goddamn jobs.
posted by stolyarova at 7:11 AM on August 13, 2016 [61 favorites]


Pieces of Silver
By now, it’s obvious to everyone with open eyes that Donald Trump is an ignorant, wildly dishonest, erratic, immature, bullying egomaniac. On the other hand, he’s a terrible person. But despite some high-profile defections, most senior figures in the Republican Party — very much including Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, and Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader — are still supporting him, threats of violence and all. Why?

[...]

But there’s a third answer, which can be summarized in one number: 34.

What’s that? It’s the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the average federal tax rate for the top 1 percent in 2013, the latest year available. And it’s up from just 28.2 in 2008, because President Obama allowed the high-end Bush tax cuts to expire and imposed new taxes to pay for a dramatic expansion of health coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Taxes on the really, really rich have gone up even more.

If Hillary Clinton wins, taxes on the elite will at minimum stay at this level, and may even go up significantly if Democrats do well enough in congressional races to enable her to pass new legislation. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that her tax plan would raise the average tax rate for the top 1 percent by another 3.4 percentage points, and the rate for the top 0.1 percent by five points.

But if “populist” Donald Trump wins, taxes on the wealthy will go way down; in particular, Mr. Trump is calling for elimination of the inheritance tax, which these days hits only a tiny number of really yuuuge estates (a married couple doesn’t pay any tax unless its estate is worth more than $10.9 million).

So if you’re wealthy, or you’re someone who has built a career by reliably serving the interests of the wealthy, the choice is clear — as long as you don’t care too much about stuff like shunning racism, preserving democracy and freedom of religion, or for that matter avoiding nuclear war, Mr. Trump is your guy.

And that’s pretty much how the Republican establishment still sees it. Getting rid of the estate tax is “the linchpin of the conservative movement,” one major donor told Bloomberg’s Sahil Kapur. Gotta get those priorities straight.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:17 AM on August 13, 2016 [35 favorites]


I am also not angry at all about any other politician's speaking fees because no one has ever brought this up about any other politician to this degree, as far as I know, and as I participate in this thread there's no need to mention that I pay pretty close attention to politics.

What does this mean?

It means that I have been propagandized.

If you're reading this, particularly if you're male: put your thumb real hard on the scale. We're thoroughly compromised.


For the record it hasn't been brought up in regard to any other politician because they aren't allowed to do it while actually holding office. Hillary Clinton only picked up speaker fees after she left the State Department. Bill Clinton only picked up speaker fees after he left the White House. George W Bush started as a speaker in 2009 and has made tens of millions of dollars with a six figure speaking fee.

And yes, we are compromised. The best we can do to uncompromise ourselves is dig and rebut the scandals.
posted by Francis at 7:20 AM on August 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


Working at the polls: check your state's guidelines, the money you earn may be tax-free and may not count towards income for disability benefits purposes (which is how San Francisco county does it and I think the rest of California.) In SF you don't have to be a citizen and you need not be a registered voter or in any particular party; you make about $180, more for speaking a needed language, more for being a supervisor, and more for babysitting the bag of ballots the weekend before the election. If you can drive, you can make more and be busier all day as a supplies runner.

The way I figure, 12 hour day plus 3 hour training= 14 hours after 2 30 minute unpaid lunches, 11 hours at minimum wage, 3 hours at overtime, assuming SF minimum wage $12.25= $189.85 value. You get paid around that or higher as a pollworker in SF, plus it's not taxable, so it's more than fair. At the time I was in SF, I was making $12.55/hour before taxes, plus I could take a vacation day or call out sick and essentially double my day's take. If you're in a state where the minimum wage is lower, do the math and see if it's worth it to you. If you don't care about the money, I'm sure there is a charity you like that likes money.

In NY you must be registered to either R or D to work most jobs, but if you're Green like me until after this year anyway (I want to reregister D but also want to avoid any instances of my registration being challenged prior to November) you can still work (I am an "accessibility clerk" this year. I put up the outside signs and sit by the ADA entrance to make sure people can get in.) You make much more money but I don't know about the tax and income situation.

Either way, here is what will happen: you will go to a short class that is interesting the first time, but super boring every year afterwards. They give you a manual on how everything works and who to call if it doesn't work. You show up to your poll site and rush around getting everything ready; nothing happens for hours and you chat with a random group of senior citizens, underpaid adults like yourself, and senior high school kids who had the bright idea of signing up for this to get out of a day of school but also get paid. And sometimes random voters who hang out and chat. (Once a lady showed us videos of her pet teacup pig!!!)

You get a lot of reading done in between voters. There's a rush after work hours. Someone gets super fuckin' mad about the list of voters posted outside the polling place, which we're required to do by state law and have been for years, so you'd think it would not be a surprise? But whatever, it's a break from the long stretches of nothing. The last two hours are divided into rushing around getting everything broken down and swept up, and standing around waiting for the sheriff to come get the ballots. It's the easiest job you'll ever do and it's oddly rewarding. Plus you get to give stickers to all kids, which is always rewarding.
posted by blnkfrnk at 7:24 AM on August 13, 2016 [37 favorites]


I have booked speakers and been a speaker (though not even little league).

If it grieves you to think of people being given lots of money to stand on stage for a bit, think of it like rock and roll, but for business. At one end, there are lots of wannabes who'll do it for nothing, but nobody wants them because they've got nothing to say and/or nobody knows them. At the other, there are stars who can fill any venue and charge what they like, and supply is much smaller than demand.

Nobody points to, say, point to Dylan being able to stand on stage for a bit, phone in a performance, and walk away with six more digits than he came with, and claim corruption in society.

Same thing (and in the case of someone like Eno, he can in fact do either interchangeably). Afterwards, people can feel good about bragging to their friends that they saw QOTSA/Clinton, a chunk of change has changed hands - and in Clinton's case, it's not going on blow, hookers or yachts

Someone I know is a management consultant who specialises in the dynamics of inter-company deals, specifically the psychology of top management in those situations. Which sounds kooky, but they fix problemsthat have enormous consequences, and they're very well paid. And being smart and empathic they're impeccably left-wing, community minded and activist.

What to do with the money? They put it into houses they rent out. They once asked me if I thought it was right that they should be doing such an incredibly capitalist thing - to which I said, I wish everyone who did that was like you, because look at how most landlords behave.

It's no crime to be rich and liberal, nor to operate effectively in our capitalist society. In fact, it's a mitzvah that such people are there, because they give the lie to the myth that success depends on selfishness and greed. And the rules of engagement are what they are.

Clinton gets the tumbs-up from me for taking money from the bastards.
posted by Devonian at 7:35 AM on August 13, 2016 [110 favorites]




I have to say, after spending 1.5 years lurking on this site, I finally realized that it was high time to make a Metafilter account when, in the span of 12 hours, I recommended these election threads to two separate people and described them as "the only things keeping me sane in this election season... but also a massive abyss that's sucking up all my productivity."

Yes but do you believe your friends think you sane or insane after such disclosure
posted by polymodus at 4:55 AM on August 13 [+] [!]


They're both political wonks, so I imagine the same obsessive tendency will be there wrt this season. They'll understand. I want to believeee
posted by the wine-dark sea at 7:38 AM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


The big money paid speeches don't bother me from a corruption point of view, I'm just always made uncomfortable by the idea of someone being able to make more money giving a single speech than most of the country makes in a year, and I'm then made especially uncomfortable when asked to view that person as a champion of the downtrodden. It annoys me about every GOP politician too, I just have better reasons to dislike them so this doesn't come up.
I just don't like the very rich is all, just in general. I don't like that is possible to be so rich while some people are so poor. I don't like the expectation that my public servants will always be orders of magnitude more wealthy than myself.

I also dislike that very famous musicians and athletes draw the salaries they do (and this fact harms both music and sports, and this also goes for public speakers.), this just isn't the place to be complaining about that.

I'm still voting Clinton, and probably going to try and do some volunteering at the polls, but the Clintons are (nearly) Romney-level wealthy, and I fundamentally have a beef with anyone who is that wealthy. But if one of the worst things I think about them is that they are very rich, then I think that's fine.
posted by neonrev at 7:52 AM on August 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


My dad always says this about baseball players' salaries: "What, they're supposed to say 'no, I don't want millions of dollars'? 'I definitely want to make less than everyone else'? 'Pay me less than that other guy'? Come on."

I feel more or less the same about this. What, she's not supposed to take money for speaking? A rational person takes the money they can get. How low does she need to go?
posted by blnkfrnk at 7:59 AM on August 13, 2016 [41 favorites]


Again, the other angle on the Goldman speaking fees business: as a speaker and freelancer my own self, there are two big considerations I use when I'm deciding how much to charge. One is how much the place has to pay me. I'm going to charge an entity more it if has deeper pockets, and a little indie film festival isn't going to have the same cash as a conference that charges four digits per person in admission.

The other consideration, though, is how much I believe in a group and its ambitions. For something that I really, really want to do, in the interests of a cause I believe in, I'll charge less or even do it for nothing. (Budget and schedule permitting, you still can't pay your mortgage with love.) But the places I think are going to be a pain in the ass, or the ones that I'm not that enthusiastic about out of the gate? Yeah, I charge more to do that stuff.

By both of those metrics, Clinton charging Goldman a ton of money makes perfect sense to me because they have the money and it's not a cause she's interested in supporting. So if they want her to show up at all, they have to make it worth her while. I'm baffled at how people read corruption into that.
posted by Andrhia at 8:00 AM on August 13, 2016 [93 favorites]


A rational person takes the money they can get.

I'll mention that to my brother-in-law about his vow of poverty...
posted by dis_integration at 8:01 AM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


It occurs to me that Trump is finally making his long-awaited pivot, but instead of getting serious about winning, he's getting serious about losing. His priority now is avoiding the ego loss of a straight-up defeat, and he's willing to throw the presumption of electoral legitimacy (a line so bright Nixon wouldn't cross it in 1960) overboard to save himself.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:03 AM on August 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


So I listen to The Strategists, which is a fascinating podcast by three Canadian political strategists; Corey Hogan who has mostly worked on left wing campaigns, Stephen Carter who is more Progressive Conservative (which puts him in line with centrist Democrats) and Zain Velji, who hosts and I suspect is somewhere between the two. It's great because they talk about the behind-the-scenes stuff, and focus on politics from a strategic point of view; not really focusing too much on the issues (except in that some are better and some are worse for strategy). There isn't too much happening up here, so they've mostly been talking US politics lately. In episode 587, their most recent (recorded before Trump's 2nd Amendment comments) they say one thing that is positive and one that is terrifying.

The positive one refers to what they like to call the ballot box question, the question that people are asking themselves when they vote. They talk about the importance of framing this quite regularly. The classic example is Reagan's "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" If that's what people were asking when they voted in 1980, then Carter had no chance of winning.

One of them summarizes this election's ballot box question (based on someone else's tweet; I can't find a proper reference right now). Clinton and Trump are both highly unpopular candidates, based on polling data. If the election is about Clinton, Trump can win. If the election is about Trump, then Clinton will win. Both Trump and Clinton want this election to be about Trump. I think that's reassured me a lot; I don't think any of those facts will change in the next few months.

However, starting about the 41 minute mark, they start talking about the role of facts vs. what people believe and howe the Trump campaign is undermining the system. Hogan asks "How do you think a democracy dies?" and it continues from there; it's a sobering listen. These are smart, real-world, hard-nosed back room types, and they're seriously worried about the health of American democracy.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 8:06 AM on August 13, 2016 [42 favorites]


I'll mention that to my brother-in-law about his vow of poverty...

Snark aside, the mindset of a person who decides to be a Force For Good by legal and political means is necessarily different from that of a person who decides to do it in a more metaphysical sense.

I don't necessarily agree with all the things you have to do, say, accept and put up with in order to walk the national political stage, but I do recognize them as necessities, at least the way the system is currently set up. They are necessities regardless of class, gender, race, religion or sexual preference.

That is is mostly women and minorities getting called on it is instructive.
posted by Mooski at 8:07 AM on August 13, 2016 [54 favorites]


Ronald Reagan was paid $2 million in 1988 (about $4 million in today's dollars) for two speeches.
posted by OmieWise at 8:08 AM on August 13, 2016 [29 favorites]


I'm just always made uncomfortable by the idea of someone being able to make more money giving a single speech than most of the country makes in a year, and I'm then made especially uncomfortable when asked to view that person as a champion of the downtrodden. It annoys me about every GOP politician too, I just have better reasons to dislike them so this doesn't come up.

I just don't like the very rich is all, just in general. I don't like that is possible to be so rich while some people are so poor. I don't like the expectation that my public servants will always be orders of magnitude more wealthy than myself.


Oh my god, so much this. Except it's not so much dislike (I'm sure many rich people are assholes, that's certainly been my limited experience of social interaction with them), but I'm just honestly confused by why everyone seems to accept it as okay that some people have so much $NUMBER IN BANK ACCOUNT that they could never even... use it? while other people can't even get enough of these little greenish pieces of paper with numbers on it (or its digital equivalent) to be able to have a place to sleep in or food to eat. It just makes no sense to my brain.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:10 AM on August 13, 2016 [22 favorites]


As of about 45 minutes ago, Clinton's rating in the 538 polls-only forecast has reached an all-time high. Her climb back from the low point between the two conventions has been just stupendous. She's now rated as an 87.8% favorite to win the election.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 8:10 AM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


So thanks for all the mindless internet looping, guys.
posted by the wine-dark sea

You're welcome!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:10 AM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


And so ends the great populist uprising of our time, fizzling out pathetically in the mud and the bigotry stirred up by a third-rate would-be caudillo named Donald J Trump. So closes an era of populist outrage that began back in 2008 ...

...

As leading Republicans desert the sinking ship of Trump’s GOP, America’s two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession....

...

For decades, the Davos set have told us that doubt about “globalization” was a species of racism, and soon Trump, as a landslide loser, will confirm this for them in overwhelming terms.

My friends and I like to wonder about who will be the “next Bernie Sanders”, but what I am suggesting here is that whoever emerges to lead the populist left will simply be depicted as the next Trump. The billionaire’s scowling country-club face will become the image of populist reform, whether genuine populists had anything to do with him or not. This is the real potential disaster of 2016: That legitimate economic discontent is going to be dismissed as bigotry and xenophobia for years to come.
Thomas Frank, With Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton, Guardian (13 August 2016).
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:16 AM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


A long term perspective:

I'm old enough to remember when Governor Clinton became President-Elect Clinton, and the media was publishing stories about how the Arkansas hillbillies were coming to Washington, and there was a lot of sniffiness about how the Clintons were not the proper sort. Included in that sniffiness were comments about the Clintons not being as wealthy as the Washingtonian upper crust - and that somehow they were going to be unable to really understand or fix the early-1990's recession because they just were not economically sophisticated.

There followed eight years of the GOP throwing lawsuit after lawsuit against the Clintons - beginning with Whitewater and continuing on through the impeachment process. Admittedly the Clintons were not perfect; in particular this should not be construed as a defense of Bill's deeply problematic behavior. But the GOP efforts weren't just an attempt to politically tarnish the Clintons. It's where the "conservative watchdog" Judicial Watch was founded (1994) and cut its teeth, for example. It was an organized attempt to both bankrupt the Clintons personally through legal fees and overturn the results of the election not by political means but via external lawsuits. And then Fox News was founded (1996) to fill the airwaves with smoke so as many people as possible would believe there was a fire.

Part of what the Clintons have been doing since then is building up wealth as a buffer against these tactics, which have never shown any signs of abating. In the years since, yet more of the norms that used to protect the gentility of both parties (those of the "right sort") has been abandoned against the perceived outsider - which included the Clintons being called white trash before the guns were turned on Obama's race and now Hillary's gender.

I do not begrudge them the wealth, and I am bemused by the fact that the Clintons are now considered the ultimate insiders, when they began as anything but.
posted by Chanther at 8:19 AM on August 13, 2016 [204 favorites]


Well. That Frank article's maybe a little hyperbolic, no?
posted by rp at 8:19 AM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


One thing I think Bernie Sanders did, for which I will be eternally grateful, is he proved that Americans are no longer afraid of the word 'Socialism'. I don't think that can be easily undone.
posted by maggiemaggie at 8:22 AM on August 13, 2016 [42 favorites]


Thomas Frank hyperbolic?

Wait are you being sarcastic?

He has become unreadable for me in the last year or two. He's a bourgeois leftist Friedman (and Friedman actually just earned a little respect on my end a few days ago, more than I can say for Frank).
posted by spitbull at 8:23 AM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


He also proved that American subjects by and large don't have a fucking clue what that word means...
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:24 AM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


That Thomas Frank peice is garbage. It continues the slander that Hillary Clinton is some kind of secret Republican reactionary and not the progressive leader she has proven to be time and again.
posted by humanfont at 8:26 AM on August 13, 2016 [22 favorites]


Thomas Frank hyperbolic?

Wait are you being sarcastic?


I was going for understatement, but I guess if the shoe fits
posted by rp at 8:32 AM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


He also proved that American subjects by and large don't have a fucking clue what that word means...

A family member who was calling Obama a communist in 2008 was genuinely trying to understand the Scandinavian model... and I saw that happening more than a few times in my own bubble.
posted by maggiemaggie at 8:32 AM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


I do not begrudge them the wealth, and I am bemused by the fact that the Clintons are now considered the ultimate insiders, when they began as anything but.

My mom campaigned for Bill Clinton when he was running for governor of Arkansas. I've been distantly watching his career since then, and Hillary's once she had an active political life separate from his - and yes. A great deal of modern politics is founded on the premise that absolutely any detail in a politician's life that isn't shared by 80% of the country (except for white maleness) is fair game for an attack.

If she had a middle-class income, the press would be screaming that she can't possibly understand enough about finance to be dealing with the national budget.

The key to understanding the difference between real questions about skills, experience, or suitability for a particular job: What would the "correct" answer be? How much income would be the right amount to not raise these questions; what kind of negotiation skills should she have; how should she have answered the question to assure people that she would do they job they want?

If there is no "correct" answer, the question is just drama-mongering.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 8:32 AM on August 13, 2016 [70 favorites]


I AM FINALLY CAUGHT UP

if you don't count skipping the end of the last thread

EVERYBODY SLOW DOWN
posted by schadenfrau at 8:35 AM on August 13, 2016 [38 favorites]


Long, long ago, I was the director of a campus Women's Center. We wanted to bring Judith Butler to speak. She had a professorship at another university and she charged what, at the time, I'm sure seemed like a fortune. But if you want someone to talk to any group here in the U.S., they get paid. It is totally bullshit that we think we are allowed to then tell women, especially, what they are and are not to do with their earnings.
posted by Sophie1 at 8:45 AM on August 13, 2016 [27 favorites]


Getting to the end of these election threads is like getting to the end of Inifinite Jest, where Don Gately wakes up on the beach and the tide is going out. Except there's 87 days left.
posted by Oxydude at 8:47 AM on August 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


Oxydude, certain kinds of parallel lines are supposed to start converging in such a way that an “end” can be projected by the voter somewhere beyond the right frame. If no such convergence or projection occurred to you, then the election’s failed for you.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 8:54 AM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


When I was taking a mid-level microeconomics class, the professor had a great saying about this kind of thing: price is how we decide who to say 'no' to. Part of the reason a famous figure charges a lot is because hey, they can, and these things are more involved than most people think.

Part of it is simply to weed out some requests for their time, whether the people involved are thinking about it or not. If a major political figure or athlete or author *didn't* command a pretty good fee, they'd be sifting through an even bigger list of requests. A speaking fee is shorthand for 'you must be this serious to even ask.' (And yeah, it sounds crazy to some people here, but a lot of people and organizations genuinely want to hear from famous figures that they look up to. I'm not surprised by what Hillary Clinton charges, nor even Ronald Reagan - and I have long wished to piss on his grave. It's not shocking, it's just a question of how many people are interested and what they're willing to do over it.)
posted by mordax at 8:55 AM on August 13, 2016 [33 favorites]


for reals, i feel like if it came out that Hillary Clinton assaulted a voter at one of her events, Trump would be on tv that afternoon proclaiming that she invented fluoridation and chemtrails

Not to mention radioactivity and cancer...

Trumped up charges is a phrase that will never be the same. In a just world, that is.
posted by y2karl at 8:56 AM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


On a second look, I see that I made a mistake and overlooked two more Schedule C forms on the Clinton 2015 tax return. The total earnings of $10 million was correct but it breaks down as follows:

Hillary and Bill collected $28K and $29K in royalties for their older books. Hillary earned $1.5 million in speaking fees and Bill earned $5.2 million. Bill earned $1.7 million for consulting. Hillary received another $3 million which is apparently a payment for her latest book "Hard Choices."

We regret the error.
posted by JackFlash at 8:57 AM on August 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


Don Gately wakes up on the beach and the tide is going out

SPOILERS
posted by thelonius at 8:57 AM on August 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


Cornel West gets 20-30k per talk. On top of his nice salary and media appearance fees and royalties.

It's a rough life being a socialist radical.

ETA I heard about West's fee from someone who worked an event where he spoke. I trust this person.
posted by spitbull at 9:07 AM on August 13, 2016 [39 favorites]


[Frank] has become unreadable for me in the last year or two.
I've been reading Frank for a long time and I really don't think he's changed his position politically or declined in the quality of his political analysis at all. I just think that the American liberal-progressive axis has broken decisively to the right over the past year and away from Frank's brand of New Deal Dem revivalism.
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:16 AM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well, I was never a fan of his political analysis. I find it clueless on the subject of race.
posted by spitbull at 9:17 AM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was telling my husband about Trump reading "The Snake" lyrics during both of his speeches yesterday and I thought perhaps this was an attempt by one his handlers to make his speeches more interesting (along with the Charts) but I couldn't see the point. He should be talking policy or telling stories or pumping up the crowd-- those are the usual stump speech building blocks. My husband replied, "Because for those 5 minutes of reading lyrics, he can't say anything stupid that has to be walked back."

I've been binge-listening to Trumpcast and while I like all the episodes, if you only have time for one the latest podcast about the Evangelical Vote is very eye-opening. My biggest take away so far however is that there is too much garbage to talk about with Trump so nothing is really sticking (aside from the Gold Star Family fiasco.) It's easy with Clinton, you just repeat emails and Benghazi til you are blue in the face, but where do you even begin with Trump? I think we should all be pushing the Russian connection. There is so much evidence out there that he is falling in line with what Putin wants AND Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008. How can we elect someone to the Presidency who owes so much money (100's of millions) to Russia? That is going to be my main talking point from now on.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:20 AM on August 13, 2016 [21 favorites]


I've found that people are extremely upset by Hillary's speech fees, and when you ask why then they claim the fees are indicative of corruption/ quid pro quo/general shadiness, and when you ask them about policy decisions that would address their high minded concerns, they don't care---they just want to talk about how bad Hillary is.
posted by Monochrome at 9:21 AM on August 13, 2016 [37 favorites]


However, starting about the 41 minute mark, they start talking about the role of facts vs. what people believe and how the Trump campaign is undermining the system. Hogan asks "How do you think a democracy dies?" and it continues from there; it's a sobering listen.

One of the things that most bothers me about elections is the apparent elevation of feelings over facts. In that frame, Stephen Colbert's most prescient moment was his discussion of truthiness in the first episode of The Colbert Report.

But I wonder: has there ever been a time in America when feelings weren't elevated over facts? Is this just something to be expected in any democracy? Is this trend actually getting worse with the rise of partisan news and internet echo chambers, or were people just quieter about it in the past?
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 9:24 AM on August 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


from the "this is good news for donald trump!" dept.:

Gannett and N.Y. Times ask court to unseal 1990 Trump divorce records

honestly this seems like needless muckraking considering how poorly the trump campaign is going…
posted by murphy slaw at 9:25 AM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


Same with the Clinton foundation, as evidence for corruption. Do people really think it's a shell company for bribes to her, personally, with no regulation or transparency involved?

The comparison between the Clinton foundation and Halliburton is just mind boggling.
posted by Dashy at 9:26 AM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


A family member who was calling Obama a communist in 2008 was genuinely trying to understand the Scandinavian model...

Did they come to understand that the Scandinavian model is capitalist?
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:27 AM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


Cornel West gets 20-30k per talk

This is how about how much he was paid when he gave a talk to one (of my too many) graduate institutions. Tickets were $45 so I skipped it. I have a lot of ambivalence about West but his early books and essays are great contributions to American Pragmatism.
posted by dis_integration at 9:29 AM on August 13, 2016


Did they come to understand that the Scandinavian model is capitalist?

Yes, they did, and they were telling their conservative friends.
posted by maggiemaggie at 9:29 AM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


honestly this seems like needless muckraking considering how poorly the trump campaign is going…

Trump kicked this proverbial hornet's nest his own damn self. He's called the media "dishonest," "corrupt," and "lowest form of life." His supporters yell "Traitors!" at reporters covering his rallies.

I, too, have my own issues with the media, but if this is what it takes for them to grow a spine, more power to 'em.
posted by zakur at 9:32 AM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Anyway, Bernie Sanders was popularly known as a Socialist (whether he actually was or wasn't) and yet he was more successful in his campaign than anyone could have predicted.

So I think Frank is wrong that the populist left is done. This is an enormous sea-change that will last, even after Clinton becomes president.
posted by maggiemaggie at 9:37 AM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


I have been so incredibly angry and anxious about the election this week. Honestly, I'm not all that bothered by Trump's misogyny, casual racism, and incitement to violence; all that stuff sucks, but it's been part of elections since time immemorial, and at least it's vaguely logical in the sense that it might actually help Trump win the election. The part that makes me FURIOUS is that the entire Republican party and a large chunk of the country are getting taken in by a con artist, a guy who clearly isn't what he says he is and has no ability to deliver what he says he will. TRUMP ISN'T RICH. The evidence is piling up that despite having significant financial assets, his liabilities are huge, and his net worth is small or even negative. His entire campaign is part of a desperate con to get another reality show or Fox News slot so he can restore his own family's finances. It's so freaking OBVIOUS and yet everyone is completely ignoring it. The entire reason anyone would vote for him in the primary, or even give the guy the time of day, is an illusion. It's deeply disturbing to me that he's managed to trick a large fraction of the country into believing things that are manifestly untrue, and that we're all (collectively) falling for it. I hope he doesn't just lose, I hope his and his family's reputations get destroyed.
posted by miyabo at 9:39 AM on August 13, 2016 [64 favorites]


It's deeply disturbing to me that he's managed to trick a large fraction of the country into believing things that are manifestly untrue.

Racism is a helluva drug.
posted by chris24 at 9:42 AM on August 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


If speaking fees were my major source of income, I would certainly charge as high a fee as I could command (even while making exceptions for pro bono speeches) and that would mean few organizations could afford me.

The basic point about speaker fees is that they're market-clearing: for prominent people with a finite amount of time on their hands, they're "how much are you really willing to pay me when I'd much sooner be doing something else?" But if you set your fee that high, you're sort of obliged to show up for at least some of those who'll pay, in the way that pop stars sometimes end up playing some rich kid's birthday party. Yes, it's a sign of gross inequality, but at least some of that money's finding its way to charity via the people getting paid, instead of being spent on mountains of blow and swimming pools filled with champagne.

In other news, Hollywood A-listers will take big money for mediocre studio films so that they work on indie projects they personally like with much smaller budgets.

FWIW, I hope Biden rakes in some money after he leaves office -- brand ambassador for Corvette! -- because for a senator from effin' Delaware he's basically got the net worth of a senior public servant.
posted by holgate at 9:45 AM on August 13, 2016 [25 favorites]


I mentioned this in a previous thread, but Hillary Clinton has been called a liar, a murderer, and a thief on the nightly news with great regularity since about 1991. if you're under 40, then you've been hearing this one specific woman's credibility questioned by powerful people since you were a child. If you supported Obama in 2008, you probably felt comfortable with "just not trusting Hillary," even if you didn't necessarily believe any one specific charge against her was correct. Better safe than sorry.

Deservedly or not, Clinton has been the target of an incredible campaign of insinuation, and it's hard to put aside the sense that there are a lot of people out there who would swear on a stack of Bibles that Hillary would eat a live baby if she thought it would help her put people in reeducation camps. How could all those people say all those things for so long if there wasn't a ring of truth in there somewhere? When you hear something unseemly about Hillary, it doesn't just raise a warning flag, it feels like confirmation of 25 years of claims made against her.

Which isn't to say that Clinton is immaculate. But I posit that the most sinister things Clinton has done are already public knowledge.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 9:48 AM on August 13, 2016 [69 favorites]


I too was feeling angry today that such an obviously incompetent buffoon is one of the major parties' candidate for President. I'm also wondering if the Republican party really has been destroyed. I've heard this before and it doesn't seem to take. They will still have all those seats in Congress and the Senate.

The only logical conclusion I can draw is that Donald Trump is the reductio ad absurdum of the Southern Strategy. It should prove to Republicans that the Southern Strategy is more of a hindrance at this point, but I don't know if it will. It would be nice to hear some Republican type say that clearly.

Racism is a helluva drug.
posted by maggiemaggie at 9:51 AM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


I don't think Trump can recover from this slump, not without some big, unforeseen event happening, something that nobody could control and which dramatically changes the tenor of the campaign. I don't think he can handle not being the winner, and that the longer he stays down in the polls the more discouraged he will get, and people will see that. As his enthusiasm fades, so will that of his fan base. I don't think he has it in him to claw his way out of this hole. It's going to be very interesting to see just how weird things get when he starts to slide. We're already seeing signs of it, I'm pretty sure—but the collapse will no doubt bring us to all new levels of bizarre.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 10:05 AM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


This popped up on my Twitter. Apparently, Trump's spokesperson has been asserting that Obama led US to war in Afghanistan and that somehow contributed to the establishment of ISIS.

I know, I know: this is small fry compared to the bigger whoopers, but I continue to be amazed as to how grown-ups can assert such stream-of-consciousness fiction on live television.

Also, I finally got to the end of a thread. YAY.
posted by the cydonian at 10:07 AM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


I AM FINALLY CAUGHT UP

I platonically love you, schadenfrau. But really, there is no such thing here.

Good morning, junkies.

On preview, hello the cydonian HAHAHAH
posted by wallabear at 10:08 AM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman: Inside the Failing Mission to Save Donald Trump From Himself
In private, Mr. Trump’s mood is often sullen and erratic, his associates say. He veers from barking at members of his staff to grumbling about how he was better off following his own instincts during the primaries and suggesting he should not have heeded their calls for change.

He broods about his souring relationship with the news media, calling Mr. Manafort several times a day to talk about specific stories. Occasionally, Mr. Trump blows off steam in bursts of boyish exuberance: At the end of a fund-raiser on Long Island last week, he playfully buzzed the crowd twice with his helicopter.

But in interviews with more than 20 Republicans who are close to Mr. Trump or in communication with his campaign, many of whom insisted on anonymity to avoid clashing with him, they described their nominee as exhausted, frustrated and still bewildered by fine points of the political process and why his incendiary approach seems to be sputtering.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:09 AM on August 13, 2016 [51 favorites]


It should prove to Republicans that the Southern Strategy is more of a hindrance at this point

Well, overt racism is. Covert racism was kinda working for them. (And the fact that they were dependent on covert racism made it hard to call out Trump's overt racism.) The issue is now that the beast has been fed the pure stuff, will anything but mainlining satisfy the base? If not, they become a white nationalist party. And even if they can revert to dogwhistles and not trumpet blasts, will anyone not white ever forget/forgive this? Probably not and they effectively become a white nationalist party. They could repudiate the Southern Strategy and dogwhistles completely and build a new coalition, but I'm not holding my breath.
posted by chris24 at 10:10 AM on August 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


But in interviews with more than 20 Republicans who are close to Mr. Trump or in communication with his campaign, many of whom insisted on anonymity to avoid clashing with him, they described their nominee as exhausted, frustrated and still bewildered by fine points of the political process and why his incendiary approach seems to be sputtering.

You just can't tell the World's Greatest Genius he's wrong ever. Look at his huge crowds, for one. And look at his huge crowds for another. Sad!
posted by y2karl at 10:12 AM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's going to be very interesting to see just how weird things get when he starts to slide.

He was this damaging on the way up. Imagine the way down.
posted by chris24 at 10:13 AM on August 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


Hell of a thing when a President has to make the country safe for democracy by being elected, not afterwards. This is, in a sense, the first test of her administration: can she have one?
posted by Countess Elena at 10:13 AM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


NYTimes: Inside the Failing Mission to Save Donald Trump From Himself
Advisers who once hoped a Pygmalion-like transformation would refashion a crudely effective political showman into a plausible American president now increasingly concede that Mr. Trump may be beyond coaching. He has ignored their pleas and counsel as his poll numbers have dropped, boasting to friends about the size of his crowds and maintaining that he can read surveys better than the professionals.

In private, Mr. Trump’s mood is often sullen and erratic, his associates say. He veers from barking at members of his staff to grumbling about how he was better off following his own instincts during the primaries and suggesting he should not have heeded their calls for change.[...]

they described their nominee as exhausted, frustrated and still bewildered by fine points of the political process and why his incendiary approach seems to be sputtering.
Love that image of him being exhausted and bewildered. "I keep telling them that Hillary goes to sleep at night yet her numbers keep going up and mine keep dropping."[fake]
Charles R. Black Jr., an influential Republican lobbyist supporting Mr. Trump, said the campaign was in a continuing struggle to tame him.

“He has three or four good days and then makes another gaffe,” Mr. Black said. “Hopefully, he can have some more good days.” Of Mr. Trump’s advisers, Mr. Black said, “They think he is making progress in terms of being able to make set speeches and not take the bait on every attack somebody makes on him.”
So this is the best they can hope from their candidate-- that he goes 3 or 4 days without a major gaffe. I don't know whether to be sad for them or gleeful. There is a bit of a tragedy going on here. If Trump was more likeable it would pluck at your heartstrings.

On preview I see zombieflanders just posted the same thing but we chose to quote slightly different parts.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:14 AM on August 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


Well, at least Trump has made Karl Rove sad and angry. That's a net plus, right?
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:17 AM on August 13, 2016 [55 favorites]


If Trump was more likeable it would pluck at your heartstrings.

It did sort of pluck at my heartstrings in that Rucker interview when he said he would want Ivanka to do "whatever makes her happy." It's surely not actually true, but it reminded me that for her he seems to feel something like love.

Not that this matters to any of us, of course, but I'm a writer, and I like to see some shading in what has so far been a bombastic caricature of a villain.
posted by Countess Elena at 10:21 AM on August 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


Efforts to bring in high-profile, experienced hands have been fruitless. Mr. Kushner had suggested enlisting Steve Schmidt, Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign manager, but despite having met once with Mr. Trump during the primaries and speaking with him a few times, Mr. Schmidt never signed on.

Well, that's one Steve that managed to slip through the Trump campaign's Steve-net.
posted by the wine-dark sea at 10:27 AM on August 13, 2016 [27 favorites]


RE: Trumpeteers.

A friend of mine was asked by his then very young children why some movies and television shows were in black and white instead of color. He told them that when he was young, there was no color -- that it hadn't been invented yet.

And they bought it until they went to pre-school. Boy, were they pissed.

You would think so-called adult audiences were incapable of such gullibility. And you would be wrong.
posted by y2karl at 10:29 AM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


It should prove to Republicans that the Southern Strategy is more of a hindrance at this point

A Republican Intellectual Explains why the Republican Party is Going To Die
Roy isn’t happy about this: He believes it means the Democrats will dominate national American politics for some time. But he also believes the Republican Party has lost its right to govern, because it is driven by white nationalism rather than a true commitment to equality for all Americans.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 10:30 AM on August 13, 2016 [25 favorites]


I like to see some shading in what has so far been a bombastic caricature of a villain.

I'll admit to thinking something close to "oh gosh, that poor man" when I first read that Trump had been lying about the size of his tower.
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:31 AM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


I feel like the press should be aggressively hitting all GOP candidates over whether American democracy is rigged. Trump may not feel much personal attachment to the electoral process, but I suspect career politicians from his party may differ. "Is it the official position of the GOP that the American democratic process ought not be trusted?"
posted by GameDesignerBen at 10:31 AM on August 13, 2016 [31 favorites]


He was this damaging on the way up. Imagine the way down.

Yeah, chris24. That does concern me a bit. I just hope his incendiary rhetoric doesn't get anyone killed.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 10:33 AM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's as if that ranting cab driver or barfly who kept going on about 'if I was President..' has been lifted up by angels and told - Go on then.

All he had to do was last a hundred or so days in the public gaze while he proved he wouldn't frighten the wives and servants, backed by one of the greatest political machines on the planet devoted entirely to his success.

The difference is, where Fred the cabbie or Jimbob the barfly, being from this planet, would quickly realise where they were and then do what they were told, Donnie cannot do this due to being 70 and living only on Planet Trump for the past forty years. He can't even breath the air on Earth without his id-suit.
posted by Devonian at 10:33 AM on August 13, 2016 [16 favorites]


That RNC consent decree post linked above is fascinating.

Could the DNC seek an enforcement action to prevent Trump from calling for "the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees... 'whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees'" to "undertak[e] any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose"? (Third Cir. opinion at 6)

("'Ballot Security,' as used in the Consent Decree, shall include any program aimed at combating voter fraud by preventing potential voters from registering to vote or casting a ballot. Such programs include, but are not limited to... the use of challengers to confront potential voters and verify their eligibility at the polls... the recording by photographic or other means of voter likenesses or vehicles at any polling place; and the distribution of literature informing individuals at or near a polling place that voter fraud is a crime or detailing the penalties under any state or federal statute for impermissibly casting a ballot.")
posted by cdefgfeadgagfe at 10:34 AM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm afraid of what might happen on election day at polling booths and in the streets after dark. Not about who is going to win -- I'm happy with the inevitable winner -- but afraid that the inevitable losers (including most of the anti-government gun nuts, racists, sexists, and xenophobes in the country) have all been primed to freak out when it happens.
posted by pracowity at 10:39 AM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


In private, Mr. Trump’s mood is often sullen and erratic, his associates say. He veers from barking at members of his staff to grumbling about how he was better off following his own instincts during the primaries and suggesting he should not have heeded their calls for change...they described their nominee as exhausted, frustrated and still bewildered by fine points of the political process and why his incendiary approach seems to be sputtering.

The "You know who else..." just writes itself, doesn't it?
posted by Thorzdad at 10:40 AM on August 13, 2016 [16 favorites]



Republicans question Trump's travel choices, tight purse strings
Concerned Republicans say their worries go beyond the campaign's decision to send its greatest resource -- the candidate himself -- to chase one or two electoral votes in Maine, or to what they believe are unwinnable states like Connecticut. The other phenomenon perplexing veteran operatives is that the Trump campaign now has the needed money to finance television ads and ground operations -- they just don't appear to be spending it.[...]
[Trump] declared it too early for him to be spending money [on television ads], and compared himself to an "old race horse" saying he is hanging back to see what happens.
"I think we have some pretty good ads but we don't want to go too fast. Just nice and easy," said Trump.
But many Republicans wonder what Trump is waiting for, since Clinton has used time and money to define herself, and more importantly, Trump, without much of a retort.
These are all questions that we have been asking here since the RNC. What's taken the Republicans and the media so long to catch up?


I feel like the press should be aggressively hitting all GOP candidates over whether American democracy is rigged.

That is such a good point. Paul Ryan should be asked that exact question today and every day until he answers (because I know he will do his best not to answer it.)
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:40 AM on August 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


So okay wait

Trump is angry because
insulting a baby
insulting the parents of a fallen hero
suggesting that 2nd amendment people upend HRC judicial nominations with their 2nd amendment rights

is not going over well?

I mean I just don't understand the psychology. Aside from the fact that he still sounds like an addict who wants to continue to getting his fix. I mean it's addict psychology. There's not reason involved, just him wanting to do what he wants.
posted by angrycat at 10:43 AM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


I think the big reason this round's election threads have been non-stop has been Trump's desire to always be dominating the news cycle. That's something we've never seen before in a political campaign -- he's exploiting the 24 hour news media's need to have something to always be talking about. Before, candidates were about making appearances and doing judicious news events but the rest of the time trying to stay out of the news cycle churn, lest they do something that COULD hurt them.
posted by dw at 10:44 AM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


@JamesGleick: "The Trump poll “observers” who see people voting multiple times will also be the ones who think all black people look alike."
posted by bibliowench at 10:44 AM on August 13, 2016 [72 favorites]


From Blue Jello Elf's link:
“Conservative intellectuals, and conservative politicians, have been in kind of a bubble,” Roy says. “We’ve had this view that the voters were with us on conservatism — philosophical, economic conservatism. In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”
Really? I find it hard to believe that this is a big shocker to anyone. The party of Willy Horten is shocked to find out that there's racism going on?
posted by octothorpe at 10:48 AM on August 13, 2016 [38 favorites]


Just a reminder that polls are based on statistics. Stats say nothing about an outlier or exactly what the next roll will be. Trump chances are 50-50 (two candidates) and there is no historical data for moonbatinsane celebrity businessman on a major ticket, not even Romney data counts in this case.
posted by sammyo at 10:49 AM on August 13, 2016




Trump chances are 50-50 (two candidates)

nope
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:51 AM on August 13, 2016 [67 favorites]


I think the big reason this round's election threads have been non-stop has been Trump's desire to always be dominating the news cycle. That's something we've never seen before in a political campaign -- he's exploiting the 24 hour news media's need to have something to always be talking about. Before, candidates were about making appearances and doing judicious news events but the rest of the time trying to stay out of the news cycle churn, lest they do something that COULD hurt them.

Yes! And he's running it as though he were producing an entertainment rather than a persuasive narrative. He's totally misread his (the general election) audience.

If he had the capacity for introspection and empathy, and had a little more impulse control, I'd be really worried.
posted by schadenfrau at 10:51 AM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


More evidence of a campaign in trouble. A fund raising invitation for August 30 had to be reissued because some of the names on the original invitation want nothing to do with the event. Willamette Week:
Meanwhile, Trump's finance team has sent out a new invite to his Aug. 30 fundraiser in Seattle. This time, the list of hosts is missing some high-profile Portlanders.

Last weekend, The Seattle Times uncovered an invitation that listed three Portland businessmen among the event hosts. In the next 48 hours, all three men disavowed the event—and two of them, hoteliers Gordon Sondland and Bashar Wali, pledged to never support Trump.

The new invitation, obtained today by WW, does not list Sondland, Wali or Portland State University trustee Peter Stott.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:51 AM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


I think the big reason this round's election threads have been non-stop has been Trump's desire to always be dominating the news cycle.

Meanwhile, Hillary's pulling the ol' Please Proceed, Governor.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 10:51 AM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


Stats say nothing about an outlier or exactly what the next roll will be. Trump chances are 50-50 (two candidates)

No, the statistics tell us the probability of what the next roll will be. Saying Trump's chances are 50-50 at this point because there are two candidates is misleading at best. If we determined the next president by fair coin flip, then yes, 50-50. But instead we have these things called votes that are used to determine the electoral college, and polls turn out to be generally accurate in predicting those. It's not Trump being polled, it's voters, and the voters haven't changed substantively.
posted by Special Agent Dale Cooper at 10:53 AM on August 13, 2016 [16 favorites]


- I feel like the press should be aggressively hitting all GOP candidates over whether American democracy is rigged. -


That is such a good point. Paul Ryan should be asked that exact question today and every day until he answers


+1000.
posted by chris24 at 10:54 AM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


And for another reason why Paul Ryan, et al needs to be asked daily:

Pat Buchanan says if Trump loses, it means American democracy is 'fraudulent' and 'rotten'.
posted by chris24 at 10:56 AM on August 13, 2016


Many of you loved the upcoming Time Magazine cover. The New Yorker is going to have a similar theme this coming week.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:56 AM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


please proceed, governor

Whereas Trump has basically converted the Gish Gallop into a campaign strategy.

You can so tell he comes (as do his minions) from the world of commissioned sales.
posted by spitbull at 10:56 AM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Each candidate is really four separate candidates occurring simultaneously, like the four sides of a cube.
posted by Artw at 10:57 AM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Each candidate is really four separate candidates occurring simultaneously, like the four sides of a cube.

A... time cube???
posted by Special Agent Dale Cooper at 10:58 AM on August 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


If you buy a Powerball ticket, there are only two possibilities: either you win the jackpot, or you don’t. That’s 50-50 odds too, right? [fake]
posted by nicepersonality at 10:59 AM on August 13, 2016 [37 favorites]


Just a reminder that polls are based on statistics. Stats say nothing about an outlier or exactly what the next roll will be. Trump chances are 50-50 (two candidates) and there is no historical data for moonbatinsane celebrity businessman on a major ticket, not even Romney data counts in this case.

No. Polls are not based on statistics, the polls are statistics. The models treat the polls as data and the combination of the model and the data (and to include 538 which uses a bayesian framework, priors) to make inferences. These inferences are where we get things like "our models say there is a 75% chance that clinton will win". What you are saying is that those models do not fit the data well, and that your bernoulli model--that is not based on data and uses something equivalent to a diffuse, noninformative prior--is better. Bullocks.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:00 AM on August 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


Just a reminder that polls are based on statistics. [...]Trump chances are 50-50 (two candidates).

Wait, you believe in math enough to believe that the probability of one candidate getting randomly selected out of two is 50%, but not enough to believe that if you randomly select 1,000 people out of state with 10 million, the average value of whatever you're trying to measure will in most cases be about the same for the smaller group and the larger group?

It's the same kind of math.

Anyway, the 50-50 thing would only be right if we were putting Trump's name and Clinton's name into a hat and randomly selecting one. But we're not. For starters, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson will be on most people's ballots too. So do you think that means the probability of Trump winning is only 25%, because Johnson and Stein each also have a 25% chance?

Of course not. Because when you ask people who they will vote for, hardly any of them say Stein or Johnson. A greater number say Trump, but not enough to give him a 50-50 shot, thank goodness.
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:00 AM on August 13, 2016 [16 favorites]


Rubes' cube.
posted by spitbull at 11:00 AM on August 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


"Speaker Ryan, the Republican Party has majorities in the House and Senate, 31 governorships, 68 state legislative houses, and a majority of innumerable state and local offices. Do you agree with Donald Trump's assertion that American democracy is rigged against the will of the people?"
posted by infinitewindow at 11:01 AM on August 13, 2016 [139 favorites]


The whole idea that some guy is going to risk going to Federal Prison for 5 years just so his favored candidate will get an extra vote or two in an election that counts votes in the tens of millions is jaw-droppingly stupid.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:01 AM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Time cube physics does at least explain what the fuck is up with Trump's hair.
posted by Artw at 11:02 AM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


Really? I find it hard to believe that this is a big shocker to anyone. The party of Willy Horten is shocked to find out that there's racism going on?

If you were 18 in 1988, you're 46 this year. There's an entire generation of Republicans behind them. You forget that sometimes.

Example: I was talking to a ~30 year old engineer for a commercial aviation manufacturer. We got talking about the differences in the design work I do (UX for enterprise applications) and the design work he does (commercial jets). I mentioned that what I do is unlikely to kill anyone, where the quality required for his work probably will. I then explained how the 1989 Sioux City crash happened due to poor design and a lack of quality control on forging one of the ingots used to make the turbofan some 20 years earlier.

Engineer's response? "Huh. I'd never heard of this crash. And we get drilled on plane crashes and causes all the time."

History isn't always remembered. Thus why we're often doomed to repeat it.
posted by dw at 11:02 AM on August 13, 2016 [25 favorites]




This week in Florida, I saw a campaign ad for a congressional seat. It was a negative ad of the scary, black-and-white photos and ominous music genre. The words that appeared on the screen describing the candidate's opponent were "PRO-GUN", "PRO-NRA", and "DANGEROUSLY CONSERVATIVE." This aired in Florida. During Wheel of Fortune. The fact that a politician is betting on this being a winning ad campaign... it's an immense change. This really could be a wave election.
posted by Daily Alice at 11:05 AM on August 13, 2016 [31 favorites]


"Speaker Ryan, the Republican Party has majorities in the House and Senate, 31 governorships, 68 state legislative houses, and a majority of innumerable state and local offices. Do you agree with Donald Trump's assertion that American democracy is rigged against the will of the people?"

Oh come on that's like 5th grade class president level questioning "I don't agree but we have that many elected offices throughout the country, the candidate has incredible support, packed rallies, queues out the door, yet the candidate is apparently behind by double digit points in solidly Republican areas? I can certainly see how someone could think the system is rigged against the candidate."
posted by Talez at 11:11 AM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


History isn't always remembered. Thus why we're often doomed to repeat it.

It's especially exciting in decades when we have a lot of new voters. If they absorb a lot of campaign propaganda without checking historical facts, then all bets are off and stunning political realignments based on grotesque spin are possible.
posted by puddledork at 11:11 AM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Remember that when you suggest this thread, it can be like suggesting someone run a marathon. They haven't been prepped by weekly (and then daily) threads for months.

I wish the best of luck to readers. Good luck finishing before election 2020!
posted by halifix at 11:11 AM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


"I think we have some pretty good ads but we don't want to go too fast. Just nice and easy," said Trump.
it's like the world's greatest capitalist doesn't realize that the price and availability of national ad time is detemined by a…market
posted by murphy slaw at 11:14 AM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


Well this is just weird. Donald Trump met with [Marc] Fisher and [Michael] Kranish, offering 20 hours plus of access over a four-month period, while the [Washington] Post was supposed to be banned by the Trump campaign, So that they could write a book about him. “Trump Revealed” will be published by Scribner on Aug. 23.
The Post said Trump was willing to discuss everything from his childhood and real estate career to his political evolution. He even shared details of his “romances, family history, friendships and other influences,” it reported.

Fisher and Kranish called the interviews “fascinating but frequently frustrating.” They claim Trump often gave “disjointed answers” to uncomfortable questions.

BuzzFeed, The Huffington Post and Politico join the Washington Post on the Trump campaign’s blacklist, according to CNN. Banned reporters can attend Trump events as public citizens, but cannot attend private events such as press conferences.
And not always as public citizens. At least once a "banned" reporter was removed from a Trump event by security even though he had a public admission ticket.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:14 AM on August 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


Y'all! Slow down. I just want to address a serious issue upthread: A cube... with four sides.

A cube.

With four sides.

Reality really has become whatever we want it to be. Fuck your three-dimensionality!
posted by rp at 11:19 AM on August 13, 2016 [30 favorites]


We are in NYC at the moment and while stuck in traffic in front of Trump Tower, I caught like 5 Voltorbs in PokemonGo. So I guess that place is just a nest of aggressive, smooth-headed, volatile types that could explode at a moment's notice.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:21 AM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


In private, Mr. Trump’s mood is often sullen and erratic

YOU DON'T SAY.

they described their nominee as exhausted, frustrated and still bewildered

"Don't you think he looks tired?"

I bet he's frustrated: he's behaving the same way that won him the primary ("I beat 17 people!"), but it's stopped working, he doesn't know why, and he's not capable of behaving any differently.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 11:22 AM on August 13, 2016 [21 favorites]


Trump rep saying people didn't vote for Romney because of all the Black Panthers and their voter intimidation. Blank stares from CNN panel.

currently this tweet is the only source i've found, looking for confirmation
posted by murphy slaw at 11:23 AM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's kind of weird how the red state/blue state thing seems to have ossified in the 90s and now we're stuck with it.

A lot of that, I think, is plain old gerrymandering.


re: election 'rigging'...
The Republicans' big gerrymander could backfire in a major way - "Whereas bipartisan gerrymandering creates safe districts for both parties, the GOP undertook partisan gerrymandering, which packs the other party's voters into as few districts as possible and spreads out the gerrymandering party's voters across many districts, each of which that party can win but often by uncomfortably narrow margins..."
If the Trump collapse and Clinton surge continue, they could reveal the perils of partisan redistricting. That strategy created so many marginal Republican districts that if the GOP loses the bulk of the seats at or below R+2, it would also lose its congressional majority. A catastrophe that claimed every GOP seat at or below R+4 would bring the GOP caucus close to the size of today’s House Democrats.

More than that, many seats the Republicans lost would belong to newcomers, who include the most vocal Tea Party conservatives. Once again, this is an indirect result of gerrymandering, which typically ensures safer seats for the most senior party members...

Of course, Democrats shouldn’t be over-confident, even amidst a decisive Trump defeat. The influence of a presidential contest weakens as one travels down the ballot, and incumbents typically insulate themselves well enough to earn reelection rates north of 95 percent.

Moreover, cautious voters sometimes counterbalance one party’s Presidential victory by returning a congressional majority for the opposite party. Democrats may also have fielded too many subpar candidates in the marginal districts they didn’t imagine could be won.

For these reasons, a Democratic House majority is still a long shot.
Many of you loved the upcoming Time Magazine cover. The New Yorker is going to have a similar theme this coming week.

not a cover, but i thought the (graphic design) inversion was clever!
posted by kliuless at 11:26 AM on August 13, 2016 [27 favorites]


I got another email from Trump today. Seems to be recruiting for poll watching, though the link to volunteer doesn't mention that specifically. The email says in part:

Over the past seven years, our country has lost – BIG LEAGUE. Our jobs are being sent to Mexico. China is killing us in trade. Worst of all, illegal immigrants are getting treated better than our own veterans!

This November our country stands at a crossroads – do we continue down the destructive path laid out by the corrupt and inept policies of Obama, or do we fight to take our country back and start WINNING again?

Our message is working. We’re rising in the polls!

But the polls don’t matter unless we get our supporters out to vote.

That’s where you come in, Pocketfullofrye.

As a volunteer, you’ll be on the frontlines of this critical election. You’ll be my eyes and ears on the ground.


I guess they decided they needed to put the Big League/Bigly controversy to rest.

It's "eyes and ears on the ground" that made me think of the voter intimidation stuff. Amazing that they claim they're "rising in the polls." And interesting that they're still running against Obama, not HRC. Though I think calling Obama "corrupt" is new, right? Like they've decided "oh, everyone accepts HRC is corrupt without any evidence to back it up, maybe that'll work for Obama too."

Anyway it's instructive to see who they think their audience's enemies are, and it's not America's "elites." It's:

Mexican People
Chinese People
Illegal immigrants
Obama
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:34 AM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Republicans' big gerrymander could backfire in a major way - "Whereas bipartisan gerrymandering creates safe districts for both parties, the GOP undertook partisan gerrymandering, which packs the other party's voters into as few districts as possible and spreads out the gerrymandering party's voters across many districts, each of which that party can win but often by uncomfortably narrow margins..."

Pennsyl-fucking-vania. 2012 election.

Popular Vote

Democratic - 50.28%
Republican - 48.77%

Congressional Seats

Democratic: 5
Republican: 13

Keep in mind when Pennsylvania lost a seat in 2010 they redistricted the fucking state so well that Democrats went from six seats to five. Anyone who can look at that and say democracy is functioning properly in the state of Pennsylvania is either an incompetent fuck or a fucking liar.
posted by Talez at 11:35 AM on August 13, 2016 [70 favorites]


Pennsylvania is probably the worst but it's not the only.

Virginia was all but 50-50 and the 2012 congressional delegation was 8-3. North Carolina was 50.60-48.75 in favor of Democrats but was 9-4 in favor of Republicans in the 2012 delegation. Michigan in 2012 was 50.89-45.62 in favor of Democrats but was 9-5 in favor of Republicans in the delegation.

Democracy has been fundamentally broken in these states delivering a near permanent Republican house (short of a Democratic landslide).
posted by Talez at 11:44 AM on August 13, 2016 [26 favorites]


currently this tweet is the only source i've found, looking for confirmation

That would be from Scottie Nell Hughes, who is better appreciated through the medium of Cecily Strong. Clearly she is Saturday's designated cablenews jawdropper.
posted by holgate at 11:46 AM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


If anything can tip the House, it's that Trump may not see the value in Get Out The Vote campaigns. More than Clinton Republicans (how's that for a neologism?), who would be more likely to split their tickets, especially to protect an incumbent, if Trump doesn't care about getting every last vote to the polls (or worries that he might bus in Clinton Republicans by mistake), that could flip an R+2 district where the Dems are funding a GOTV effort.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 11:46 AM on August 13, 2016


"I think we have some pretty good ads but we don't want to go too fast. Just nice and easy," said Trump.

This sounds better if you imagine Billy D. Williams saying it.
posted by dirigibleman at 11:47 AM on August 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


What would the "correct" answer be? [...] If there is no "correct" answer, the question is just drama-mongering.

I somewhat disagree. As part of my regulator role, I often ask the heads of engineering departments questions about their designs and plans. I am not an engineer, but I can definitely tell the difference between optimistic, shallow hoping-for-the-best and real analysis of pros and likely cons. I don't know what the 'correct' answer is, and maybe there is no one true right answer. But I definitely can recognize the weak spot in some under-examined bullshit and throw a hand grenade into it.

I agree with you though that relentlessly attacking any drawback to sabotage the plan without regard to the whole picture is... not the desired effect and not the same thing.
posted by ctmf at 11:51 AM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Democracy has been fundamentally broken in these states delivering a near permanent Republican house (short of a Democratic landslide).

It's the triumph of block-level GIS data and mapping software used for partisan fuckery. One of the galling aspects of court decisions that throw out district maps is that GOP state legislators can just go back to their software, tweak the variables a little, and come up with a new map based on updated residency data that is probably just as bad. This means that a census-year gerrymander doesn't unwind as much as it should over the latter part of a decade on account of population changes.

Can't put that genie back in the bottle. The only way to fix this is to take the power of districting out of the hands of those elected into those districts.
posted by holgate at 11:54 AM on August 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


Wow! Michigan and Wisconsin are Ducking The Donald too???

Considering the people they've put in office in the past 10 ... could they have learned something????
posted by Twang at 11:54 AM on August 13, 2016


Katrina Pierson goes off the fucking deep end misremembering history yet again.

Afghanistan was Obama's war? Can someone please shut her up?
posted by Talez at 11:56 AM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]



Which isn't to say that Clinton is immaculate. But I posit that the most sinister things Clinton has done are already public knowledge.

Congrats - you've been trained to repeat their taking point: the very word sinister.
posted by Dashy at 11:56 AM on August 13, 2016 [29 favorites]


Chris Ladd ([not]GOPLifer): How Clinton Could Win Texas - "(And Why It Isn’t Good News for Democrats)"
A landslide so large as to turn Texas blue in this election indicates the collapse of the Republican Party’s national relevance. As Trump’s supporters convert the GOP into a white nationalist institution, the Presidency loses its importance. A white nationalist party can only be a regional, not a national force. Absent a fundamental reconstruction of the party, future Republican nominees, just like our nominee this year, will carry all the gravitas and relevance of the Green or Libertarian candidates.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:01 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


If the left had an organized messaging machine, we could easily turn "the election will be rigged!" into "the only fair elections are elections where everyone can vote!" And use it to both motivate landslide level turn out and stick a shiv in voter suppression efforts.

Call them on trying to rig elections, dammit. Gerrymandering and all. We have actual reality on our side, we just have to shout as loudly and as...unified-ly.
posted by schadenfrau at 12:01 PM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


Trump responds to NY Times.
The failing @nytimes has become a newspaper of fiction. Their stories about me always quote non-existent unnamed sources. Very dishonest!
[real] I'm sad to say.
posted by Talez at 12:02 PM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Nate Silver:
In USC/LATimes poll, Trump supporters' likelihood of voting has fallen a bunch over past week. His "rigged" message may depress his turnout.
posted by murphy slaw at 12:06 PM on August 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


Yeah, the least the NYT could have done would be to name their sources ... John Barron? Steve? Meredith?
posted by Dashy at 12:08 PM on August 13, 2016


Washington Post [real]: How Donald Trump’s bizarre voter-watch effort could get the GOP in trouble
In 1981, the Republican Party rolled out a voter-integrity effort in New Jersey that mirrors what Trump demanded in Altoona. As described in a legal ruling about the prohibition:

The RNC allegedly created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters and, then, including individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls. The RNC also allegedly enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.

(Trump in Altoona: "We have to call up law enforcement. And we have to have the sheriffs and the police chiefs and everybody watching. ... The only way they can beat it in my opinion — and I mean this 100 percent — if in certain sections of the state they cheat, okay?")

The Democrats sued, and in 1982, the two parties agreed to a system under which the Republican National Committee agreed to refrain from a number of tactics that could be used to intimidate voters. That consent decree, as it is called, has been modified a number of times, often in response to efforts to challenge the ability of Democratic voters to vote, occasionally targeting black voters specifically.
Election Law Blog [real]: Donald Trump May Be Violating RNC Consent Decree Aimed at Voter Intimidation
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:10 PM on August 13, 2016 [25 favorites]


The failing @nytimes has become a newspaper of fiction. Their stories about me always quote non-existent unnamed sources.


Did they interview his plant-building buddy?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:12 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


I love that this election is so unbelievable that we're forced to tag things as [real] or [fake] because you'd never know otherwise.
posted by octothorpe at 12:16 PM on August 13, 2016 [20 favorites]


In USC/LATimes poll, Trump supporters' likelihood of voting has fallen a bunch over past week. His "rigged" message may depress his turnout.

Well, that would be a shame.
posted by Artw at 12:16 PM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


In USC/LATimes poll, Trump supporters' likelihood of voting has fallen a bunch over past week. His "rigged" message may depress his turnout.

It may be that, but there is a identifiable category of voter who only wants to vote for the candidate they see as likely to win. And I have a suspicion that Trumps supporter base contains an unusual number of those voters. This is one of the reasons I am not hugely worried about surprise high voter turnout among his base; I think that if he goes into November looking like a loser, they'll want to keep that stink off them and will either not vote or vote for Clinton.
posted by tavella at 12:22 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Not winning when your message is winning may also depress turnout.
posted by chris24 at 12:22 PM on August 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


The Night that Obama and Hillary Founded Isis

They were down in the kitchen one night eating Popsicles and staring into each other’s eyes when he asked if he could tell her a secret. Hillary laughed and said, “Is it about how you’re really a terrorist?” He looked at her and said, “Yes, actually.” She stopped eating her Popsicle. “Donald Trump was right about you?” He nodded. “About everything.”

[fake] [funny]
posted by bunderful at 12:22 PM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Jinx Tavella.
posted by chris24 at 12:22 PM on August 13, 2016


I side with has updated for the general.
Candidates you side with...
98% Hillary Clinton
4% Donald Trump
Well. At least it's now in writing.
posted by Talez at 12:23 PM on August 13, 2016


I love that this election is so unbelievable that we're forced to tag things as [real] or [fake] because you'd never know otherwise.

The Poe's Law election.
posted by chaoticgood at 12:31 PM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


> "I side with has updated for the general."

98% Clinton
5% Trump

Not super shocked by this.
posted by kyrademon at 12:34 PM on August 13, 2016


GOP insiders: Trump can't win
“Trump is underperforming so comprehensively across states and demographics it would take video evidence of a smiling Hillary drowning a litter of puppies while terrorists surrounded her with chants of ‘Death to America!’ But in 2016, stranger things have happened.”

“Trump has failed to demonstrate he has a plan and path to 270” electoral votes, added a Wisconsin Republican.
Trump has failed to demonstrate he has a plan for anything, and he rejects the GOP when they step in and try to help him.
posted by zakur at 12:35 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Bad news, guys. Pack it in. This guy says Trump will win, and he built an app.
posted by Countess Elena at 12:38 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


If you buy a Powerball ticket, there are only two possibilities: either you win the jackpot, or you don’t. That’s 50-50 odds too, right?

I was going to say that either all the molecules in and around the chair I'm sitting in will spontaneously reorganize themselves into Joan Holloway, or they won't. 50-50. I like those odds.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:39 PM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Sam Wang, Princeton Election Consortium: Why follow polls?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:51 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Y'all! Slow down. I just want to address a serious issue upthread: A cube... with four sides.

A cube.

With four sides.

Reality really has become whatever we want it to be. Fuck your three-dimensionality!


You are EDUCATED STUPID
posted by Itaxpica at 12:52 PM on August 13, 2016 [23 favorites]


i do sometimes wonder, in highly asymmetric races like this one, does the mere reporting of a significant polling disadvantage for a candidate suppress voter turnout for that candidate?
posted by murphy slaw at 12:56 PM on August 13, 2016


My husband just last night realized that part of Trump's flailing, and related flailing throughout the campaign, might be because he was ashamed to realize he's being "beaten by a girl." (Not a quote.)

This also nicely explains why his campaign materials and public statements are all about the Evils Of Obama with a mumbled note that Hillary will extend those policies... he can't wrap his head around competing with a woman; he has to look for the "man in charge" and fight him.

I love living in an area where sexism is so publicly unacceptable that people honestly forget it exists as a motivating factor... except for when we have to deal with the fallout. I had to remind him that the reason we're still fighting for this, even after winning hypothetical equal legal rights, is that a lot of people just took all the old patterns and buried them under a thin layer of justifications like "her voice is shrill" or "she's not very friendly."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 12:57 PM on August 13, 2016 [45 favorites]


“Trump has failed to demonstrate he has a plan and path to 270” electoral votes, added a Wisconsin Republican.

dammit Meredith
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 1:02 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


[voiceover]:"Meredith": because "You had one job" is just one too many syllables.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:09 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]




I love that this election is so unbelievable that we're forced to tag things as [real] or [fake] because you'd never know otherwise.

Eh, to be fair we've only reeeeally needed to start doing that in the last two weeks or so
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:12 PM on August 13, 2016


...a Wisconsin Republican...

lol

o.O

I wonder if it was Paul Ryan.
posted by maggiemaggie at 1:12 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


with four sides

The other two sides are currently talking over each other on CNN, because you know they both do it.


his "rigged" message may depress his turnout.

Well, that would be a shame.
posted by Artw


Sarcasm!
posted by spitbull at 1:14 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


>He Likes Trump. She Doesn’t. Can This Marriage Be Saved?

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 1:14 PM on August 13, 2016 [23 favorites]


Bless their hearts.
posted by Artw at 1:15 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


So remember how Trump yelled at that protestor in Erie about how his mother would be voting for Trump?

She isn't.
posted by waitingtoderail at 1:17 PM on August 13, 2016 [29 favorites]


He Likes Trump. She Doesn’t. Can This Marriage Be Saved?

I thought this was going to be a story about one of Trump's ex-wives.
posted by aubilenon at 1:18 PM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


He Likes Trump. She Doesn’t. Can I make it any more obvious?
He used racial slurs. Her best friend is gay. What more can I say?
posted by Talez at 1:23 PM on August 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


Lol @ the pictures with that article. Men looking smugly placating, women looking like "Ugh, can you not?"
posted by soren_lorensen at 1:37 PM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


He Likes Trump. She Doesn’t. Can This Marriage Be Saved?

So I Married an Axe Murderer Asshole
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 1:38 PM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


Apparently an internal poll is showing Clinton and Trump tied in Indiana??!!
posted by peacheater at 1:39 PM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


From the Erie piece:
Congrats to all those playing Trump Bingo at home who was waiting to cross off the “Yo’ Momma joke” square.

Uhh...is Trump Bingo a thing beyond right here? Or has the reporter been reading these threads?
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:40 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Apparently an internal poll is showing Clinton and Trump tied in Indiana??!!

To be fair the Hoosiers are kind of wary about putting Pence near any lever of power ever again.
posted by Talez at 1:40 PM on August 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


That NYTimes article is terrifying

We are socialized to put up with anything
posted by schadenfrau at 1:48 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


Get your BoBer friends to actually vote for Clinton - this could be huuuuuge and a huge victory for liberal politics, if everyone just went out and voted straight Democratic ticket for once.
posted by peacheater at 1:48 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Get your BoBer friends to actually vote for Clinton - this could be huuuuuge and a huge victory for liberal politics, if everyone just went out and voted straight Democratic ticket for once.

Does anyone else think OutKast when they see BoB?

Don't pull your thang unless you plan to vote!
Bernie or Busters!
Don't even vote unless you plan to vote Democrat!
Bernie or Busters!
posted by Talez at 1:52 PM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Indiana elected Birch Bayh 3 times, and Evan Bayh once and probably again. Obama actually won Indiana in 2008, it's probably the next state to fall along with Georgia, after North Carolina. Trump is hitting lows that could flip the map in a lot of places. I'd like to see a poll of Missouri next.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:52 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Get your BoBer friends to actually vote for Clinton

No can do. I only know a few, but they're desperate for people to try to persuade them, so they can have their chance to explain why they never will. One of my friends started saying the Clintons were "rapists, murderers, crooks" and I bailed.
posted by argybarg at 1:54 PM on August 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


Apparently an internal poll is showing Clinton and Trump tied in Indiana??!!

To be fair the Hoosiers are kind of wary about putting Pence near any lever of power ever again.


Not feeling so great today and spending it in bed reading. I found myself reading the Reddit thread that was linked asking what made previous Trump supporters change their minds. There was quite a number who said they were from Indiana and either were leaning towards or supporting Trump until he picked Pence. Many went on to say why and boy does it sound like he was not liked.

That Reddit thread was pretty interesting. Loooong but interesting to read what 'surely this' moment did it for people. The Khan's was a big one but overall it doesn't seem to be one main thing that stuck out. Trump has provided a whole buffet of things for people to choose from.
posted by Jalliah at 1:56 PM on August 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


Fair enough argybarg, I've given up on the few I'm friends with on Facebook too.

I read somewhere that people are rarely persuaded by direct arguments, that you need to think about your arguments as making you case not to the person you're arguing with but people listening (which is why it's extremely important not to lose your cool or be rude).

I guess GOTV is probably the most important thing then.
posted by peacheater at 1:56 PM on August 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


In private, Mr. Trump’s mood is often sullen and erratic, his associates say. He veers from barking at members of his staff to grumbling about how he was better off following his own instincts during the primaries and suggesting he should not have heeded their calls for change.

*raised eyebrows*

Ohhhh. He genuinely thinks that he pivoted, and wonders why it didn't take.

That guy is indeed as un-self-aware as Lucille Bluth, and in exactly the same way.

off to see if Arrested Development is on Netflix
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:02 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


(When I see “BoB,” my first thought—now, forever, and always—is “FROG BLAST THE VENT CORE!”)
posted by nicepersonality at 2:04 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Uhh...is Trump Bingo a thing beyond right here? Or has the reporter been reading these threads?

I can't quite tell if this is sort of an example of convergent evolution, just the blitzkrieg-zeitgeist of our time; or if it's real: -- but I have more than a few times in the past months had the feeling that a lot of pretty well-known and influential media types keep an eye on these threads.

this probably belongs in meta, though
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:07 PM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


I am absolutely certain that when Trump loses the person he'll blame the most is Pence. Trump's 70, he's got exquisite health care, and so we may be looking forward to over two decades of Trump whining about how that goddamned Pence ruined everything and that if he had went with his gut and picked Christie, he would have been President for Life.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:08 PM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


he's got exquisite health care,

You kidding? He'll be lucky he doesn't pitch an infarct within the week.
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:12 PM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


I know the thread has moved on since the discussion of paid speeches, but the problem isn't that people can get rich giving speeches or that it's common among public figures and celebrities, the problem is that for politicians it subverts and circumvents campaign finance restrictions. That's a big problem. Money is the biggest threat to our democracy. That's true even if we like the politician.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:12 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


Pence humiliated Indiana nationally. He's got his fans among the sorts who don't care about that or the lost economic opportunities as much as they care about sticking it to QUILTBAG people, but everybody else hates the bastard.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:14 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Katrina Pierson is apparently blaming the Afghanistan lie on "audio disruptions and echoes".
posted by peacheater at 2:16 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


Uhh...is Trump Bingo a thing beyond right here? Or has the reporter been reading these threads?

X Bingo is a pretty common thing, and "Yo Momma joke" is just out there enough that it sounds like something that would be on it, after the fact.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:19 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


QUILTBAG people,

Dare I ask?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:20 PM on August 13, 2016


QUILTBAG
posted by peacheater at 2:21 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


Katrina Pierson needs to back away from public life. She is fundamentally incapable of being an effective spokesperson for any cause whatsoever.

I feel bad for her. So blinded by her own imagined brilliance.
posted by yesster at 2:22 PM on August 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


When talking about the rigged election in PA, Trump said "I mean that 100%." This morning, Katrina Pierson was on CNN trying to explain what he meant by "I mean that 100%."

Words really have become meaningless I guess.
posted by marxchivist at 2:28 PM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Out of curiousity (and because I actually have time to waste) I went on a tour of other internet places to see how some are dealing with all of the negative news and polling for Trump.

I discovered:

Trump is going to definitely win.
If you read the data correctly he will take 40 states.
When asked for explanations on how to read the data it's basically boils down to what I will call 'gut science'.
The main reason the polls are saying Clinton is so high is all the media is in it for Clinton because they are:

A: Terrified of Trump because he is such a powerful anti-globalist and all the media and everyone is globalist and he's going to destroy everything globalist.
B: They are all involved in the set-up for Clinton rigging it so she wins and if the polls showed the real situation then it won't work. (How this fits with Trump winning I dunno. Just go with it I guess...) This set-up involves most RNC officials and lots and lots of RINOs. Also maybe some of Trump's campaign people are RINOs and doing things to him on the inside.

Mostly though it's Trump will be a winner..... even if he 'loses' cause there is no way that the majority of Americans don't think he is the most amazing person evah.
posted by Jalliah at 2:29 PM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


>he's got exquisite health care,

You kidding? He'll be lucky he doesn't pitch an infarct within the week.


I wonder if he opted out of premium-free Medicare Part A. If he didn't, the government can help him with some of those hospital bills.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:35 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Words really have become meaningless I guess.

Well they are meaningless for Trump, and have been for a long time. For Trump words are tools which can be used to manipulate people. You can string them together in different ways for various purposes, such as to convey information or record truth, but the purpose for which Trump strings words together is to manipulate our emotions. He operates on the theory that a powerful emotionally loaded image is far more useful than some stupid detail like the truth.

And the thing is, that got him the Republican nomination. I was kind of assuming he knew he knew he'd have to pivot in the general, and that someone using pure propaganda techniques so shamelessly would know that he was singing to a different audience. But I am now starting to think that while he gauged the Republican primary voters with uncanny accuracy, that may have been less brilliance than fortunate coincidence.

Of course Trump thinks everything that goes right for him demonstrates his brilliance, and everything that goes wrong proves dark forces are working against him. Which is another good reason to make sure he never is allowed anywhere near a political office.
posted by Bringer Tom at 2:37 PM on August 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


I feel bad for her. So blinded by her own imagined brilliance.

She's the perfect spokesperson for a Dunning-Kruger campaign.
posted by dirigibleman at 2:39 PM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


> "Katrina Pierson is apparently blaming the Afghanistan lie on 'audio disruptions and echoes'."

I guess it's good on them that they've successfully identified their core constituency as "idiots who will swallow anything".
posted by kyrademon at 2:39 PM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


"B: They are all involved in the set-up for Clinton rigging it so she wins and if the polls showed the real situation then it won't work. (How this fits with Trump winning I dunno. Just go with it I guess...) This set-up involves most RNC officials and lots and lots of RINOs. Also maybe some of Trump's campaign people are RINOs and doing things to him on the inside."

At least the paranoia characteristic of Trump's narcissism is playing it by the book.
posted by erisfree at 2:47 PM on August 13, 2016


Pierson will do all right for herself. Like terrible bands that play malls and state fairs even when they're jokes nationwide, she'll land on her feet in some small market. After all, she's pretty, and she's been on CNN. Bottom feeders have their place in every ecosystem.
posted by Countess Elena at 2:52 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Y'all! Slow down. I just want to address a serious issue upthread: A cube... with four sides.

A cube.

With four sides.


Have you ever seen all these supposed "other sides" at once? Think about it dude. Also, d'ya ever really look at your hand?
posted by bongo_x at 2:59 PM on August 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


Like terrible bands that play malls and state fairs even when they're jokes nationwide
I see you, too, have been reading about the latter-day adventures of Smash Mouth.
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:59 PM on August 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


> "I see you, too, have been reading about the latter-day adventures of Smash Mouth."

Hey now.
posted by kyrademon at 3:03 PM on August 13, 2016 [35 favorites]


He Likes Trump. She Doesn’t. Can This Marriage Be Saved?

Paging Mr. Betteridge. Mr. Betterdige to the NYT Style Section please.
posted by The Bellman at 3:04 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


#KatrinaPiersonHistory
posted by peacheater at 3:05 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


I can imagine staying with someone who voted for Romney. But Trump? I just don't see how I could do that.
posted by Justinian at 3:06 PM on August 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


The article about white nationalist conservatism linked above struck a chord with me. Does anyone have any thoughtful sources that describe what Republican conservatism would be without the white, male, cishet nationalist Southern Strategy? A friend of mine has argued that modern conservatism should stress strong local and state government and weakened federalism with less emphasis on the social conservatism that doesn't make much sense in certain segments of modern society--in particular, young urbanites. I'd be inclined to agree with him, but he's not conservative, so it all feels like napkin brainstorming. Having grown up with Southern Strategy conservatism it's almost impossible for me imagine what modern conservatism would be like without that ugly throughline.

In other news, the recent phone number and e-mail dump courtesy of Guccifer 2.0 has resulted in some ugliness for Democratic politicians. Waaay back in the early 90's I was part of a 2600 group that engaged mostly in white hat and informational hacking and we would talk about how black hats would eventually influence politics and how the criminal justice system was woefully unprepared to handle the coming flood of hackers from Eastern Europe and Asia. It's one thing to throw Mitnick in solitary for eight months and quite another to do something about Russian and Chinese infiltrations. More frustratingly, a thing like the Clinton e-mail server is woefully familiar to any sysadmin who has attempted to run a tight ship from a security standpoint. I would tell my bosses that systems could be secure or convenient, never both. Convenience won every time and I would get stuck managing the fallout when convenience resulted in damaging breaches. I have some confidence in places like the NSA and the CIA, but the State Department and Congressional systems? Not so much, mostly because of the prevailing culture of those groups. I predict that more of this sort of thing will come before November.
posted by xyzzy at 3:07 PM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


> A friend of mine was asked by his then very young children why some movies and television shows were in black and white instead of color. He told them that when he was young, there was no color -- that it hadn't been invented yet

You know Calvin's dad?
posted by The corpse in the library at 3:09 PM on August 13, 2016 [33 favorites]


I can imagine staying with someone who voted for Romney. But Trump? I just don't see how I could do that.

As a Southern white woman, I got the unspoken but clear lesson that it was my job to learn how to love people with terrible opinions. But they're already related to me. I don't have to sign up for anyone extra.
posted by Countess Elena at 3:11 PM on August 13, 2016 [47 favorites]


Bad news, guys. Pack it in. This guy says Trump will win, and he built an app.

From the linked article:
His app poses questions and polls responses based on an average of 100,000 daily users. “I go with Trump, based on what we see.”
In statistics, they call this the Family Feud Algorithm.

(Also, they describe the guy as "co-founder of San Diego-based Crazy Raccoons." So at least he's a bit more self-aware than Katrina Pierson.)
posted by PlusDistance at 3:12 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Having grown up with Southern Strategy conservatism it's almost impossible for me imagine what modern conservatism would be like without that ugly throughline.

Silicon Valley, surely. Disruption for all!
posted by Countess Elena at 3:13 PM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


More frustratingly, a thing like the Clinton e-mail server is woefully familiar to any sysadmin who has attempted to run a tight ship from a security standpoint.

What isn't familiar is that the State Department email server was hacked. We don't know Clinton's was.
posted by Francis at 3:14 PM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


What isn't familiar is that the State Department email server was hacked. We don't know Clinton's was.
I didn't mean to imply that Clinton's server was hacked, but its existence is certainly a result of a desire for convenience. I don't have time to dig up the exact quote right now, but private servers tend to get set up in order to avoid having to deal with multiple e-mail addresses and/or access devices.
posted by xyzzy at 3:17 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Max Ehrenfreund and Jeff Guo at The Washington Post: “A massive new study debunks a widespread theory for Donald Trump’s success”
Economic distress and anxiety across working-class white America have become a widely discussed explanation for the success of Donald Trump. It seems to make sense…
Yet a major new analysis from Gallup, based on 87,000 interviews the polling company conducted over the past year, suggests this narrative is not complete. While there does seem to be a relationship between economic anxiety and Trump's appeal, the straightforward connection that many observers have assumed does not appear in the data.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:23 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


You don't have a problem with Clinton's honesty, you have a problem with capitalism. She is literally one of the best people in the world at giving speeches and talking to people because that's what politicians do. That's why she has a very good shot at being the president. Because she is good at those things.

Now it sucks that the people who can hire the best of the best are by definition the rich and elite, and not nonprofits and organizations with shoestring budgets trying to do good in the world. But that is a feature of capitalism, not feature of any particular person's honesty.


uhh, do you really think investment banks are giving people half a million dollars to talk for half an hour because they're interested in the subject of their speeches?
posted by p3on at 3:24 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


> Well they are meaningless for Trump, and have been for a long time. For Trump words are tools which can be used to manipulate people. You can string them together in different ways for various purposes, such as to convey information or record truth, but the purpose for which Trump strings words together is to manipulate our emotions. He operates on the theory that a powerful emotionally loaded image is far more useful than some stupid detail like the truth.

Okay but I think something we're ready for is to abandon the idea that words primarily function through conveying meaning — and I'm talking everyone's words, rather than just Trump's. We may like to adopt a hermeneutic scheme wherein we can assess the value of a given statement by intuiting its meaning and then determining whether or not that meaning corresponds to an external meaning. In this sort of scheme, we could sort words into the category "true," for words that correspond to reality, "false," for words that fail to correspond to reality, "bullshit" for words uttered by people who don't care whether or not their words correspond to reality, and so forth. Unfortunately, no one uses language that way; I'm not certain it's even possible to use language that way. Speech is not a transparent, transcendent window unveiling the hurly-burly of reality; instead, it's a scheme for organizing reality that is immanent to the hurly-burly it describes. Language use is always in one way or another persuasive rather than purely descriptive; even the most disinterested-seeming texts are attempts to persuade the reader to adopt an interpretation of reality, via various means not limited to mere correspondence with that external reality,

As such, we must instead adopt interpretive schema whereby we measure speech acts by their effects. Why must we do this? First, we must do this because it is a more accurate way to understand language use than the "language is for conveying information" idea we might at first prefer. Moreover though, we must do this so as to not get rolled by people, people smarter than Trump, who correctly understand language in terms of effects and consequences rather than meaning and ideals.

On the whole, we do not use words to identify truths about the universe; instead, we use them to change things. Correspondence between word and truth, in this framework, becomes just one of many rhetorical tools available to speakers — if, occasionally, a crucial one. The "meaning" of a statement becomes not something you can figure out through looking up words in a dictionary then consulting the semantic rules by which those words are assembled into statements. Moreover, the value of the meaning of a statement cannot be determined through comparing it to reality. Instead, the meaning of any given statement is wrapped up in the results effected by that statement when it is delivered at a particular time to a particular audience in a particular context for a particular end. Appeal to truth, or a claim to correspondence with extant reality, is one tool used to persuade listeners. Let's call this type of rhetorical appeal logos, just to let everyone know that we're ripping off Aristotle — but let's not forget that logos is merely a type of persuasive tool among others.

The trick is not to denounce people like Trump as misusers of language or as bullshitters or whatever, but instead figuring out how to negotiate a path toward truth or the good or whatever while also acknowledging that language and meaning, as aspects of the world rather than things governing over it, cannot either embody transcendent truth or transparently and disinterestedly convey information.

The problem with Trump's language isn't that he uses rhetorical tools to persuade rather than to convey information. The problem is that outside of his very specific hothouse context, he's so fucking bad at it.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:27 PM on August 13, 2016 [28 favorites]


uhh, do you really think investment banks are giving people half a million dollars to talk for half an hour because they're interested in the subject of their speeches?

As I mentioned. $200,000 (i.e. Hillary Clinton's speaker rate) is about the same of that of Blake Lively or Larry the Cable Guy. Or any one of dozens of other people. If you think someone is giving Blake Lively that much money then why?
posted by Francis at 3:28 PM on August 13, 2016 [42 favorites]


uhh, do you really think investment banks are giving people half a million dollars to talk for half an hour because they're interested in the subject of their speeches?

Question. Does the fact she spoke to the American Camping Association's Cultural Exchange Program for $260,000 mean she's in the pocket of big camping or big visa prep? I need to know for this Facebook post I'm working on and I need to be certain I have her corporate buyers correct.
posted by Talez at 3:30 PM on August 13, 2016 [67 favorites]


uhh, do you really think investment banks are giving people half a million dollars to talk for half an hour because they're interested in the subject of their speeches?

Possibly. It could also be prestige that they are after. It doesn't have to be nefarious.
posted by Groundhog Week at 3:30 PM on August 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


uhh, do you really think investment banks are giving people half a million dollars to talk for half an hour because they're interested in the subject of their speeches?

As I mentioned. $200,000 (i.e. Hillary Clinton's speaker rate) is about the same of that of Blake Lively or Larry the Cable Guy. Or any one of dozens of other people. If you think someone is giving Blake Lively that much money then why?

The issue is presumably not the size of the rate but the target audience. But then, if a global multinational weren’t interested in the views of a former secretary of state, who would be?
posted by Going To Maine at 3:31 PM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


Does anyone have any thoughtful sources that describe what Republican conservatism would be without the white, male, cishet nationalist Southern Strategy?

I don't have any sources for you, but western Canadian conservatism (the Reform strand, or something like the B.C. provincial Liberals, not the eastern PC strand) is probably a useful template for what north American conservatism looks like when influenced by Reaganism in the US (and by Thatcherism in the UK) but without... well, the American South.
posted by holgate at 3:31 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


basically the short version is that what we conventionally think of as the meaning of a statement is instead just one component of the effect of that statement, and that the actual meaning of a statement lies in the effect of that statement within a given context.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:31 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


All these insinuations about Clinton taking money for speeches - where is there any indication that she has ever acted in a pro-corporate way in terms of her policies? As far as I can see she has consistently been one of the most liberal members of the Senate in terms of her voting record. If any banks think they can influence her policy by paying her the amounts that one would pay a B-list movie star for a speech, they are stupid and wasting their money (and I don't think this is what is happening).

Is it so crazy that people might want to hear the former Secretary of State speak? Is it so crazy that employees of a bank might want to hear one of the most powerful women in the world speak? Is it so crazy that they would compensate her at the accepted going rate?
posted by peacheater at 3:32 PM on August 13, 2016 [62 favorites]


My hermeneutic must be broken. I didn't understand any of that.
posted by JackFlash at 3:33 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


But then, if a global multinational weren’t interested in the views of a former secretary of state, who would be?

Xerox paid her $225K. You think you know a person and then it turns out they're in the pocket of big copier.
posted by Talez at 3:33 PM on August 13, 2016 [34 favorites]


KQED Forum: “David Cay Johnston Digs Into ‘The Making of Donald Trump’”
Donald Trump “is a world class narcissist,” says David Cay Johnston. The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist doesn’t pull any punches about the Republican presidential nominee in the new book, “The Making of Donald Trump.” Johnston follows the document trail from Trump’s start as a trust fund kid to his gold-plated business successes and finally, to Trump’s litigation and financial troubles.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:34 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


uhh, do you really think investment banks are giving people half a million dollars to talk for half an hour because they're interested in the subject of their speeches?

The University of Houston paid $135,000 to get Matthew McConaughey as a commencement speaker. I can't think of a compelling reason why the University of Houston would be trying to curry favor with Matthew McConaughey.

The same people are paying George W for speeches. Are they trying to bribe him too?
posted by zachlipton at 3:34 PM on August 13, 2016 [31 favorites]


The University of Houston paid $135,000 to get Matthew McConaughey as a commencement speaker. I can't think of a compelling reason why the University of Houston would be trying to curry favor with Matthew McConaughey.

Obviously the Dean has a screenplay they've been working on and they want to get in front of the right people in Hollywood.
posted by Talez at 3:35 PM on August 13, 2016 [29 favorites]


Max Ehrenfreund and Jeff Guo at The Washington Post: “A massive new study debunks a widespread theory for Donald Trump’s success”

New Study Reveals That the Washington Post Is Eager to Dismiss Economic Explanations for Trump’s Rise

The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.
___
On the whole, we do not use words to identify truths about the universe; instead, we use them to change things.

"Reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments. That's why they call it The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:38 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


I was going to say that either all the molecules in and around the chair I'm sitting in will spontaneously reorganize themselves into Joan Holloway, or they won't. -- ROU_Xenophobe

The new image in my mind makes me revisit my assumption that Christina Hendricks's hips are invulnerable.

Anyone know a good Orthopedic surgeon on Madison Avenue?
posted by rokusan at 3:40 PM on August 13, 2016


the idea that our words must reflect what we believe is something like the idea that someone whose political ideals better align with Jill Stein's or Bernie Sanders' or Evan McMullin's or whoever's should vote for that person instead of voting for Hilary Clinton.

Speaking, like voting, is about exerting power rather than expressing ideals.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:42 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Goldman Sachs is, in fact, an organization made up of people. Some of those people are horrible, some aren't (we have a family friend--a former gr8ad student of my dad's--who got snapped up by Goldman Sachs in the late 80s just for being goddamn brilliant) and many of them likely would be quite eager to hear a former Sec State speak. Going to cool, interesting events is a perk at a lot of companies. Having conferences where the keynote speaker has zilch to do with the actual conference topic is also totally a thing. Somtime's it's the only thing that makes a conference bearable. But I'm sure Sugata Mitra only spoke at that one conference I went to last year because he wanted to get in the pocket of Big Corporate Training.
posted by soren_lorensen at 3:43 PM on August 13, 2016 [35 favorites]


Getting to the end of these election threads is like getting to the end of Inifinite Jest...

So you're suggesting I should throw my laptop across the room, yell "Fuck you, Oxydude!" and then pick it up again and start reading the thread again from the beginning, only more carefully this time?

Because seriously, fuck you and RIP at the same time, DFW.
posted by rokusan at 3:43 PM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


uhh, do you really think investment banks are giving people half a million dollars to talk for half an hour because they're interested in the subject of their speeches?

They give her $200K to give a talk because

(a) It's a reward to give out to people who've done well in the firm and it's cheaper than actually giving them raises
(b) It's a reward to give out to current customers to make them feel all important and it's cheaper than cutting the rates they charge
(c) It's an inducement to get potential customers to show up so you can sell shit to them, and the bang for the buck is good enough
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:44 PM on August 13, 2016 [21 favorites]


The whole Clinton-is-corrupt-because-of-speeches thing actually reminds me a lot of Jon Ronson’s Them and his analysis of the Bilderberg Group. (I have a feeling I’ve made this comment before, but I like it, so I’m making it again.)

Ronson profiles and travels with some folks who believe that the Bilderberg Group is a secret plot to destroy the world by tying together industry and government in horrible and corrupt ways. Ronson travels to Bilderberg with the conspiracy guys, there are various hijinx, etc. He also ends up interviewing some Bilderberg attendees. And basically, it turns out that the conspiracy theorists are absolutely right, but also absolutely wrong: Bilderberg is an attempt to get industry figures to form connections with up-and-coming political figures. It happens because industrialists wants the politicians of the future to have a broad base of knowledge from folks with expertise in the various areas. They no doubt have opinions and biases, but they also have knowledge, and politics -like business, or most any field, is one where it helps to know people.

If you perceive these interactions as inherently corrupt, it’s because of a bedrock distrust of the system and/or the actors involved. If you perceive these interactions as benign, it’s because of a bedrock trust of the system and/or the actors involved. The description itself is largely neutral.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:44 PM on August 13, 2016 [36 favorites]


Back of the envelope, with a few known-erroneous assumtions. Say Trump started working at 20 years of age with zero dollars (which we know is false), for him to be worth $1 billion (doubtful) at his current age of 70 (Wikipedia says so), he would need to have net $20 million for every single one of those years.

It's an overly simplified envelope-back grade number, but $20 million is obscene, especially when compared to Hillary Clinton's "paltry`" $1.8ish million of gross income last year, as claimed on her taxes.

I'm a bit dismissive of sexism claims normally, but given that Hillary Clinton is "only" getting B-list pop-entertainer speaking fees, yet being hated for it, sexism is what my mind reaches for. That or I'm alone in placing her effect on the world as higher than Larry the Cable Guy.
posted by fragmede at 3:46 PM on August 13, 2016 [37 favorites]


The University of Houston paid $135,000 to get Matthew McConaughey as a commencement speaker. I can't think of a compelling reason why the University of Houston would be trying to curry favor with Matthew McConaughey.

Uh, because he’s a freaky dreamboat.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:47 PM on August 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


Trump Live (Fairfield, CT)

I probably can't liveblog this one.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:47 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


A cube... With four sides.

Have you ever seen all these supposed "other sides" at once? Think about it dude. Also, d'ya ever really look at your hand?


So true. Too, have you ever noticed that even without a mirror, you can always see the end of your own nose right there? I mean just look at it. It's always right there, in the way, all the time, once you start thinking about it.

Also, notice how much you're about to hate me for pointing this out?
posted by rokusan at 3:48 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


For the record I think that this election season is less like Infinite Jest and more like Gravity's Rainbow. Unfortunately this comment box is far too small to accommodate my proof of this statement.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:48 PM on August 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


If you perceive these interactions as inherently corrupt, it’s because of a bedrock distrust of the system and/or the actors involved. If you perceive these interactions as benign, it’s because of a bedrock trust of the system and/or the actors involved. The description itself is largely neutral.

That's a great perspective, Going to Maine. It's a sort of referendum on whether business-as-usual is a good or bad thing in one's mind.

To me, unless Clinton's fees (adjusted for inflation) are way out of line with other former Senators or Secretaries of State -- and I don't think they are? -- then it's really only an issue of her slamming Wall Street with words while potentially (we'll find out later) rewarding them with deeds. It's a question of whether the folks signing the check see it as hiring a former SoS or a future President. One of those is a corrupt way to see it, one isn't.

Either way, it's probably unfair (or telling?) to compare her fees to ex-Presidents, though.
posted by rokusan at 3:52 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


So true. Too, have you ever noticed that even without a mirror, you can always see the end of your own nose right there?

Nope. I've double-checked. There is no way I can see my nose.
posted by mumimor at 3:57 PM on August 13, 2016


With regard to speaking fees, I can only speak from personal experience, but as someone who does this more or less for a living holgate has the core truth of it.

You ask substantial fees when there's nothing in particular about a destination, a venue, a topic or an audience that excites you, or you're simply exhausted and comprehensively travelfucked and can barely face the thought of heading back to the airport for another round. This is what frees you up to give all the pro bono talks you want to groups that deserve it and couldn't afford you otherwise.

I'll certainly respect anyone who, for principled reasons, feels the whole business of paid speaking engagements is somehow ethically untenable, or simply thinks that the amounts on offer are disproportionate to the degree of collective benefit a speaker sheds upon the world in giving a presentation like this. But as things stand, Hillary's fees are not even remotely out of line for a speaker of her experience and caliber, and as others here have observed, whenever she's called out I tend to wonder why other prominent public people commanding equal or greater fees aren't being exposed to nearly the same intensity of scrutiny.
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:57 PM on August 13, 2016 [46 favorites]


Hillary Clinton is masterful at working within the system, even when the system is designed for somebody else's benefit, while working to change things (not all that successfully, but that could change big after November). That's why she gets paid to speak at Goldman Sachs (while Trump is paying an ex-Goldman Sachs VP to do his campaign financial work AND lead his economic team... let's not not even start about that bankster's competence). She commits herself to overturning Citizens United while working with its current rules for a massively successful fundraising effort. And her infamous "private server" at the State Dept. was an extension of what Republican Secretaries had done before her... and did I see that the Official State Department server got hacked while HERS DIDN'T? Sounds incredibly pragmatic to me.

And her main contribution to the Bill Clinton Administration was the Health Care Initiative. Everything I've seen indicates that she was not ready for that big, difficult and risky effort, but she learned a LOT from the experience and has been learning even more since. (What Bill learned was to distance himself from his Liberal Wife, let her take the blame, and then turn politically rightward... I don't recall her visible at all with his terrible Crime and Welfare initiatives)
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:59 PM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Speaking, like voting, is about exerting power rather than expressing ideals.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:42 PM on August 13 [1 favorite −] Favorite added! [!]


I think, rather, that to what ends you use the tool of language says quite a bit about who you are and how you view the world. And I think this partially explains so many people's failure to understand Trump's appeal for so long. If you've always believed that a shared reality, or the desire to share a reality, is the premise and point of communication, encountering a deluded and deluding narcissist like Trump for the first time is utterly bewildering. And while you're knocked back on your heels, not quite believing what you've just heard, he tries to press the advantage.

It's just that we've had long enough, and there's enough media coverage, that his gas lighting weirdness won't work. For enough of us, Trump's gas lit bizarro reality is clearly not real. And we can all look to each other for validation of that fact.

Imagine what it was like growing up with him as a father, though.
posted by schadenfrau at 4:02 PM on August 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


What are Trump's fees?

So true. Too, have you ever noticed that even without a mirror, you can always see the end of your own nose right there?

I can see implicit racial bias right there.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:03 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]




The University of Houston paid $135,000 to get Matthew McConaughey as a commencement speaker. I can't think of a compelling reason why the University of Houston would be trying to curry favor with Matthew McConaughey.


Because time is a flat circle. Alright alright alright.
posted by wabbittwax at 4:08 PM on August 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


> I think, rather, that to what ends you use the tool of language says quite a bit about who you are and how you view the world. If you've always believed that a shared reality, or the desire to share a reality, is the premise and point of communication, encountering a deluded and deluding narcissist like Trump for the first time is utterly bewildering. And while you're knocked back on your heels, not quite believing what you've just heard, he tries to press the advantage.

Well but also it's important not to pretend that a desire to accurately describe a shared reality is what drives language-users on the whole, or that it's even a significant aspect of the process of communication. That way lies madness — or rather, that way lies a feckless Holden Caulfieldism, leaving you with no meaning to express outside obnoxious complaints about how everyone else is a phony bullshitter while at the same time causing you to lose track of the (invariably negative) effects of your whining.

Even scientific research is part of the cut-and-thrust of argumentation rather than an accurate description of reality. This isn't to say — like the half-brights in the Bush administration thought — that reality can be wholly controlled by language. Instead, language is itself a part of reality; if it becomes too badly harmonized with the rest of reality, it results in stupid behavior on the part of the language-user and language-believer.

All of this sounds hopelessly pomo, I know — but I assure you, all competent PR people, all competent politicians, all competent computer programmers, all competent executives, all competent teachers, all competent carpenters and all competent academics design their statements based on the effect of those statements in their context rather than the abstract meaning or truth-value of those statements without regard to context. Words aren't truth. Words are performances.

And Trump is performing quite badly.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:14 PM on August 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


uhh, do you really think investment banks are giving people half a million dollars to talk for half an hour because they're interested in the subject of their speeches

No they pay Hillary $200,000 because they wanted to draw an audience of rich, successful potential clients who will come to the Goldman Sacs women's leadership institute for a big headliner, some decent session speakers and a pitch for Goldman's services.

The quid pro-quo between speaker and organizer is we pay you and the audience shows up. You, the speaker, will fill the allotted time, and not go over or go short. Preferably you will be engaging for the audience and adapt your usual speech to the topic of the event. Before or afterwards you might be asked to take a couple of photos with company execs and premier clients and maybe go to dinner with a couple VIPs if that's in the contract.

Booking an in demand speaker like Clinton would be a stupid way to try to bribe that speaker. She showed up and did the job she was paid her to do. She owes them nothing. She was there to give the event prestige and draw the audience; she did that. She got paid a market rate for the service.
posted by humanfont at 4:18 PM on August 13, 2016 [90 favorites]


All competent salesmen too. That's what this guy is. And he can't close.
posted by spitbull at 4:20 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


yeah, that's the thing that's going to cause Trump to break from reality altogether. He's managed to worm himself into one of the few social contexts where the force of his inherited wealth can't prop up his shitty salesmanship, and since "a+ #1 sharp salesman 4ever" is central to his idea of himself, spending too much time in those contexts can destroy him.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:23 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


I actually doubt Trump is even under audit. He refuses to produce a letter from the IRS informing him of the audit which should be trivial. All he has shown is a letter from his law firm stating that a review of his tax returns from 2009 onward is underway... but as far as I'm concerned that could simply refer to an internal review by his own people.
posted by Justinian at 4:29 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


This election will be like Alec Baldwin's speech from Glengarry Glen Ross, in painful slow motion, for Donald Trump.

"You call yourself a salesman you sonofabitch?"

"...these are the Electoral College Votes. And to you, they're gold. And you don't get them. Why? Because giving them to you is just throwing them away. They're for closers."

"... Yeah I ran for President once. It's a tough racket."
posted by wabbittwax at 4:30 PM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


"You know what it takes to be President? It takes brass balls to be President."
posted by wabbittwax at 4:32 PM on August 13, 2016


Mike Pence plans to release tax returns before election

Excerpt:

"Donald Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, said Saturday he plans to release his tax returns before Election Day, even as the GOP nominee has continued to resist calls to release his own tax returns.

"When my tax returns are released, it's going to be a quick read," Pence said Saturday in an interview on WABC Radio, adding that he is also in the process of completing his financial disclosure forms as required under federal law.

Pence spokesman Marc Lotter confirmed to CNN on Saturday that Pence plans to release his tax returns before Election Day.
"He said in that interview that it would happen before the election," Lotter said when asked for a timeline on the release of Pence's tax returns."
posted by cashman at 4:33 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


I haven't seen much about yesterday's meeting between the RNC and the Trump campaign. Anyone know any reporting about that?
posted by overglow at 4:34 PM on August 13, 2016


Evidently Mr Pence has already got a set of brass balls...
posted by wabbittwax at 4:34 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mr. Trump, control your VP. He’s making you look more like a liar.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:36 PM on August 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


So you know what Trimp is going to say at this CT rally, right? Or eventually.

"The Trump campaign will release tax returns before the election, so people can stop talking about that one. That's done."

And then his ridiculous surrrogates will go on tv saying "People asked for tax returns and the campaign has agreed to release them before the election." The follow-up will of course be but will Trimp's tax returns be released? And his spokespeople will blankly stare and say "the returns will be out before the end of the election, and that's what people were asking about, and that's what will be done".
posted by cashman at 4:36 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


All he has shown is a letter from his law firm stating that a review of his tax returns from 2009 onward is underway... but as far as I'm concerned that could simply refer to an internal review by his own people.

This is the tax professionals version of the note from his doctor that he's the most healthy man to ever run for president. He obviously only likes to hire suck ups and yes men.
posted by readery at 4:37 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Getting to the end of these election threads is like getting to the end of Inifinite Jest, where Don Gately wakes up on the beach and the tide is going out

Thanks. I was gonna read that this weekend.
posted by orange ball at 4:40 PM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


> The quid pro-quo between speaker and organizer is we pay you and the audience shows up. You, the speaker, will fill the allotted time, and not go over or go short. Preferably you will be engaging for the audience and adapt your usual speech to the topic of the event. Before or afterwards you might be asked to take a couple of photos with company execs and premier clients and maybe go to dinner with a couple VIPs if that's in the contract.

To be fair, this sets up a sort of second-order constraint on behavior; if one is a public figure, and if one wishes to get a lucrative invitation to speak to Goldman Sachs or whoever — not out of any deep love for Goldman Sachs or their preferred policies, but just out of the desire to get that money out of Goldman Sachs and then use it for good — one will hesitate to commit public acts that might cost one's chance at future Goldman Sachs gigs.

The constraint that the paid speaker system imposes is less about specific quid-pro-quos, and more about a soft suasion that limits the field of statements and acts that are admissible in public among people who wish to remain influential in public.

If, say, Critical Resistance, rather than Goldman Sachs, had multi-hundred-thousand dollar speaking gigs to pass out left and right, public discourse on the whole would be shifted by that fact — prison abolition would be a common topic of conversation among members of the elite, because giving speeches to prison abolitionists would be a way to fund their other causes.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:41 PM on August 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


>: "Short of pulling the financing on Trump or Priebus resigning — which are both measures we favor — what could the RNC and top Republicans do at this point? They shouldn’t beg Trump to get on message or “stick to the script.” That’s absurd, an impossibility. Trump cannot distinguish between what is sane-sounding and what is not; he won’t stay off TV. "

I feel like around the time of the NATO statements he crossed a line from being outrageous to "meddling with the primal forces of nature" and I realized that Trump is the alt-right Howard Beale. I'm not sure who the Arthur Jensen is, but it's definitely not Ryan or Priebus.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:46 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


>So remember how Trump yelled at that protestor in Erie about how his mother would be voting for Trump?

She isn't.


That's great. Not only is she not voting for him, she's full on anti-Trimp.
"No, I would never vote for Trump. We would no longer have a democracy. I think his mentors are dictators; he seems to admire them. That scares me. The way he judges women, the derogatory comments. Then there’s his racism. He’s probably a white supremacist. There’s so many reasons I’m scared. I couldn’t believe there were people going that actually supported that man. It boggles my mind but that’s the reality. It’s scary to think he could possibly be elected."
posted by cashman at 4:49 PM on August 13, 2016 [33 favorites]


> (What Bill learned was to distance himself from his Liberal Wife, let her take the blame, and then turn politically rightward... I don't recall her visible at all with his terrible Crime and Welfare initiatives)

ah I suppose you're one of the lucky people whose facebook feeds isn't full of "superpredators!" memes.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:58 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Related to my other David Cay Johnston link: Johnston at The Daily Beast: “Is a Crook Hiding in Donald Trump’s Taxes?”
posted by Going To Maine at 4:58 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


What I love is that said mother was watching the speech, but did not find out that Trump was actually talking about her until later.
posted by zachlipton at 4:59 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


"...these are the Electoral College Votes. And to you, they're gold. And you don't get them. Why? Because giving them to you is just throwing them away. They're for closersClintons."

FTFY. Remember, Donald, ABC.
Always. Be. Clinton.
posted by The Bellman at 4:59 PM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


Evidently people are passing out left and right at the Trump rally in CT right now.

Fairfield paramedics keep coming back inside with empty stretchers to fetch more people overcome by the heat inside this Trump rally.
posted by acidic at 5:00 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


For a while there I was worried about Trimp latching on to the reluctant male white hero narrative, and riding that to victory. With him flagging in the polls and talk of a blowout, it was setting him up pretty nicely. But his whole stee is that he's the favorite, everybody loves him and he is the winner unless his opponents cheat. He continues to position himself as this big powerful thing who can fix everything himself with minimal effort and everything will be easy.

And hopefully the structural challenges that would await anyone who stepped up should he quit the race, would prevent that person (probably Ryan, right) from successfully walking into that storyline. So hopefully we're in good shape overall. But I still think things are going to be rough going forward.
posted by cashman at 5:01 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Evidently people are passing out left and right at the Trump rally in CT right now.

It's 84 degrees with 77% humidity. He's half an hour late. This is not a surprise.
posted by Talez at 5:03 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


If the weather in CT is even half as bad as it is here right now, they'd better start passing water bottles out and not stop until the thing is over. It's brutal.

Incidentally, at the Hillary rally I was at a couple weeks ago, it was similarly just awful weather to be standing around for hours in line in. When we got inside they had big coolers of cold drinking water and those of us in overflow who couldn't access them due to cordons were handed a steady stream of cups of water by both campaign staff and security personnel. It was nice.
posted by soren_lorensen at 5:07 PM on August 13, 2016 [30 favorites]




Press are "worst human beings in the world" *boooooooo*
posted by Talez at 5:09 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


The heat in New England is no joke today. The local grocery gives out cold water at the door. Much of my late night commenting here is explained by the fact that I can only stand to exist in front of the fan in my place, and commenting is one of the few entertainments available in front of it.

Soren, I'm glad to hear that. I can't imagine free water at a Republican rally, much less a Trump one.
posted by Countess Elena at 5:10 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


When we got inside they had big coolers of cold drinking water and those of us in overflow who couldn't access them due to cordons were handed a steady stream of cups of water by both campaign staff and security personnel.

Yes, it's amazing how wonderful ordinary decency and simple competence can seem when you've been exposed to their utter and prolonged absence.
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:11 PM on August 13, 2016 [26 favorites]


I can't imagine free water at a Republican rally, much less a Trump one.

An enterprising Democrat might stand in front of such a rally, handing out water and reminding people who has their best interest at heart.
posted by Mooski at 5:12 PM on August 13, 2016 [23 favorites]


> An enterprising Democrat might stand in front of such a rally, handing out water and reminding people who has their best interest at heart.
posted by Mooski at 5:12 PM on August 13 [+] [!]


Claim to be a Libertarian and gouge the fuckers as hard as you possibly can.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:15 PM on August 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


Yes, it's amazing how wonderful ordinary decency and simple competence can seem when you've been exposed to their utter and prolonged absence.

I'm writing this from Migration Fest, a DIY metal festival in Olympia WA, where it's in the low 90s and there are 1,000 crusty metal heads in an un-air-conditioned theater. Solution? Free water bottles for everyone. As much as you can take. They're practically forcing us to drink water. If only every event were so organized.

TL;DR: Metal >>> Republicans
posted by Special Agent Dale Cooper at 5:15 PM on August 13, 2016 [64 favorites]


An enterprising Democrat might stand in front of such a rally, handing out water and reminding people who has their best interest at heart.

Heed not the rabble who scream "build a wall," they have not your interests at heart.
posted by zachlipton at 5:16 PM on August 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


An enterprising Democrat might stand in front of such a rally, handing out water and reminding people who has their best interest at heart.

Offer free Hillary-branded water and watch them struggle with the offer.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:16 PM on August 13, 2016 [38 favorites]


It's like trump was melting on stage.

You win this one, Time.
posted by Yowser at 5:17 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


Surprised he dropped the "mom's voting Trump" line.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:18 PM on August 13, 2016


DJT: "I might lie to you like Hillary does but I would never lie to Giacomo." WTF.
posted by mochapickle at 5:19 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean, for all I know they are handing out water at the Trump event. They absolutely should be, but I don't know one way or the other if they actually are. It's been so hot here, my chickens stopped laying. It's no joke.
posted by soren_lorensen at 5:20 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


"We're gonna build a wall" is gonna be this clown's only legacy.
posted by Yowser at 5:21 PM on August 13, 2016


Regarding election observers, both parties recruit them, they are totally legal. If you see them engaging in any kind of intimidation whatsoever, call your favorite among a) your local elections authority; b) your preferred county party HQ; or c) the police. All three will be prepared to respond to voter intimidation at the polls.

I volunteer as an emergency lawyer for my local Democratic party every election, which means that when the Democratic poll watchers see a problem, or the county party gets a call, they have a list of lawyers on speed dial that they can physically dispatch to the polling location. Once there, wearing my good suit and pearls and carrying my trusty handbook, I'm responsible for preserving evidence, bickering with the election officials on your behalf, and staring down any threatening jackasses while calling the cops. (Probably 90% of this is calling back in to the county HQ where they have an actual elections lawyer standing next to a phone who coaches the on-site lawyer what to do and say and makes a record of what's happening.) There is a three-hour training and a manual of common situations.

I have actually never been "activated" -- I just spend election day on my couch with the phone right next to me just in case -- because our local elections are quite well-run and the election officials are hella serious about electioneering at the polls and poll workers are well-trained for more common problems. But it's an interesting training where you learned the latest attempts at voter intimidation, vote fraud, etc. My brother also does this sort of volunteering (in a much less-well-run county), and one year he was sent to a polling location where a candidate was electioneering IN the polling location and also threatening people, and my brother got to have him hauled off by the cops.

Anyway if Trump has brownshirts, there is an infrastructure just WAITING to help you, sitting on the couch in its good suit and pearls eating cheetos just DYING for a call. I can't tell you how badly I'd love to go get some poll intimidators thrown in jail! I can't tell you how much I'd love to tell the story of when a 6-foot dude with a gun tried to threaten tiny little female me when I told him to stop threatening voters. It'd be great! Yes, yes, I'm just as happy for democracy that this has never happened locally, blah blah blah, but think of the GREAT STORIES if it did. So if you run into anything like this, google your local party's number and call immediately. They have couch lawyers just salivating over the chance to go get electioneers arrested.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:22 PM on August 13, 2016 [183 favorites]


All he has shown is a letter from his law firm stating that a review of his tax returns from 2009 onward is underway

That is quite revealing. Normally the IRS is permitted to audit only the last three years of tax returns. They can go back farther only if substantial errors or fraud is uncovered in the most recent three years.

If, as Trump's lawyer says, they are auditing back to 2009, that means the IRS found big problems in his returns.

Still, there is no legal reason that Trump can't release his returns. They are legal documents filed with the IRS. The IRS doesn't care who Trump shows them to and cannot prevent him from showing them to anybody.
posted by JackFlash at 5:22 PM on August 13, 2016 [25 favorites]


"I might lie to you like Hillary does..."

Really, Donald?
posted by Devonian at 5:22 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Okay: those of you who are raising Clinton's speaking fees as a thread. What is your point? What, at this stage, do you want the rest of us to do about it?

* Are you saying that you wish someone other than Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic nomination? Because they didn't. She did. And I wish it had been Bernie too, but it wasn't and we can't hold a do-over of the primaries.

* Are you saying that we should vote for Trump instead of Clinton? Then have the balls to say that.

* Are you saying we should vote for a third party? Then say that, and go with God.

* Are you saying that Clinton should change her speaking fees? Then take it up with the Clinton Foundation.

* Are you saying that this is something we should beware of if she gets into office? Then just say that, and when she gets into office, put Elizabeth Warren's number and Bernie Sanders' number nto your phone on speed-dial and call them to be our watchdogs in Congress.

* Are you just trying to Raise Awareness? If that's all you're doing, you're not telling anyone anything new; but the way to stop corrupt politicians is to reach out to the ones you trust (see: Warren and Sanders above).

* Are you opposed to the idea of paying people to speak no matter who they are? Then start a separate discussion about that.


Because right now, you're coming across as yet another one of the niggly little whisperers that is contributing to people thinking Hillary is corrupt, but a bankrupt racist isn't. And I will be fucked if the public perception of reality is going to get any more warped than it is already. Say what you're getting at, plainly, at long last.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:22 PM on August 13, 2016 [152 favorites]


cameras are pretzeling again!
posted by Don Pepino at 5:22 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Uh...Giacomo?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:23 PM on August 13, 2016


basically all the proof you need that trump's staff and the RNC can't control him is that they are incapable of stopping him from campaigning in goddamn new england
posted by murphy slaw at 5:23 PM on August 13, 2016 [37 favorites]


For the record I think that this election season is less like Infinite Jest and more like Gravity's Rainbow.

no, it's more like tristram shandy
posted by pyramid termite at 5:25 PM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Giacomo is a kid in a suit Trump brought up in the beginning with his family. I'm not sure of his significance. He was encouraged to speak up and he said: "Vote Trump and Make America Great Again!"
posted by mochapickle at 5:25 PM on August 13, 2016


Ah! That's why he's in CT. The gov. came out against him and he wants to hit back.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:25 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ah, significance: Giacomo is a young athlete who has cancer.
posted by mochapickle at 5:28 PM on August 13, 2016


Giacomo was a Make a Wish (or some similar group, not sure...) kid who wanted to meet Trump. So Trump brought him out on stage, and now he keeps referring to him. I think it's kind of creepy and bully-ish how he's so obviously using this kid, but maybe it plays as genuine if you're his base.
posted by Weeping_angel at 5:28 PM on August 13, 2016


His Secret Servic told him Hillary is crazy?!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:29 PM on August 13, 2016


Katie Glueck at Politico: “Trump’s run at blue Connecticut”
posted by Going To Maine at 5:29 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


They can hand out Trump Water (tm).
posted by spitbull at 5:29 PM on August 13, 2016


Again with the Founder of ISIS.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:31 PM on August 13, 2016


And the baby again!
posted by mochapickle at 5:32 PM on August 13, 2016


I guess Connecticut is one of the Secret States, then?

Good luck with that.
posted by kyrademon at 5:33 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


He sounds... angrier today? Not sure how that's even possible.
posted by mochapickle at 5:33 PM on August 13, 2016


every quote from a republican in that politico article could be rephrased as "ARRRRGH WHAT IS HE DOING AND WHY CAN'T WE STOP HIM"
posted by murphy slaw at 5:36 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


If he'd given this speech in a traditional battleground state would anyone be paying attention? There is a certain method in the madness in terms of free media coverage.
posted by humanfont at 5:39 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


His Secret Servic told him Hillary is crazy?!

He's referring to a book, "Crisis in Character", that is nothing more than a fantasy hit piece. Here's the takedown about its claims.
posted by peeedro at 5:39 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Still, his detail can't be pleased with that.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:41 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


He keeps going on about CNN turning off the camera. Anyone watching CNN?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:43 PM on August 13, 2016


If he’d given this speech in a traditional battleground state would anyone be paying attention? There is a certain method in the madness in terms of free media coverage.

Why wouldn’t they? People watch Trump because it’s a freak show, not because of the venue.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:44 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


He keeps going on about CNN turning off the camera. Anyone watching CNN?

CNN & MSNBC show crime programs (think Dateline) on Saturday evenings. But I've been watching CNN previously as he claimed they turned the camera off....and they obviously hadn't. It's a shtick, nothing more.
posted by cashman at 5:46 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Plugging his hotel on Penn. Ave. again.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:46 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Oh, you better elect me or I won't speak to you."

PROMISE?
posted by spinifex23 at 5:47 PM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


DJT: "Can you imagine how I will feel if I spent all of this money, all of this time, all of this energy and LOST? I will never forgive the people of Connecticut...."
posted by mochapickle at 5:47 PM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


It's a Saturday evening and Michael Phelps is set for his last competitive lap ever in a little bit. Nobody's paying attention anyway.
posted by zachlipton at 5:47 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Weirdly talking about if he loses he'll never forgive the people of CT, FL, OH.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:47 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


What really strikes me about the Clinton tax return (per Jack Flash) is its simplicity. Those investments do not at all reflect people who are money hungry. Most of us try to maximize return ... at least, leverage our money to its best use.

???

Did you miss the part where they made more money in one year than most of us will make in our entire lives? Yeah, ok, it's nice to see that there are no conflicts of interest evident beyond being waaaaay over the FDIC-insured limits on a cash account at a major Wall Street bank (I guess we'll be fine as long as we're not faced with another situation where the "too big to fail" banks need to be bailed out again...) but don't go pretending like, "aw shucks, they're just plain ol' regular folk like you and me," because that's bullshit. They don't book eight figures a year because they have to.
posted by indubitable at 5:48 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Says he'll "never forgive the people" if he loses. Doesn't seem to have gone over well. Now he's saying an ousted protestor looks just like Hillary. Hope the security sees her out all right.
posted by Countess Elena at 5:48 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]




DJT: "Can you imagine how I will feel if I spent all of this money, all of this time, all of this energy and LOST? I will never forgive the people of Connecticut."

I'm ok with that.
posted by Aznable at 5:49 PM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Weirdly talking about if he loses he'll never forgive the people of CT, FL, OH.

He’s going to start a bunch of anti-tourism super PACs.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:49 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Wow, going hard after Gov. Dannel Molloy. Coming to CT is nothing more than vendetta.
posted by mochapickle at 5:51 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


I will never forgive the people of Connecticut."

So he's running against the media, Obama, and the Nutmeg state. Got it.
posted by vrakatar at 5:51 PM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


About General Electric "You wouldn't leave if Trump were governor"

Wowwwww
posted by Yowser at 5:51 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Back to bashing the Governor, the point of this outing up the street from NYC.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:51 PM on August 13, 2016


He’s going to start a bunch of anti-tourism super PACs.

To stop the many many tourists who flock to Connecticut each year? How would they know the difference?

And unless he teams up with the gators in the Seven Seas Lagoon, he's not going to keep people from visiting Florida either.
posted by zachlipton at 5:52 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


DJT: Obamacare is the reason part-time workers are not working full time.
posted by mochapickle at 5:53 PM on August 13, 2016


No seriously when the candidate is threatening HIS OWN ALLEGED BASE voters...I just...is anyone over at Donnie HQ even trying? Stump speech 101, "so great to be here in the state of stateachussettes with all these great folks who live in locationburg!" Repeat in other states.
posted by vrakatar at 5:55 PM on August 13, 2016 [22 favorites]


DJT: Fairfield CT is 105 degrees right now! (It's 85.)
posted by mochapickle at 5:55 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Back to bashing the Governor, the point of this outing up the street from NYC.

WTF? He's not due for re-election this year. (If he was he'd be playing Trump's speech, admittedly).
posted by Francis at 5:56 PM on August 13, 2016


Trump now spinning his convention speech as "optimistic."
posted by Spathe Cadet at 5:58 PM on August 13, 2016


Did he call update New York a "wasteland"? Isn't that where what few Republicans still exist in New York live? And yesterday was the bizarre, "you people don't win anymore" line. I know there's not really a plan here anyway (why is he in Connecticut again?), but I do not understand what attacking his own voters and rally attendees is supposed to accomplish.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:58 PM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


DJT: Fairfield CT is 105 degrees right now! (It's 85.)

He probably means the heat index
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:58 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


To stop the many many tourists who flock to Connecticut each year? How would they know the difference?

There's a couple casinos that draw heavily from NYC, FWIW.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:58 PM on August 13, 2016


He doesn't seem to be getting enormous reactions, although maybe that is an audio issue. I understand those can be crucial.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:00 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Looks like they're deliberately cutting the feed."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2e8273S03E
posted by spinifex23 at 6:02 PM on August 13, 2016


I wouldn't have thought it possible before this election, but this is coming across as simultaneously ragey and boring.

Cuts away to image of flag, someone comes on to voice-over that "they're deliberately cutting the feed." Who "they" is is left to the imagination, I guess.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 6:03 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ah, my feeds cut out.
posted by mochapickle at 6:03 PM on August 13, 2016


Who is this conspiracy theory nuthead running the stream? "They're cutting the feed"
posted by Yowser at 6:03 PM on August 13, 2016


Y'know, you would think that a candidate would encourage as many people as possible to watch a Presidential campaign stump speech, but I guess not.....
posted by spinifex23 at 6:04 PM on August 13, 2016


Chat scroll blaming Hillary for cutting the feed. As if she's sitting in some dark A/V room flicking switches and cackling in the glow of the machines.
posted by mochapickle at 6:05 PM on August 13, 2016 [31 favorites]


indubitable, when the election is over we can come back to the Clinton's tax return, right now the rest of us are trying to prevent someone who might be the ACTUAL ANTICHRIST from getting into office
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:05 PM on August 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


Another feed.
posted by peeedro at 6:06 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


WTF? He's not due for re-election this year.

This was the Gov. Of CT a week ago on Hardball

He just needs to punch back. It's not strategic.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:07 PM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Did you miss the part where they made more money in one year than most of us will make in our entire lives?
The Elected and Cabinet-Level Appointed Officials in Washington D.C. total 450+ out of a population of 340million, nearly one in a million or the Top 0.000001%. Any who are not in the Top .1% in wealth have either taken a vow of poverty or financial incompetence. For a Former President like Bill (plus a Former High Official spouse like Hillary), $5 million is not nearly what they COULD be making (and Hillary's aspiration for the Presidency is probably one reason why). The "average" C.E.O.'s income is about 330-350 times their average employee. THAT is "more money in one year than most of us will make in our entire lives". So, to TLDR it, Big Deal.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:09 PM on August 13, 2016 [30 favorites]


He didn't even do his "we'll be winning so much you'll get tired of winning and beg me to stop, but I won't stop winning" bit at the end. It's almost like he doesn't care.
posted by zachlipton at 6:11 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


He didn't even do his "we'll be winning so much you'll get tired of winning and beg me to stop, but I won't stop winning" bit at the end. It's almost like he doesn't care.

Yes he did.
posted by Talez at 6:12 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


He didn't even do his "we'll be winning so much you'll get tired of winning and beg me to stop, but I won't stop winning" bit at the end. It's almost like he doesn't care.

At this point I'm pretty sure he doesn't
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:12 PM on August 13, 2016


He needs to make it to September. A few more weeks, Trumpy! Just hold on!
posted by Justinian at 6:13 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yep, he did. He even said we would win so much that people would beg him to return them to poverty(!) because it was too much winning to handle. Oh yes.
posted by mochapickle at 6:13 PM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Oh I must have missed it in the feed confusion. Sorry.
posted by zachlipton at 6:13 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


someone who might be the ACTUAL ANTICHRIST from getting into office
The existence of Trumpy as a Real Life Supervillian reinforces my agnostic-bordering-on-atheist beliefs. If The Devil actually existed, there would be a far more competent "Anti-Christ". Neither Hitler nor Stalin came close to pulling it off. There's a lot of evil out there but no real candidates for "Anti-Christ", and the worst think about Dirty Donnie is he distracts from potentially more dangerous threats.

He even said we would win so much that people would beg him to return them to poverty(!)

NOW I see his Endgame. Give it to us, then take it away! How perfectly Trumpist!
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:17 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Clearly his poll numbers are so low because he's tired of winning.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:20 PM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


He needs to make it to September. A few more weeks, Trumpy! Just hold on!

what's magic about sept 1?
posted by murphy slaw at 6:21 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Starting August 29th, it starts getting too late to change the name on the ballot in states. The deadlines up to now have been party on ballot, but that switches to actual name on ballot beginning at the end of this month.
posted by chris24 at 6:23 PM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


Did you miss the part where they made more money in one year than most of us will make in our entire lives? Yeah, ok, it's nice to see that there are no conflicts of interest evident beyond being waaaaay over the FDIC-insured limits on a cash account at a major Wall Street bank (I guess we'll be fine as long as we're not faced with another situation where the "too big to fail" banks need to be bailed out again...) but don't go pretending like, "aw shucks, they're just plain ol' regular folk like you and me," because that's bullshit. They don't book eight figures a year because they have to.

Surely, after Obama leaves office he will donate all of his book profits to charity and the family will move into a modest, two-story bungalow with not even a single Lexii. Surely.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:23 PM on August 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


what's magic about sept 1?

I guess Labor Day is a big marker for presidential campaigns, apparently.
posted by cashman at 6:24 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Right, nothing in particular magical about September 1st, but every day past the end of August means more places Trump's name stays on the ballot no matter what.
posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


what's magic about sept 1?

it's trumpoween when the donald turns into a pumpkin and all his political advisors into mice
posted by pyramid termite at 6:26 PM on August 13, 2016 [28 favorites]


Mice is an improvement from rats.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:26 PM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


what's magic about sept 1?

The Republicans will be unable to compete in 18 states with their chosen replacement.
posted by Talez at 6:27 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


The closer we get to trumpoween, the oranger he gets...
posted by mochapickle at 6:27 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


what's magic about sept 1?

Not sure about the first per se, but I think you're not supposed to drape yourself in white supremacy after Labor Day. Traditional!
posted by uosuaq at 6:32 PM on August 13, 2016 [84 favorites]


From the Politico link above, which is dated August 13, 2016:

“I don’t know if he can win Fairfield…whether he can win Connecticut, it’s historically a Democratic state,” said Tom Flynn, a Republican district leader in Fairfield who previously supported Jeb Bush and then John Kasich, and wants to hear more from Trump before getting behind him.

If there were any doubts as to how craven Republican party members and operatives might be in the face of this national disaster, they can be dispelled with that detail, I think.
posted by Slothrop at 6:33 PM on August 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


Sure he's a racist, sexist, hateful fear-monger who is undermining the entire democratic process and inciting violence but I really need to hear more about his plans for the carried interest tax deduction before making my decision about endorsing.
posted by Justinian at 6:35 PM on August 13, 2016 [62 favorites]


Did you miss the part where they made more money in one year than most of us will make in our entire lives?

If you can get over the $BIG$NUM$ERZZZZ$!!1! shock, and consider the numbers that are there and what they mean:

They cannot run out and buy a $50M mansion. They are not that rich. They are not movie-star rich. They are not CEO-level rich, even.

Their investments/savings are a few years' worth of salary ... which is not that great, especially at retirement ages.

They are not involved in many of the typical money-making schemes you'd expect at that level (real estate rentals, businesses, hedge funds).

They aren't even tax sheltering with many of the common mechanisms, or exotic ones. They could pau a lot less taxes, easily. You can posit that this is for show, as they knew these returns would become public, but that's millions of dollars of show.

As covered above, they are making the easily available money, as anyone should.

So if you can get over the shock of the millions, the real story of those tax returns is what isn't there - both the sums and the extras you'd expect at those income levels.
posted by Dashy at 6:36 PM on August 13, 2016 [60 favorites]


For a little election escapism: #GOT2016

Snow/Mormont all the way!
posted by zakur at 6:37 PM on August 13, 2016


uosuaq: To be safe [when going to vote], just invest in a Trump T-shirt before you go to your polling place. Think of it as a sort of...tax.

Or make your own - save money, and you can even Buy American (or buy from a thrift store that supports a good cause) and you'll also look more authentic.
posted by filthy light thief at 6:39 PM on August 13, 2016


Surely, after Obama leaves office he will donate all of his book profits to charity and the family will move into a modest, two-story bungalow with not even a single Lexii. Surely.

His new house in DC is not modest, but it's just a rental. If you know where to find it, on the google street view of the front of the house there is a group of five cab drivers standing in the street breaking bread together on the trunk of a parked cab, it is such a perfect DC moment caught on camera.
posted by peeedro at 6:39 PM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]




Snow/Mormont all the way!

Lady Mormont would be more useful in the (soon to be) Senate. Snow's ideas are just too out there. We need a strong woman and the Dad joke demographic.

Stark/Edd 303!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:43 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


His new house in DC is not modest, but it's just a rental. If you know where to find it, on the google street view of the front of the house there is a group of five cab drivers standing in the street breaking bread together on the trunk of a parked cab, it is such a perfect DC moment caught on camera.

Here's a snap of the cab drivers on street view, not that the address is much of a secret. That is beautiful.
posted by zachlipton at 6:44 PM on August 13, 2016 [20 favorites]


For a little election escapism: #GOT2016

The GoT Party
From the Reach to the Stormlands, the Wall to the Arbor — we, the GOT, demand new choices in leadership. The candidates have called their banners. Cast your vote to pick your side in the great wars to come.
posted by homunculus at 6:45 PM on August 13, 2016


"His Secret Servic told him Hillary is crazy?!"

There is a whole subgenre of Secret Service Tell-All Books, wherein you will learn the same two facts from every example: 1) LBJ had an absolutely gigantic penis; and 2) Some Secret Service agents super fucking hate the president and are willing to take money to write tell-all books about how sometimes they are sleepy and occasionally tell jerky jokes and now and then snap at people responsible for their safety.

Anyway, there are totally rogue Secret Service agents out there, retired and otherwise, just waiting for their turn to turn gossip and rumor into news stories and complain bitterly about how terrible the president is. ALSO, apparently LBJ had a very large penis and also liked to pee in a lot of non-bathroom locations which is why so many Secret Service guys got to see it.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:47 PM on August 13, 2016 [22 favorites]


To remind everyone just how serious this situation is: An imam and his assistant were shot and killed in broad daylight in Queens today.
posted by peacheater at 6:50 PM on August 13, 2016 [26 favorites]


And I'm not looking to establish whether the Clintons are regular folks; I'm looking at their tax returns for evidence of all this criminal sinister corruption I keep hearing about, and whether she is a good custodian of money.

I think she has erred so far in the direction of honesty, that I could almost make the argument that she's not such a great manager of the funds she had pulled in. But I know better, and I know how wonky-smart she is.

I will give the person with those tax returns my national checkbook, absolutely.
posted by Dashy at 6:50 PM on August 13, 2016 [23 favorites]


Surely, after Obama leaves office he will donate all of his book profits to charity and the family will move into a modest, two-story bungalow with not even a single Lexii. Surely.

I mean, I am actually frustrated that political office is so lucrative and so entangled with huge sums of money. It doesn't impact the election, because it's the case with both candidates, and clearly with Trump more so (as a bad talking point, even). But I've spent enough time at private Democratic fundraisers that I do feel kind of like there's a weird wealthy elite vibe to everything.

I'm not asking or expecting anyone to take a vow of poverty, and it's not like anything will change overnight and all the crazy financial ties will or should evaporate because they make me feel weird. It's probably hard not to do well for yourself as a high profile politician. It's just that it also feels a little weird when our politicians are making millions of dollars before and after office and we're like "what's the big deal? They're only making 10 million, they could be making a lot more."

I know some super wealthy donors, and they've said, in effect, "we shouldn't be able to have as much influence as we do, but we try to do the right thing." Having super wealthy politicians running things doesn't mean they're incapable of making things better. It just makes me feel a little less represented personally by the democracy, is all.
posted by teponaztli at 6:50 PM on August 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


BY BALLOT OR BLADE CHOOSE YOUR CANDIDATE
Eeesh. Hoping that was there before yesterday.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:51 PM on August 13, 2016


Ummm Eyebrows, where can I find some of these books?
posted by areaperson at 6:51 PM on August 13, 2016


racist, sexist, hateful fear-monger

The thing is that the question remains for the die-hard party flacks is whether or not Trump is effective; the racism is moot (or entirely ignorable). It goes back to the Douthat tweets I mentioned aaaaages ago where Douthat’s pick of outrageous Trump-esque Democrats weren’t radical kill-all-the-men or black-separatist types but radical publicity hounds and corrupt politicians. But even taking that as the metric - that it’s being bad at the job that matters and not the racism, I remain astounded at the number of folks willing to believe that Trump isn’t a snake oil salesman. It seems obvious on the face, though this may be the bias of my own upbringing; in my home Trump was always kind of a nothing.

Just - the notion that there’s an equivalence! Which, I suppose is why I’m also kind of driven crazy by left arguments that Clinton should be going after Trump as a typical Republican and not as a complete sleaze. Because Trump does seem to have won the nom in part because everyone has been told that politicians are all terrible for so long that, hell, why not Trump? And to treat Trump as a typical Republican kind of fundamentally buys into that narrative. Trump can be exceptionally terrible, or he can be the epitome of Republicanism, but spinning him as both appeals to two different populations and wins neither.

(Depressingly, I think this means that running against Ted Cruz four years from now because, say, he’s racist, won’t actually work. If Trump’s racism is meh, calling out Cruz for it seems like a losing proposition.)
posted by Going To Maine at 6:52 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Snow/Mormont all the way!

Snow? Jon "this is a war of the living against the dead" Snow? Yeah, I'm not sure how to take that from a guy who has been dead once. Which side is he on? Plus, he used it as an excuse to walk away from his brothers on the Wall. Jon Snow. Wrong for the Wall. Wrong for Westeros.

Give me Sansa Stark and young Lady Mormont! The North Remembers!
posted by nubs at 6:53 PM on August 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


Surely our information about LBJ's dick comes mostly from that excellent conversation with his tailor, not from the Secret Service?
posted by jackbishop at 6:53 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Here's a pretty popular secret service book which, as I recall, has some decent LBJ penis stories. I read way too many of these, I don't know what my problem is.

It reads like it's written by a credulous fifth grader but it's fun nonetheless.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:54 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


And everyone he showed it to, which was lots of people.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:54 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


SNOW/MORMONT

“More like snoremont.”
posted by Going To Maine at 6:54 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


I expect Lady Mormont to handle all the domestic and foreign policy, leaving Jon Snow only one thing to do - Make Westeros Great Again!
posted by zakur at 6:55 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


If you can get over the $BIG$NUM$ERZZZZ$!!1! shock, and consider the numbers that are there and what they mean

Really? Patronizing right off the bat?

Their investments/savings are a few years' worth of salary ... which is not that great, especially at retirement ages.

Sorry, this is totally divorced from reality. Going by just the liquid assets that show up on their tax return (so nothing that doesn't throw off income, none of their real estate, etc.), they could withdraw 3% annually for the rest of their lives and not come close to running out of money. So between that and Bill's pension, that's ~$1.3 million/year. I'd love to have the kind of money where $1.3mm/year is "not great".

They aren't even tax sheltering with many of the common mechanisms, or exotic ones.

They don't need to, they have tons of money and the marginal utility of a dollar it quite low at that level. It wouldn't be worth the trade off in how it would look for them politically when they know they will be publishing their tax returns as part of her campaign strategy.
posted by indubitable at 6:55 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hey, hey LBJ
show us your cock

posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:56 PM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


It was very important to Lyndon that his Johnson loom large in his legend.
posted by wabbittwax at 6:56 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


It was very important to Lyndon that his Johnson loom large in his legend.

Whereas the person with the biggest obsession with Bill Clinton's pecker was Kenneth Starr
posted by Francis at 6:58 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't care that Daenerys might turn out to be a supervillain and that Asha'll never really kick her reaving habit, I'm still Targaryen/Greyjoy all the way.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:58 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]




it was very important to Lyndon that his Johnson loom large in his legend.

You should have seen the size of his hands.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:59 PM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


indubitable, no one is denying that the Clintons have more than enough money.

We're just saying it's not that surprising an amount given that Bill is a former President. They could be making a lot more. No one's saying they're saints, but money doesn't seem to be the primary motivating force in their life. They could have a hell of a comfortable life retiring to Chappaqua stepping out once in a while to make a speech.
posted by peacheater at 6:59 PM on August 13, 2016 [25 favorites]


It was very important to Lyndon that his Johnson loom large in his legend.

Wait. Was it called a Johnson before Johnson?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:01 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


What happened to that Mayor of Baltimore guy?
posted by Artw at 7:02 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wait. Was it called a Johnson before Johnson?

Yes.
posted by Talez at 7:03 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump all "I'm here to Make Westeros Great Again! Only I can fix this! I am your voice!" and Daenerys like "*eyeroll" and then "dracarys!"
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 7:03 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


They save a lot on their entertainment budget too since all it is is a weekly visit to the party store to get Bill a few balloons.
posted by wabbittwax at 7:03 PM on August 13, 2016 [49 favorites]


What happened to that Mayor of Baltimore guy?

Busy creepin' on Sansa.
posted by Justinian at 7:03 PM on August 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


Sorry, I can't give the national checkbook to Danaerys, Mereen isn't looking that good these days. Lady Mormont it is.
posted by Dashy at 7:06 PM on August 13, 2016


I assume that with all the scrutiny, rumor-monging and outright fabrications of corruption thrown toward Hillary that she is extra-double-scrupulous with the family finances and has, on a regular basis, given money talks to Bill starting with "We absolutely can NOT do that".

I think her paid speech to Goldman Sachs was a rather savvy (if not cynical) move, not in terms of 'selling out' but in terms of making herself less objectionable to people who had tons of PAC-able money to throw around, and maybe get them to throw less money at her future opposition without necessarily hoping they'd actually support her. But if she'd known her Republican opponent would be a fraudster who hasn't been able to get any American bank to do business with him since before 2000, I suspect she would not have bothered and gotten a slightly-less lucrative speaking gig from a less-infamous institution.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:08 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


> Sorry, I can't give the national checkbook to Danaerys, Mereen isn't looking that good these days. Lady Mormont it is.

yeah sure go ahead and throw away your vote on a third-party candidate with only 62 bannermen behind her. Like, I'm not saying that a vote for Lady Mormont is a vote for the Night's King, but, well, a vote for Lady Mormont is a vote for the Night's King.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 7:09 PM on August 13, 2016 [11 favorites]




Indubitable, would you want to be facing retirement on savings of 3x your yearly income? Would you recommend that strategy to others? If that is what you had at age 70, would you consider it an accomplishment, good money management?

Reply without using dollar amounts, please.
posted by Dashy at 7:14 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]



Sorry, this is totally divorced from reality. Going by just the liquid assets that show up on their tax return (so nothing that doesn't throw off income, none of their real estate, etc.), they could withdraw 3% annually for the rest of their lives and not come close to running out of money. So between that and Bill's pension, that's ~$1.3 million/year. I'd love to have the kind of money where $1.3mm/year is "not great".


Trump's Islamophobia is winding people up to the point that a man was shot in cold blood today.

But by all means, let's fucking analyze the Clinton's tax returns because their tax bracket is far worse for society.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:14 PM on August 13, 2016 [95 favorites]


This discussion about how wealthy the Clintons are is actually a pretty interesting phenomenon that has to do with the vast income inequality of the 1%, but perhaps in not the way that is first apparent.

The income of the people in the top 1% is *so* much greater than everyone else's that the amount of money is staggering and impossible to comprehend. The context that defenders are putting around this money (the Clintons aren't doing the hinkey tax-dodge tricks that people in this income bracket do; they would easily be able to make so much more money and pay so much less in taxes if they even tried in that financial milieu) makes sense when you're able to even see that kind of financial stratus from a distance. Most of us can't. This lack of context is even more exaggerated about the financial milieu of the top 0.1%.

Yep, they are wealthy. Yep, income equality is out of whack. Yep, that's a really big problem for society as a whole. I guess the way I look at it is, I do not begrudge people being wealthy per se, but I do judge insanely wealthy people by what legacy they leave in the world, given that they are so fortunate. Think of the Gates Foundation, think of Warren Buffett, think of Jim Sinegal (founder of Costco and fantastic philanthropist).

I am mindful that the former presidents from my lifetime who are Democrats are doing things like:

* Brokering peace deals, fighting guinea worm, building houses for homeless people with his own hands, and teaching Sunday School (Jimmy Carter)
* Doing foundation-related public service and supporting his wife in her public service career (Bill Clinton)

In contrast, what did the Republicans do? Regean perhaps gets a pass as he was declining and dying, but please, someone tell me what great charitable works GHWB and GWB have done since leaving office?
posted by Sublimity at 7:15 PM on August 13, 2016 [34 favorites]


Indubitable, would you want to be facing retirement on savings of 3x your yearly income? Would you recommend that strategy to others? If that is what you had at age 70, would you consider it an accomplishment, good money management?

That sounds fine to me, since I care about my savings relative to my expenses, not relative to my yearly income.
posted by value of information at 7:16 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Besides, dragons for voter intimidation, a bit ... too warm, I think.
posted by Dashy at 7:16 PM on August 13, 2016


You know there's ACTUAL LITERAL DRAGON running for pres, right?
posted by rp at 7:18 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


> Besides, dragons for voter intimidation, a bit ... too warm, I think.
posted by Dashy at 7:16 PM on August 13 [+] [!]


Look, I mean, I respect the purists out there, sort of, but you have to admit that everyone who participates high-level politics in any meaningful way eventually has to get their hands dirty.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 7:20 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Clinton's income is a political derail - whether they make more money than 99.9% of Americans is immaterial, especially since she's running against an alleged billionaire.

The question is what she will do with the power of the Presidency, and whether what she will do will be a net positive. I believe it will be. If you believe that as well, it doesn't matter if she has more money than you do.
posted by Mooski at 7:21 PM on August 13, 2016 [34 favorites]


Surely our information about LBJ's dick comes mostly from that excellent conversation with his tailor, not from the Secret Service?

Dressed slightly to the left, if you know what I'm saying.
posted by modernnomad at 7:22 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Clinton $$ issue is also a bit silly because Obama is gonna make a fuck-ton of money in the coming years (and has already made, like the Clintons, more than most people will ever earn simply through book advances), and I doubt most progressives will be up in arms about it. It's a stick to beat Clinton with for particular purposes, not due to some coherent underlying philosophy. Public speaking is not automatically an underhanded quid pro quo - if GS wanted to bribe someone, there are far more effective ways of doing it than inviting someone in to give a speech.
posted by modernnomad at 7:26 PM on August 13, 2016 [26 favorites]


Not only is it a derail it is another example of the double standard applied to Hillary. Bernie Sanders never released his tax returns and didn't disclose the millions in Vermont real estate and assets held by his wife. Jill Stein is a rich retired doctor/Harvard professor from one of America's most affluent zip codes and her spouse is also a doctor. Yet the only one you are hammering is Hillary.
posted by humanfont at 7:28 PM on August 13, 2016 [137 favorites]


I'll absolutely yammer on to fight the corrupt! sinister! narrative, and especially when it involves a subject I can quantify and understand.

In contrast, the shooting of an imam leaves me profoundly speechless.
posted by Dashy at 7:32 PM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


And Trump has ::pinkie finger:: 10 billion dollars!
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:32 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Not only is it a derail it is another example of the double standard applied to Hillary. Bernie Sanders never released his tax returns and didn't disclose the millions in Vermont real estate and assets held by his wife. Jill Stein is a rich retired doctor/Harvard professor from one of America's most affluent zip codes and her spouse is also a doctor. Yet the only one you are hammering is Hillary.

I can't like this comment enough times. The number of people who claim they have nothing against Clinton but continually apply a double standard when it comes to other candidates is infuriating.
posted by frumiousb at 7:34 PM on August 13, 2016 [62 favorites]


The context that defenders are putting around this money (the Clintons aren't doing the hinkey tax-dodge tricks that people in this income bracket do; they would easily be able to make so much more money and pay so much less in taxes if they even tried in that financial milieu) makes sense when you're able to even see that kind of financial stratus from a distance. Most of us can't. This lack of context is even more exaggerated about the financial milieu of the top 0.1%.

So this is interesting. My context for this is that for people to freak out about the Clintons being wealthy, let alone that presidential nominees are wealthy, is that they haven't been paying attention. I absolutely believe that we should evaluate the rich based on how they dispurse their assets, but it just seems shockingly naive to not have noticed that, hey, these elected officials are well off.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:37 PM on August 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


Trump also said he's thinking about banning the New York Times, citing their "dishonest stories," and "Real garbage. They're garbage. It's a garbage paper."

Has "garbage person" actually made it into Trump's vernacular? He does seem to spend a lot of time on Twitter after all.
posted by zachlipton at 7:40 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Not only is it a derail it is another example of the double standard applied to Hillary. Bernie Sanders never released his tax returns and didn't disclose the millions in Vermont real estate and assets held by his wife. Jill Stein is a rich retired doctor/Harvard professor from one of America's most affluent zip codes and her spouse is also a doctor. Yet the only one you are hammering is Hillary.

Hillary Clinton is almost certainly going to be president. If Sanders or Stein were in the same position, I'm certain we'd be talking about their finances, too. People want to talk about income inequality and wealth inequality and the role our leadership plays in those things in the hope that by discourse and dissent they can make society more equitable, reduce the power of money in our politics and increase the power of people. The constant refrain that any effort to put progressive pressure on politicians and our politics is simply dressed up Trumpism is not only insulting, but seems designed solely to quash discourse and dissent.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:42 PM on August 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


Part of the point that I was trying to make with an earlier comment is that in the current political climate, there is every expectation that a president is going to be subject to multiple politically-motivated lawsuits. We already have one lawsuit aimed at Clinton stemming from Benghazi, and we'd be fools to think that the operatives on the right aren't going to pull out the same playbook that they used against Bill Clinton. They'll enmesh the administration in lawsuits so that others believe that where there's smoke there's fire - and maybe they'll be able to make them admit to something embarrassing or catch them in a lie. And because the lawsuits are personal, the president can't use public funds for defense and must bankroll the defense or rely on personal fundraising.

So right now, I want Democratic presidents to have some level of personal wealth, as a buffer against this tactic. It sucks, and it's not the way it should be. But in my estimation, there is far more opportunity for money-in-politics corruption if a president is trying to fundraise for the their personal financial survival during their presidency versus having given speeches to Goldman Sachs. Right now, the political system cannot protect a person of normal financial means in the highest office in the land. That's a tragedy, but one not as simple as those who typically rail against money in politics would suggest.
posted by Chanther at 7:42 PM on August 13, 2016 [29 favorites]


please, someone tell me what great charitable works GHWB and GWB have done since leaving office?

To be fair to Bush 41 he went out with Bill Clinton to raise money for the victims of the 2004 Pacific tsunami (that's a friendship that got Clinton a lot of criticism from some more strident Democratic partisans, as well).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 7:42 PM on August 13, 2016 [20 favorites]


I think there are plenty of ways to discuss the problems associated with the power of money in politics that don't boil down to "Hillary got paid a lot of money to give speeches when she charged the market rate and a bunch of people bought her books." I also think that discussion is more productive.
posted by zachlipton at 7:44 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Humour me the full extension of one more point: if the median American had saved 3x salary at retirement, that would be ~$150k, producing safe withdrawal income of $4500/yr.

We call that failure, and have a federal entitlement program built around preventing retireees from living on that little.

I realize there is marginal utility applied to larger amounts, but the basic point is that 3x income is not great as far as lifetime money mongering goes.
posted by Dashy at 7:45 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


People want to talk about income inequality and wealth inequality and the role our leadership plays in those things in the hope that by discourse and dissent they can make society more equitable, reduce the power of money in our politics and increase the power of people. The constant refrain that any effort to put progressive pressure on politicians and our politics is simply dressed up Trumpism is not only insulting, but seems designed solely to quash discourse and dissent.

The way to do that is to address her policy proposals.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:45 PM on August 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


Trump's Islamophobia is winding people up to the point that a man was shot in cold blood today.

EC as far as I've seen we don't know that there is any causal relationship or even if the shooting was a hate crime. Maybe it was. But if you've seen NYPD say so, it's news to me.

It's sick enough that it's a plausible inference of course.
posted by spitbull at 7:45 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm completely not understanding the idea that the poorer you are the more qualified you'd be for President, or that an ex-President or First Lady who didn't ask large fees for speaking to rich audiences, or didn't speak in public at all would inherently be a better president.
posted by bongo_x at 7:49 PM on August 13, 2016 [30 favorites]


I'm completely not understanding the idea that the poorer you are the more qualified you'd be for President, or that an ex-President or First Lady who didn't ask large fees for speaking to rich audiences, or didn't speak in public at all would inherently be a better president.
posted by bongo_x at 7:49 PM on August 13 [+] [!]


It's...not a great idea.
posted by schadenfrau at 7:53 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


The constant refrain that any effort to put progressive pressure on politicians and our politics is simply dressed up Trumpism is not only insulting, but seems designed solely to quash discourse and dissent.

Progressive pressure on the income of candidates comes from things like reforming the system so that the less wealthy can be elected, increasing the pay of elected officials so they don't feel bound to go to the private sector, and campaigning for nominees who make less than a certain amount (as was attempted with Bernie, although I'm also not certain that a financial litmus great would play well with the electorate).

It doesn't come from delegitimizing the current nominee about her business choices over the past ten years.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:55 PM on August 13, 2016 [35 favorites]


I'm completely not understanding the idea that the poorer you are the more qualified you'd be for President, or that an ex-President or First Lady who didn't ask large fees for speaking to rich audiences, or didn't speak in public at all would inherently be a better president.

I was responding to someone who claimed that the finances implied by their tax return demonstrate that the Clintons are "not money hungry" and are therefore virtuous for it. The ideas in your comment are your invention.
posted by indubitable at 7:56 PM on August 13, 2016


JFK, both Roosevelts, and LBJ were all in the top ten for relative net worth among presidents. Somebody please demonstrate that had any bearing on their economic policy.
posted by one_bean at 7:57 PM on August 13, 2016 [30 favorites]


Wait. Was it called a Johnson before Johnson?

Surely it's the reason a Johnson is called a Johnson.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:01 PM on August 13, 2016


Everyone seems to be responding to this idea of populism that no one has put forth. I literally said that every candidate is wealthy and that of course it doesn't mean they can't do the right thing. To read that as an expectation that all our presidents should be poor is just absurd.
posted by teponaztli at 8:02 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


So I've been thinking a lot about the whole Trump "rigged election" and calling for poll watchers thing, and it got me thinking about how much of Trump's whole MO has always involved sticking his name on everything. It's got to follow that most of his volunteer poll watchers (not to mention a good number of the first-time voters he may be pulling in) will be showing up in TRUMP t-shirts.

When they all get turned away from entering the polling site for going against the rules on electioneering too close to a poll site, that looks like an easy trigger for him to "prove" that his people weren't allowed to vote or confirm impartiality. And easy to capture on video as it happens (and stupid people being stupid, explaining because it's the law, duh won't get you very far) . Is this something I should be worrying about, or am I just in these threads too deep?
posted by Mchelly at 8:04 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


And because the lawsuits are personal, the president can't use public funds for defense and must bankroll the defense or rely on personal fundraising.

Estimates are that the Clinton's had $10 million in legal bills after 8 years in office. As Hillary said, they were deeply in debt, but were able to erase that debt rather quickly through speaking fees. It is absolutely true that the Republicans will try to hound Democrats into debt through endless frivolous lawsuits.
posted by JackFlash at 8:05 PM on August 13, 2016 [51 favorites]


To be clear, I am not worried about that actually affecting the election in any way, but I an worried about its effect on civil unrest after the fact.
posted by Mchelly at 8:06 PM on August 13, 2016


The right wing militias are going to do the same bullshit they've been doing; nothing more.
posted by humanfont at 8:09 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Progressive pressure on the income of candidates comes from things like reforming the system

How should we reform the system if talking about this now is seen to delegitimize our candidate? I'm not being glib, I mean really, its not for lack of trying that the system hasn't already been reformed. What can we do if there's no point in talking about this in the first place?
posted by teponaztli at 8:11 PM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


I was responding to someone who claimed that the finances implied by their tax return demonstrate that the Clintons are "not money hungry" and are therefore virtuous for it. The ideas in your comment are your invention.

So, color me a cynic, but many people who aren't necessarily primarily motivated by money are, in fact, motivated by money. Not wholly, but at least partially. A university research faculty member might not be motivated by cash, but they'll do their darn destination to get the largest grants possible to further their agenda. A speaker who charges below the market rate for their speeches, even if they aren't in it for the money, is considered worth less. Surgeons will fuss about how they want to help people, but it's not like they don't get paid.

Clinton charged the market rate for her services. She gave ten percent of her income to charity, which is better than me. She's fine.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:12 PM on August 13, 2016 [23 favorites]


So . . . remember when Trump said he was going to surround himself with the best, the brightest, the winningest team of advisers and whatnot that had ever been assembled?

Yet look what he actually has delivered:

Paladino -- a trainwreck of a has-been who can't articulate a coherent idea; disparages military heroes.

Manafort -- a toady to Russian oligarchs; hasn't met an idea he can't be paid to endorse

Lewindowski -- ??

Katrina Pierson - self-loathing, wanna-be White Nationalist; has no problems twisting herself into pretzels to defend the campaign

It's just insane. "Best and brightest" my ass. This isn't even the junior varsity team.

There has to be 2 things going on here:

1. The "best and brightest" took a look at the Trump campaign, and "NOPE"d the hell out; and

2. The Trump campaign can't tell the difference between "great" and "crap" when it comes to political operatives.

There is nobody on the Trump campaign who knows what they are doing. They aren't even capable of recognizing how bad they are, let alone coming up with a plan to fix it. Trump himself is consistently immune to constructive criticism.

He's an incompetent candidate with an incompetent campaign, with no chance to turn it around.
posted by yesster at 8:14 PM on August 13, 2016 [30 favorites]


KQED Forum: “David Cay Johnston Digs Into ‘The Making of Donald Trump’”

Apropos of nothing, my David Cay Johnston story:

4 jobs ago one of my duties was recording lectures and putting them online. One of those lectures was Johnston's.

In the lecture Johnston made mention of how Toyota had to resort to pictographs to train the autoworkers in the South because they were so illiterate. As a spouse of a Southerner, that didn't ring true, so I used my iPhone during the lecture to spelunk around Google and see if the story was true. I tracked it down to an auto parts manufacturing spokesperson in Canada who had said a friend-of-a-friend told him this was true and it was about Toyota. Toyota and pretty much everyone else denied it was so, and no one ever produced a pictograph from one of these plants. Krugman mentioned it in passing in a 2005 column, but didn't give it any credence.

After the lecture, I talked to Johnston and mentioned hey, that story you told? It doesn't have a lot of credence... and he just started ripping into me and HOW DARE I question his facts and THIS IS REAL and SOMETHING SOMETHING YOU MUST BE A REPUBLICAN and that's about when I tuned out and someone else came over and distracted him.

So yeah. What a jerk.
posted by dw at 8:15 PM on August 13, 2016 [51 favorites]


It is absolutely true that the Republicans will try to hound Democrats into debt through endless frivolous lawsuits.

Peter Thiel learned it by watching them.
posted by dw at 8:15 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


The way to do that is to address her policy proposals.

I agree with this, but I wouldn't stop there. You also have to change the ideology and the material structure that produces it. YCTAB up-thread summarized it well:

The constraint that the paid speaker system imposes is less about specific quid-pro-quos, and more about a soft suasion that limits the field of statements and acts that are admissible in public among people who wish to remain influential in public.

Picking and choosing proffered policy proposals isn't proactive enough by itself to actually make what is considered acceptable or normal more progressive.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:16 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not really sure what difference it makes that Hillary is rich. She wasn't always rich. She certainly has more of an idea what it's like to be a middle class person than Trump does.
posted by xyzzy at 8:21 PM on August 13, 2016 [22 favorites]


How should we reform the system if talking about this now is seen to delegitimize our candidate? I'm not being glib, I mean really, its not for lack of trying that the system hasn't already been reformed. What can we do if there's no point in talking about this in the first place

To start, we could suggest specific reforms (legislative, executive, or judicial) rather than wishing Hillary Clinton hadn't charged so much to give speeches? Like, I don't know, appoint Supreme Court justices that would overturn Citizen's United or shoot for an Amendment to do so; sign executive orders to require greater donor disclosure from publicly traded companies and federal contractors; or establish a small donor matching program to increase individual donors' political power. Those kinds of things would likely have more bearing on reforming the system than worrying about a candidate's net worth. You'll never guess where I got those ideas.
posted by one_bean at 8:21 PM on August 13, 2016 [46 favorites]


zombieflanders: But in interviews with more than 20 Republicans who are close to Mr. Trump or in communication with his campaign, many of whom insisted on anonymity to avoid clashing with him, they described their nominee as exhausted, frustrated and still bewildered by fine points of the political process and why his incendiary approach seems to be sputtering.

That's the problem with angry mobs and their fires - the flames eventually burn out, either from lack of care or because they ran out of things they were willing to burn. Or worse, the wind changes and the fire turns on those who made it.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:22 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


I am actually frustrated that political office is so lucrative and so entangled with huge sums of money.

Being president these days is like being a big league sportster. You basically have to retire and do stuff that might be lucrative in its own way (books, speaking) but you're not allowed to have a political profile other than "former president". That's a bit shit, really. One of the supposed benefits of a republic is that the head-of-state job is just a job. But the post-presidency is weird.

I'm much more frustrated with people like Evan Bayh who's a second-generation pol, quit the Senate six years ago saying that he was going to go home and teach in Indiana, instead got himself a DC law/lobbyist job and got appointed to a few corporate boards, and is now running again for the Senate because he fancies his chances. That's the revolving fucking door, and he's a fucking Democrat.
posted by holgate at 8:22 PM on August 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


Surely it's the reason a Johnson is called a Johnson. -- Joey Michaels

Don't be fatuous, Joey.
posted by rokusan at 8:26 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


You guys, I just entered an HRC starting to hang out with Tim Kaine. If I win, I'll finally be meeting somebody else who thinks Let It Be by The Replacements is the greatest album ever.

I will make a Playlist consisting of Unsatisfied by The Replacements and Satisfied from Hamilton over and over again to prepare.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:26 PM on August 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


How should we reform the system if talking about this now is seen to delegitimize our candidate? I'm not being glib, I mean really, its not for lack of trying that the system hasn't already been reformed. What can we do if there's no point in talking about this in the first place.

November ninth will be a great day to bring it up.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:27 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm not really sure what difference it makes that Hillary is rich. She wasn't always rich. She certainly has more of an idea what it's like to be a middle class person than Trump does.

Class-warfare-wise, it's a bit of a step backward from the Obamas, who came a little closer to working class than anyone since, what, Carter?

But yeah, attacking her for being wealthy is an especially wtf sort of argument this season.
posted by rokusan at 8:27 PM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


Surely it's the reason a Johnson is called a Johnson.

LBJ pressured people to have it called a Lyndon, but no luck there.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:28 PM on August 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Secret Life of Gravy: The whole idea that some guy is going to risk going to Federal Prison for 5 years just so his favored candidate will get an extra vote or two in an election that counts votes in the tens of millions is jaw-droppingly stupid.

Evidence that prison doesn't deter crime.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:31 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


November ninth will be a great day to bring it up.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:27 PM on August 13 [+] [!]


This statement only makes sense if you think that the fate of the election is in any way affected by what pseudonyms on metafilter say.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:31 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]




Class-warfare-wise, it's a bit of a step backward from the Obamas, who came a little closer to working class than anyone since, what, Carter?
He paid $1.65 million for his Chicago house. I don't think the Obamas were hurting for cash by the time they started running for the Senate.
posted by xyzzy at 8:33 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Surely it's the reason a Johnson is called a Johnson
Why hasn't the Libertarian candidate made use of that?
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:35 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Because #notalljohnsons
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:36 PM on August 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Surely our information about LBJ's dick comes mostly from that excellent conversation with his tailor, not from the Secret Service?

He needed an inch put in, other wise, it would cut 'em like riding a wire fence... right up to his bunghole [BELCH].
posted by Cold Lurkey at 8:37 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


The whole idea that some guy is going to risk going to Federal Prison for 5 years just so his favored candidate will get an extra vote or two in an election that counts votes in the tens of millions is jaw-droppingly stupid.

Honestly, election fraud happens, but it's mostly people who don't know they're actually breaking the law. People who "help grandma vote", people who don't know they have to update their address when they move, etc.
posted by corb at 8:43 PM on August 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


How should we reform the system if talking about this now is seen to delegitimize our candidate?

How about by talking about any one of the myriad other politicians enjoying similar privilege who AREN'T our candidate?

There are about five hundred current congressmen, and more former congressmen and women. There are three other former presidents who aren't related to Hilary. There are also former VICE presidents. Why not talk about them?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:43 PM on August 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


I don't think the Obamas were hurting for cash by the time they started running for the Senate.

They bought the Kenwood house in 2005, after the Senate election. The royalties from Dreams from My Father helped pay for it, and also helped the Obamas pay off the remainder of their student loans. Not working class in any way, but pretty typical middle-class professionals of their generation who had relatively expensive educations but hadn't taken the most lucrative career paths on offer.
posted by holgate at 8:43 PM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


Class-warfare-wise, it's a bit of a step backward from the Obamas, who came a little closer to working class than anyone since, what, Carter?

The Clintons had a net worth of about $700,000 when Bill was running in 1992. Obama's net worth was about $1.7 million in 2007. Carter had a net worth of $500,000 - $800,000 (sources differ). Ford's net worth, however, was lower - about $256,000 (though that was larger than Clinton's if you account for inflation).

To find a president with a lower (adjusted for inflation) net worth at the beginning of his presidency than Bill Clinton, you have to go back to Truman. If you are only looking at dollar figures without adjustment, it's Ford.

(None of which is really relevant to Hillary Clinton's current quite high net worth; I'm just interested in countering the narrative that the Clintons have always been party of the wealthy establishment.)
posted by Chanther at 8:48 PM on August 13, 2016 [34 favorites]


How about by talking about any one of the myriad other politicians enjoying similar privilege who AREN'T our candidate?

I've been doing that for years. This election has made things that some of us were talking about already into things not worth mentioning. Look, this only came up regarding Clinton because people were all "why care that a politician is wealthy?" And that only came up because people were talking about Clinton's taxes. And that only came about because she's running for president. For me it's just a matter of noting that yeah, once again it's two rich people competing for the most powerful position in the world. Even in that they're not similar, because Trump pretends to be a billionaire, but it's something I was thinking about just the same. It's notable because they're the most high profile politicians right now.

I've missed the vast majority of the 33,000+ comments on the election here, so I have no idea if there is still some long running fight about this. But it's not like I only just happened to discover populist ideas this year, despite what some people seem to be implying.
posted by teponaztli at 9:07 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


Please note: I implied that Trump is an actual politician in my last comment, and I regret my error.
posted by teponaztli at 9:16 PM on August 13, 2016 [31 favorites]


For all you psephologists out there, the Princeton Election Consortium now has an app that will "provide you with all the key outputs on our calculations, updated five times a day: the EV snapshot, current Senate and House estimates, and the Meta-Margins. The app will link back to this website so you can get full site content."

Search on StatX in the App Store/Google Play.
posted by vac2003 at 9:16 PM on August 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


2. The Trump campaign can't tell the difference between "great" and "crap" when it comes to political operatives.

I'm somewhat of a student of Narcissism, not entirely by choice, and this makes perfect sense to me.

Trump's entire campaign is based on narcissism. In Trump's world, Donald Trump is the greatest person in the world. When that's your worldview, how do you choose "the best and brightest"? That's right, whoever has the most nice things to say about Donald Trump.

So he is definitely hiring "the best people", but his definition of "best" is basically "biggest fan".

This would be the equivalent of the New York Yankees needing a new Pitcher or Head Coach, and choosing to hire whoever cheered the loudest in the stands at the game.
posted by mmoncur at 9:20 PM on August 13, 2016 [23 favorites]


He even said we would win so much that people would beg him to return them to poverty(!)

YOU PEOPLE
posted by petebest at 9:22 PM on August 13, 2016


I'm impressed that in 800+ comments on this thread, nobody's brought up that the Clintons' son-in-law cofounded a hedge fund and yet they're keeping their cash in the same no-frills Vanguard fund as me.

I mean, sheesh, if one of my relatives were a hedge fund manager you can bet my dough would be in that hedge fund making me returns hand-over-fist, not languishing in some anonymous index fund. Good for them for investing like regular Americans who happen to have some spare change in the bank, not like the extremely wealthy and well-connected high achievers they actually are.
posted by the marble index at 9:42 PM on August 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


I hope, after the election is over, there's a Barbara Walters special where she talks to Cruz, Bush, and Rubio about the election and the primary.
Barbara: "He said a lot of mean things about each of you."
Ted, Jeb, and Marco grasp each other by the hand.
Ted: "Yes, he did."
Barbara: "How did that make you feel, up there on that stage?"
Ted: "I wanted to lash out, but I couldn't."
Barbara: "Why not?"
Ted: "Because the party, the unity. We weren't allowed to be ourselves. But he was."
posted by perhapses at 9:43 PM on August 13, 2016 [26 favorites]


the Clintons' son-in-law cofounded a hedge fund and yet they're keeping their cash in the same no-frills Vanguard fund as me.

Right, that's why they're rich.
posted by bongo_x at 9:44 PM on August 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


For me it's just a matter of noting that yeah, once again it's two rich people competing for the most powerful position in the world.

I mostly want to refer you back to one_bean.

If the issue is 'only rich people seem to be able to reach the office of President,' (which is certainly problematic on a number of levels, yes), then it's better to focus on 'why is that?' followed closely by 'what could we do to establish a more level playing field for worthy candidates who cannot presently compete?'
posted by mordax at 9:48 PM on August 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


Interesting anecdata from my husband: He says the one really die-hard Trump supporter he knows also says he "never votes" and doesn't intend to start anytime soon. I think there are a not-insignificant portion of the people Trump appeals to who are similarly hostile to the entire election process.

Also, re: the Goldman Sachs thing: I spent one summer when I was in college working for an investment banker friend of my parents. (It was miserable.) He explained to me that he could afford to throw a whole lot of money into client recruitment via paying me, putting on expensive dinners, etc, because it was financially worth it if he only got ONE large client out of several months of similar expenses. Attracting people with money is the single most important thing to investment people, so yeah, spending $200,000 once to attract a group of wealthy people is NOTHING compared to what the company can make off of people for years and years once they become clients.
posted by threeturtles at 9:51 PM on August 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


Being president these days is like being a big league sportster. You basically have to retire and do stuff that might be lucrative in its own way (books, speaking) but you're not allowed to have a political profile other than "former president".

Hey, Jordan retired, joined MLB and then went back to pro hoops. It's possible But It is strange that Presidents after FDR have not sought out political positions after their time in the Oval was done with. You get the sense that it's supposed to be beneath the dignity of a President to get back into the ring again. But Carter, at least, has not shied away from doing more than just writing books and getting paid for speeches. And if we look at the presidency since LBJ, who died soon after leaving office, Nixon was disgraced, Ford was inept, Reagan was old as dirt, so that rules them out of a post-presidential political life. Carter seemed to think that work on human rights could be best done in the private sector (and anyway when you don't get the second term it seems like a repudiation of your political aspirations), Bush likely didn't want to overshadow his two very ambitious sons, Bush II was not exactly disgraced, but unpopular as hell. But Bill Clinton has been very active, campaigning on behalf of his wife and doing whatever it is their foundation does. There was constant talk in the 00s that he might try and get himself elected UN Secretary. But in a way, his political options were somewhat limited by Hillary, whose turn to shine they seem to have decided it was (it wasn't like they were going to elect *two* Clintons Senator from NY, and the former president doesn't slum it in the House. Or go back to being a Governor, where you don't even get to bomb brown people (usually, I'm looking at you Philadelphia). Senate, Supreme Court, or some international body like the UN are the only options that make sense).

I know your point was about rationalizing the way the WJC worked fast to turn his political clout into cash post-Presidency, but I started to think this out a bit because I wonder what Obama's plans are for the many, many years he has ahead of him. I hope something better than creating a foundation, and raking in the speaking fees. Run for Senate again, you crazy diamond. (Or bring forth the grand globalist one world gov't conspiracy and rule as emperor of the planet).
posted by dis_integration at 10:07 PM on August 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Obama's second act will hopefully be Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:11 PM on August 13, 2016 [20 favorites]


I think Obama's current plan is to spend the two years after his Presidency in DC as a stay at home dad while his younger daughter finishes High School. I really hope he follows through on the plan because it would set a really great example.
posted by humanfont at 10:15 PM on August 13, 2016 [46 favorites]


Doing whatever it is their foundation does.

All of the information about the Clinton Global Initiative is on their website and it does not involve speaker fees. It does, however involve initiatives to allow women and girls greater access to education, long term development in Haiti including agriculture and health access, global access to health initiatives including plans to avoid duplication of efforts.

That is what Bill spends his time on, actually.
posted by Sophie1 at 10:23 PM on August 13, 2016 [45 favorites]




It's possible But It is strange that Presidents after FDR have not sought out political positions after their time in the Oval was done with. You get the sense that it's supposed to be beneath the dignity of a President to get back into the ring again

FDR is a super weird cutoff for what presidents have done after leaving office - and not just because he died before his term ended. There have been only three presidents who held elective office after being president, the last being Andrew Johnson in 1874. Taft was the only Supreme Court Justice. Carter is universally held to have reinvented the modern post-presidency, partly because these days presidents frequently live so much longer after they're done. Running for elective office is beneath their dignity because they can do so much more elsewhere, especially given the absolute inability of Congress to pass meaningful legislation. It's a truism that private organizations wield far more power these days than individual politicians. Why would a former President decide their time was best spent in the (now earmark-less) Senate when they can raise hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on whatever their pet projects are?
posted by one_bean at 10:37 PM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


The Real Meaning of All Those Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories About Hillary’s Health:
Three words that apply to almost all Trumpy Claims and Conspiracy Theories: PROJECTION. PROJECTION. PROJECTION.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:44 PM on August 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


Personally, I think it's admirable that FOX News has a tuition reimbursement program that pays for sending indigent talk radio hosts to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College. It would be unfair to saddle Sean Hannity with all those student loans.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:02 PM on August 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Obama's second act will hopefully be Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama.

I cynically wonder if we'd find Justice Obama not left enough.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:03 PM on August 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


Depends on who he replaces.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:18 AM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


> I cynically wonder if we'd find Justice Obama not left enough.

Hypothetical Justice Obama won't have to compromise opinions to get it past an obstructionist Congress or have to fill an opinion with pork-barrel projects to be able to issue it or a later one.

Wether you choose to be cynical or hopeful about that fact is up to you.
posted by fragmede at 12:33 AM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I cynically wonder if we'd find Justice Obama not left enough.

Heh. To be fair, his stances on warrantless wiretapping and the creeping security-state overall would frustrate many of us, assuming he didn't leave them buried in the West Wing bunker with other compromises of cooperation.
posted by rokusan at 1:04 AM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


There remains no evidence that the Imam and his companion shot in Queens were targeted for their faith, other than the sentiments of an angry community. It's entirely possible it was a hate crime, but that is in no way officially confirmed and the only evidence for it is that the victims were Muslim (and the shooter reportedly Hispanic, which as we all know is not ... typical of Trump acolytes).

It's understandable why the traumatized community might feel this way, and there's no doubt that Trump is fomenting Islamophobia. But it actually hurts the many true instances of that point if we leap into a fray of calling this a hate crime and it turns out to be a robbery or random or internal to the community.

Ok, just cautioning against narrativizing the incident as "a hate crime" before determinative facts are known. I suspect it has very high priority from NYPD and we will hear more soon.
posted by spitbull at 1:36 AM on August 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


Making speeches and writing books seems a fairly innocuous way for the Clintons to leverage their position to make money. As a comparison, Tony Blair (as well as being paid a lot of money for speaking) offers consultancy services to, among others, oil companies and dictatorships and oil companies run by dictatorships. And I’m sure there are lots of companies who would pay handsomely to be able to list either of the Clintons as board members, even if they only turned up to two meetings a year.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 2:53 AM on August 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


I get that is is a natural subject to talk about now because Hillary Clinton has just released last year's tax returns. But it's so frustrating to me that we're not going to get the opportunity to discuss Trump's. Just as we discuss Hillary's record as senator and Sec. State and First Lady, but Trump has no record. Just as we discuss Hillay's emails, and the DNC's, but Trump's and the RNC's private communications remain private. Just as we know all the sordid details of the Clinton's marital problems, but Trump's divorces and their causes are none of our business.

It is just so unfair. Hillary Clinton is certainly flawed, and Bill even more so. It's true that Hillary has taken advantage of privileges most people are never afforded and has made compromises she shouldn't have made, including some she admits she regrets. It's true that she has been petty at times and has traded on her relationships with powerful people to help her cause at other times. It's fair game to talk about these things in an election. They are issues of substance.

But with Trump there is nothing of substance to talk about. Just the sideshow if all the horrible things he says. And his supporters actually use this as a defense! "Trump says mean things, but Hillary Clinton has actually done all this bad stuff!" We have no idea what Trump's done.

It's also frustrating to me because I don't know which of us could withstand the kind of scrutiny Hillary Clinton has been under, except maybe hermit monks. Honestly who here would have nothing to be ashamed of if their whole tax history were public, if all their employee-reviews at all their jobs were public, and so were the emails they wrote at those jobs, if even the fights they had with their SO were public. Who here would not be embarrassed? Anyone over 30? Anyone whose achievements have had more impact on the world than one of those hermit-monks?

Hillary Clinton is flawed, for sure. But her flaws have been placed under a magnifying glass in a way yours and mine have not, and in a way even most her poltical opponents' are not. I guess I'm just pleading for people to keep that in mind as they judge her for those flaws.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:37 AM on August 14, 2016 [134 favorites]


I think the simplicity of the Clintons return is notable - especially since their income is primarily from businesses where they could easily shelter more money. The key takeaway is that they pay their fair share of taxes and spend 10% of their net income on charity (not gross, net income).

Trump's tax return is going to look insane in comparison (if he ever releases it). For example, Trump definitely takes the STAR deduction for people making less than $500k per year, a deduction we have to apply for each year with the state of NY, from Crain's:

Here's where it gets interesting for Trump: To be eligible for STAR, a married couple must have annual income of $500,000 or less. One wouldn't think a guy as rich as Trump claims to be would qualify, but records filed with the city's Department of Finance show he received a $302 STAR benefit on his latest property-tax bill for his Trump Tower penthouse on Fifth Avenue.

Trump likely shelters all of his income in businesses and claims that those businesses take a loss or make less than they actually do. I think his tax returns will show extremely liberal deductions and that his effective tax rate will be less than any of his employees pay. That's the point of releasing tax returns.
posted by rainydayfilms at 4:42 AM on August 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


I guess I'm just pleading for people to keep that in mind as they judge her for those flaws.

They haven't for thirty years so I doubt they will now.

Back in the day it was just a misogynist right terrified of an ambitious, accomplished woman.

Now it's both the left and the right, but it's still the same bullshit it was in 1992, just from a different (or, rather, additional) direction.
posted by dersins at 4:58 AM on August 14, 2016 [22 favorites]


I just watched a fb friend do a serious reeducation drive wherein she explained to the younglings what the 90s were really like. Because yo people under 30 don't really remember them and don't understand the context that the Clintons were walking into, all they know is that their entire lives there's been something wrong with Hillary Clinton. The fact that the left had been so eagerly carrying this narrative is...not surprising to me at all, but disappointing nonetheless. But we do love nothing more than a purity test (calibrated to the sociopolitical context of today's date, no matter what decision we're testing or when it took place) and circular firing squad, and I'm sure someone on the Right noticed this and realized how easily they could create a bipartisan narrative of Something Is Wrong With Hillary Clinton.
posted by soren_lorensen at 5:08 AM on August 14, 2016 [64 favorites]


OnceUponATime's point is an excellent one and worth bearing in mind. Since entering politics under her own banner, Hillary has been under more and closer scrutiny than pretty much any human being in on the planet that I can think of, save perhaps post-2008 Barack Obama. She is flawed. She has made mistakes. But if you take away the magnifying glass, and compare her to her peers and colleagues, they are really quite pedestrian and everyday.

They only look so huge because of a decades-long effort by her opponents, who have been trying to prevent her upcoming presidency by any means necessary ever since it became obvious that she was gunning for the Oval Office. When you criticize her, be careful that you are not unwittingly regurgitating a talking point generated during this decades-long smear campaign. No, she is not perfect, but that is a ridiculous standard by which to judge any person. Presidents, and presidential candidates, are still human after all.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:17 AM on August 14, 2016 [19 favorites]


Truth is stranger than fiction, and so far things have been quite strange, so I'd bet a bit of creative accounting isn't the worst of things in his tax return. In fact, rampant tin-foil hat conspiracy theories about what's on his tax returns might goad him into releasing them, just to prove he isn't being paid by the Clintons to run, or that he doesn't own property in Moscow and is being blackmailed by Putin, or that he actually has to pay other people to put his name on all things Trump, and the only thing he really knows how to do is spend more and more of daddies money to cover for his own mistakes.
posted by fragmede at 5:18 AM on August 14, 2016


[A few comments deleted. Let's not completely derail and jump directly into fighting with each other about the murder of the NYC Imam and friend, especially when we have almost no info yet.]
posted by taz at 5:25 AM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


We're not going to see Trump's tax returns for the same reason magicians don't reveal how their tricks are done. If he posts his returns, he'll have a much harder time pulling real estate and development cons in the future, and he'll have to face all the investors he's swindled in the past to explain himself. He can't afford to have that truth out there. Pay no attention to the tax returns behind the curtain!
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:30 AM on August 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


Piece on Politico on how the Tea Party was killed by canny PACs operating what were basically pyramid schemes - turns out that older, low-information people are natural marks for scamming. Well, who knew that, eh?

It also turns out that the 'Clinton Foundation only spent 10 percent of its money on doing what it claimed' is - guess what - yet more projection.
posted by Devonian at 5:39 AM on August 14, 2016 [26 favorites]


I'm sure the delay in Trump releasing his tax returns is based on his fear of us finding out he's been getting by on microdonations from Spy magazine this whole time.
posted by Sonny Jim at 5:46 AM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


One thing that bugs me about class inequality right now and the presidency is that every president since Bill Clinton has gone to either Harvard or Yale, or both. At least in the 60s, 70s & 80s, before inequality took off, there was some mixing it up (LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan).

I'm OBVIOUSLY still voting for Clinton even though she went to Yale, and I'm not singling her out, but this has been bugging me for a while. I mean, what are we, the UK where everyone in power has gone to either Oxford or Cambridge? It kind of sounds like I'm joking, but I do think it indicates a real problem.
posted by maggiemaggie at 6:06 AM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


> "... every president since Bill Clinton has gone to either Harvard or Yale, or both."

That's not actually a lot of presidents.
posted by kyrademon at 6:20 AM on August 14, 2016 [32 favorites]


I'm OBVIOUSLY still voting for Clinton even though she went to Yale

She went to Wellesley undergrad and then Yale Law, no?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:22 AM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Two great articles to read this morning:

How We Killed the Tea Party

Greedy PACs drained the movement with endless pleas for money to support “conservative” causes and candidates. I worked for one of them. But Tea Party ideas live on.
In a half decade, the spontaneous uprising that shook official Washington degenerated into a form of pyramid scheme that transferred tens of millions of dollars from rural, poorer Southerners and Midwesterners to bicoastal political operatives.

What began as an organic, policy-driven grass-roots movement was drained of its vitality and resources by national political action committees that dunned the movement’s true believers endlessly for money to support its candidates and causes. The PACs used that money first to enrich themselves and their vendors and then deployed most of the rest to search for more “prospects.” In Tea Party world, that meant mostly older, technologically unsavvy people willing to divulge personal information through “petitions”—which only made them prey to further attempts to lighten their wallets for what they believed was a good cause. While the solicitations continue, the audience has greatly diminished because of a lack of policy results and changing political winds.
It is what we have been saying about the Republican Party-- that their anti-fact, anti-science, anti-logic leanings make them vulnerable to pyramid schemes and MLM. And the Tea Party Patriots turned out to be easy prey.


Is Betsy McCaughey Too Perfect a Match for Donald Trump?
The candidate's new economic adviser is not above trashing her team to get ahead.
In his scramble to get some estrogen into the mix, Trump signed on Betsy McCaughey. A former lieutenant governor of New York, McCaughey (pronounced “McCoy”) is a veteran fixture among the conservative think-tank set. For decades, her specialty has been fighting against health-care reform—Hillarycare in the 1990s and Obamacare more recently. (She is the author of the book, Beating Obamacare.)

McCaughey’s fierce opposition to the ACA does not, of course, distinguish her from legions of other conservative wonks and activists. What does make her special, however, is McCaughey’s well-earned reputation—across the political spectrum—as one of the most dishonest, shameless, and irresponsible conservative thinkers on the scene today. Plus, she’s a famously narcissistic, self-promoting drama queen. In 2009, I wrote a long profile [link goes to New Republic] exploring some of the highlights, and lowlights, of McCaughey’s soap-operatic career. In many, many ways, she should make a glorious fit for Trump World—but not such a great choice for America.
She's a lying, back-stabbing narcissist. She and Trump will be a painfully perfect fit.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:26 AM on August 14, 2016 [19 favorites]


> "... every president since Bill Clinton has gone to either Harvard or Yale, or both."

Bush I also.
posted by octothorpe at 6:33 AM on August 14, 2016


She went to Wellesley undergrad and then Yale Law, no?

I'm including Yale Law, Harvard Law as part of the package. Obama went to Occidental, then Columbia, then Harvard Law.

It's not a lot of presidents, sure, but it's 24 years, so there are young people of voting who've never known a president not associated with Harvard or Yale.

So it doesn't bother anyone else, I guess. It just seems another indication of how deeply inequality has taken hold.
posted by maggiemaggie at 6:34 AM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


every president since Bill Clinton has gone to either Harvard or Yale, or both

Bill Clinton went to Georgetown on a scholarship and worked part-time jobs, got a Rhodes scholarship, and then had a scholarship to Yale Law. Hillary Clinton got a scholarship to Wellesley (where she was valedictorian of her graduating class) and got into Yale Law on merit at a time when admission to an Ivy League law school was an uncommon thing for women. Barack Obama got into Harvard Law on merit, not because of his family. The fact that the recent Democratic presidents and the next likely Democratic president went to elite schools isn't a mark against them, it's an indication that yes, in fact, ability and hard work will open doors for you (in contrast, the Republicans, party of "self-reliance", have had the two Bushes, who were legacies at Yale, McCain, who got into Annapolis because his father and grandfather were admirals, and Romney, whose father was a state governor and auto industry executive).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 6:34 AM on August 14, 2016 [125 favorites]


I brought this over from the previous thread in case you missed it like I did.

Jon Stewart gave Betsy McCaughey such an ass kicking on The Daily Show back in 2009 they put the entire extended interview up on their site: Part 1, Part 2

posted by PenDevil at 4:30 PM on August 11
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:36 AM on August 14, 2016 [25 favorites]


I see someone gave Donald his phone this morning.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:41 AM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


That narrative about the death of the Tea Party seems to perpetuate the myth that it was a "spontaneous, grassroots" effort rather than the intentional creation of the right-wing media and ultra-conservative plutocrats. The Tea Party was a con job from start to finish, and it's no surprise that as soon as it started to lose traction politically, it was sucked dry and spat out by the very forces that created it.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:43 AM on August 14, 2016 [40 favorites]


I see someone gave Donald his phone this morning.

Ha, was just posting the same thing. This and several more so far:

"If the disgusting and corrupt media covered me honestly and didn't put false meaning into the words I say, I would be beating Hillary by 20%"

Yeah, quoting you is so unfair.
posted by chris24 at 6:44 AM on August 14, 2016 [26 favorites]


I don't really buy that the Tea Party is no longer either a thing, either. Does Dave Brat not still stalk the earth? If any "moderate" Republucans still exist do they not quake in fear at being primaried by similar weirdos? and it's not like Trump isn't basically the same deal, right down to the scamminess.
posted by Artw at 6:50 AM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Jon Stewart gave Betsy McCaughey such an ass kicking on The Daily Show back in 2009 they put the entire extended interview up on their site: Part 1, Part 2

Jon Stewart being the only other person than Betsy McCaughey to read the ACA in its entirety.
posted by Talez at 6:53 AM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Fabulous theater journalist Carey Purcell discusses her time working at TRUMP magazine: "I Survived ‘Trump’ Magazine—Barely." [real]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:53 AM on August 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Devonian, that Jossey piece in Politico is fantastic, even it only confirms what anyone could see from outside.

Which sort of makes a side point though -- this sort of high level ideological grift certainly exists on the left and targets, similarly, elderly, less well educated, lower income demographics with similarly alarmist appeals dependent on similar lack of technological savvy or cultural capital. It's harder for those on the left to see or admit it, just like the Tea Party marks with their victimization. But anyone with an elderly liberal relative knows what I mean. And large liberal enterprises are fairly dependent on (for example) appeals through petition-generated leads. Many are similarly ineffectual and seemingly devoted to their own propagation rather than achievable policy goals.

It's a business model. And it corrupts politics by inducing cynicism even in the face of actual popular motivation to move the levers of power.
posted by spitbull at 6:53 AM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


ThePinkSuperhero: "Fabulous theater journalist Carey Purcell discusses her time working at TRUMP magazine: "I Survived ‘Trump’ Magazine—Barely." [real]"

I love the headline on the magazine on the left: "Bubble? What Bubble? Real Estate Tips From Trump U."
posted by octothorpe at 6:58 AM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Beating Hillary by 20%? Jesus. The biggest freaking landslide in recent memory was still just 8 or 9 points separated in the national popular vote. He is just so incredibly ignorant and arrogant, two things that I cannot abide when combined.
posted by xyzzy at 7:01 AM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm just suprised by the implication that he's not already beating her by 20%.
posted by Artw at 7:02 AM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't really buy that the Tea Party is no longer either a thing, either.

Yes, I was skeptical of that. And this line: "In a half decade, the spontaneous uprising that shook official Washington degenerated into a form of pyramid scheme" cracked me up. Half a decade...oh you mean five years?

But the bottom line is this
POLITICO last year reviewed the activity of 33 conservative PACs for the 2014 cycle. Combined, they raked in $43 million dollars, according to the POLITICO report. Of that, $39.5 million went to overhead including $6 million to entities owned by PAC operators; candidates got $3 million.
That's got to have a devastating effect on the election of Tea Partiers. Think if that money (most of it small, individual donations) was donated directly to the candidates the outcome of those elections might have been very different.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:05 AM on August 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


So it doesn't bother anyone else, I guess. It just seems another indication of how deeply inequality has taken hold.

Bullshit. Both the Clintons and Obama went to those schools as graduate students. There is a lot of inequality in undergraduate admissions but much less so in graduate admissions. If you do really well as an undergrad and are really smart you can get into a top grad program. Who your parents are and where you grew up matter a lot less. Ask me how I know.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:09 AM on August 14, 2016 [68 favorites]


Here's the key paragraph from that Trump Magazine article:
But by the end of 2005, the magazine had lost more than $3 million, according to Forbes. In typical Trump fashion, the mogul was still making money—he received a licensing fee of $120,000 per issue in 2005, raised to $135,000 per issue in 2006—even as Jacobson’s company, Premiere Publishing Group, sank deeper into the red.
posted by octothorpe at 7:12 AM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've gotten to the part where the electricity was turned off and the staff sat in a circle on the floor.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:15 AM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm just suprised by the implication that he's not already beating her by 20%.

Also apparently she's no longer Crooked. Though the implicit admission that he's losing is surprising for a doofus of this caliber.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:16 AM on August 14, 2016


Beating Hillary by 20%? Jesus. The biggest freaking landslide in recent memory was still just 8 or 9 points separated in the national popular vote. He is just so incredibly ignorant and arrogant, two things that I cannot abide when combined.

"Some people have come up to me and said, 'Mr Trump', they say, 'how could you be up in the polls by 20 if the biggest landslide in recent memory was just 8 or 9 points' and to that I say, the corrupt media. You see, people in the disgusting press have been calling me something called a demagogue. Now I don't understand these foreign Latin words that the corrupt media use and I looked it up. Now this is how stupid the corrupt media are. Demagogue literally means "popular leader". So they're calling me popular and a leader when they're trying to make me look bad! How stupid can you get?

So anyway, I decided to find out more about demagogues and you know what? When they even have elections for these people, some are just leaders by default because they're so great, they are often ahead in the polls by YUUUUUUUUUUGE amounts. And so, if I was a demagogue, like the corrupt media have been saying, then I should be ahead of Crooked Hillary by at LEAST twenty points! But I'm not! Because the corrupt media and their fancy foreign words that people don't actually know are making me look bad! And this is how elections are rigged people!

Now about that wall..."

[fake]
posted by Talez at 7:17 AM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I wasn't going to read to the end of this thread, but then some jerk sewed my eyelids open.
posted by angrycat at 7:24 AM on August 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


Bullshit... Ask me how I know.

Because you went to Harvard or Yale Law School and all your classmates had working class backgrounds?

sorry for this derail... I remain bothered generally but no one else seems to be so I'll back away
posted by maggiemaggie at 7:34 AM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


"If the disgusting and corrupt media covered me honestly and didn't put false meaning into the words I say, I would be beating Hillary by 20%"

What a depressing start to the day! Everyone involved in sending the zombie locomotive of the Trump campaign this far down the tracks will learn nothing from a loss, even a crushing landslide loss: they will instead wallow in their victim fantasies about the stab in the back from the media and the 'rigged' election.
posted by thelonius at 7:35 AM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Harvard or Yale Law School and all your classmates had working class background

Yeah, that's exactly what I said and clearly meant. C'mon
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:39 AM on August 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Perfect example. Trumps No-Tax Returns. Show us any. 2002, 2009, you name it. ANY.

Since it will inevitably shrink his hands and his - wherever - to be documented as not-that-rich and almost certainly guilty of fraud, it will never happen.

Spineless media? You can do this. Ask him about it. Every interview. Every. One. Money is his home. Go there.
posted by petebest at 7:42 AM on August 14, 2016 [19 favorites]


That narrative about the death of the Tea Party seems to perpetuate the myth that it was a "spontaneous, grassroots" effort

it was and it's been in progress for decades - i live in the midwest and it was all pretty familiar stuff to me
posted by pyramid termite at 7:43 AM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump told local PA TV we'll pay off national debt by an "energy revolution" when we "open the mines."

He knows where the unobtainium is buried! Everyone will get a home Mr. Fusion! All our soldiers will have adamantium skeletons! Robots will run on dilithium!
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:44 AM on August 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


That Tea Party article is illuminating. Although how different is it from the mainstream republican strategy since the sixties of using ginned up fear over social change in order to convince people to vote for economic policies that are effectively their own guillotine? The Tea Party PAC stuff is just lower dollar, and more obvious. That sort of graft is baked right into the modern Republican party.
posted by codacorolla at 7:49 AM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


(See Rick Perlstein's 'The Long Con.')
posted by box at 7:54 AM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Election season is like Black Friday for mass media. People pay attention to the news, and people in the news buy political ads promoting themselves. Trump is pretty famously not buying ads and relying on news production to get his message out, which does have an impact on the P&Ls of media corporations, and their executives realize that. But any coverage bias caused by that is a second-order effect at best.
posted by infinitewindow at 7:59 AM on August 14, 2016


Dad just sent me an email asking me to hang out with him on the campaign trail!
posted by Talez at 8:02 AM on August 14, 2016 [19 favorites]


He knows where the unobtainium is buried! Everyone will get a home Mr. Fusion! All our soldiers will have adamantium skeletons! Robots will run on dilithium!

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:15 AM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm relaxed about the Trump tax returns. The candidate is cooking himself nicely, and it's good to have something to turn up the heat with later, if there's any sign of sanity making some sort of appearance.
posted by Devonian at 8:21 AM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


BBC News: Can Republicans Really Dump Trump?

Outlines five ways this could play out.
posted by mochapickle at 8:26 AM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


That narrative about the death of the Tea Party seems to perpetuate the myth that it was a 'spontaneous, grassroots' effort

The spontaneous part was a black guy getting elected.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:29 AM on August 14, 2016 [33 favorites]


There are 8000 coal miners in Pennsylvania.
posted by OmieWise at 8:38 AM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


There are only a total of ~75k people employed at coal mines in the entire US.
posted by OmieWise at 8:40 AM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Counting Devo?
posted by kirkaracha at 8:44 AM on August 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


> What a depressing start to the day! Everyone involved in sending the zombie locomotive of the Trump campaign this far down the tracks will learn nothing from a loss, even a crushing landslide loss: they will instead wallow in their victim fantasies about the stab in the back from the media and the 'rigged' election.

May we always be blessed with stupid enemies.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:45 AM on August 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


> Bullshit. Both the Clintons and Obama went to those schools as graduate students. There is a lot of inequality in undergraduate admissions but much less so in graduate admissions. If you do really well as an undergrad and are really smart you can get into a top grad program. Who your parents are and where you grew up matter a lot less. Ask me how I know.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to sort the undergrads from the grad students on elite campuses. The undergrads are the ones with nice clothes and nice cars.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:47 AM on August 14, 2016 [30 favorites]


This story on where Trump gets his news bizarrely lumps in Snopes.com with Breitbart and Gateway Pundit, seemingly based on a complete misunderstanding of what kind of site it is-- "by its own admission traffics in urban legends". I wonder if the reporter who wrote that is too young to have been active on the web in the time when Snopes was the gold standard for rebutting bogus email forwards and scare stories.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:49 AM on August 14, 2016 [24 favorites]


Snopes do have that weird Meredith-Truther thing going on though.
posted by Artw at 8:52 AM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Also apparently she's no longer Crooked

Come to think of it - when he loses, he'll want to be friends with the president regardless of what he said the last year. Maybe that is why he has been campaigning against Obama rather than Clinton. The debates will be interesting.
posted by mumimor at 8:58 AM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Conservative Review has been looking over Trump's performance and prospects, with no very lively clarion of hope (it thinks his best bet is to go on vacation and refer all media queries to Clinton.s office),but I can't help quoting this morose wrap-up:

[...] That’s over 15 times more spending from Clinton and her allies. You can’t win an election against the Clinton’s on your charm and earned media.

The Trump campaign is running out of time to right the ship. The GOP is running out of options.

Time will tell what the next week brings. Spoiler alert, it’s not gonna change, even with the RNC and Team Trump huddling in Orlando over the next few days to talk strategy.

The Perseid meteor shower reached its peak this week. Can the sweet meteor of death be that far behind.

posted by Devonian at 9:12 AM on August 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


That's... really poetical.
posted by Artw at 9:16 AM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


One thing that bugs me about class inequality right now and the presidency is that every president since Bill Clinton has gone to either Harvard or Yale, or both. At least in the 60s, 70s & 80s, before inequality took off, there was some mixing it up (LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan).

If we are worried about diversity of alma maters, I'm fairly certain Clinton will be the first president to have attended Wellesley.

I'm not sure this is directly related to inequality. There have been lots of times in this country's history when income inequality was far worse but presidents came from plenty of different schools. Was Reagan better for having attended Eureka College? I kind of see the point in terms of finding politicians with a diversity of viewpoints, but I think you'll need to explain more about why this is bad on economic grounds. Is your point that it's inherently bad for politicians to be associated with expensive private schools, or that it's bad for them to be associated with the same few schools? Or, perhaps, that they all seem to have come from either business or law school? Would it be equally bad if the next president had a PhD in, say, neuroscience from Harvard? What specifically about their association with those two schools bothers you?
posted by one_bean at 9:27 AM on August 14, 2016 [19 favorites]


Make Cardassia Great Again!

"There was a time when the mere mention of my race inspired fear. And now, we're a beaten people, afraid to fight back because we don't wanna lose what little is left."

"Bad manners are the fault of the parent, not the child. My weakness is, I'm too generous, too forgiving. My heart is too big... "

"A good interrogator doesn't allow his subject to die; you lose the advantage."

"A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness."
posted by Servo5678 at 9:27 AM on August 14, 2016 [19 favorites]


Harvard and Yale law are kind of where you go if you're interested in public service/governance. It's like being shocked that most roboticists have PhDs from CMU and MIT. Lots of universities have computer science departments, but everyone knows where you set your sights if you want to build self-driving cars for Uber.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:38 AM on August 14, 2016 [38 favorites]


When they all get turned away from entering the polling site for going against the rules on electioneering too close to a poll site

Those rules aren't consistent everywhere. I was surprised, when living in NH and ME, that not only can you do visibility right at the polls, but the candidates themselves can stand there and shake hands. So it'd be a good idea for everyone, regardless of affiliation, to brush up on local law.

The constraint that the paid speaker system imposes is less about specific quid-pro-quos, and more about a soft suasion that limits the field of statements and acts that are admissible in public among people who wish to remain influential in public.

Again, speaking as a speaker booker, this concern is really overblown, especially when stated in such dire terms. Speaking engagements are indeed a quid pro quo, but rarely is anything even slightly controversial or newsmaking said, and rarely are the speeches worthy of revisiting and rereading, let alone speeches that subtly shift the walls of power or any such thing. When people want to make challenging statements in public, they generally do so on their own dime; when their presence is being leveraged for profile or profit, they tend to stay within the general bounds of the content the hiring organization has requested (free trade, commencement remarks, global health, whatever the subject matter), but you can't draw any direct line between their tailoring remarks for context and crowd and any subtle limitation of speech elsewhere in their lives - in fact, such less-fettered speech and visibility is exactly what makes them valuable. Rarely is there anything new, newsworthy, or secret in these kinds of speeches. Frankly, they're often so platitudinous as to be boring. These attempts to create a cabal out of some women's business luncheon speeches are just shaded a little too much with this kind of unsupported nuance.

Carter seemed to think that work on human rights could be best done in the private sector

Point of clarification, Carter actually works mainly in the voluntary or nonprofit sector (sometimes called the third sector), not the private sector, which denotes for-profit businesses.

Because you went to Harvard or Yale Law School and all your classmates had working class backgrounds?


I just graduated from a Harvard (though non-Law) graduate program in which I took courses in 3 of the schools, and I can attest that it's far more economically diverse than its general reputation, and certainly than the (relatively small by comparison to its 16 graduate and professional programs) undergraduate school. Also, there's an aura in critiquing this of punishing success that I don't cotton to. These schools are aspirational - they are concentrators of talent, and if you are an Obama or a Rodham Clinton or anyone else looking to break ceilings and get into the most powerful and well-educated circles in the political scene, then this is where you want to go. it's not an accident that they went there, or a reflection of unthinking privilege: it's an expression of their individual determination to challenge themselves at the highest levels available to any student and to develop extensive and respected networks, by leveraging whatever advantages of happenstance, talent, person and privilege they had. These schools are full of people like that. Yes, only the fortunate few who dream of doing that get to actually do it, but it should never surprise or disappoint us that some of the most ambitious, determined, and talented Americans aim to go to schools like that, and some of them pull it off, and despite the monetary worth those degrees reliably confer in the private sector still choose to enter public service.
posted by Miko at 9:47 AM on August 14, 2016 [82 favorites]


For anyone not following Twitter right now, trump is having an epic level meltdown about the NYT article. Someone gave him back his phone, and he's posting every 10 minutes about how much he hates the media.
posted by codacorolla at 9:56 AM on August 14, 2016 [13 favorites]




Which NYT article set Donny off?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:01 AM on August 14, 2016


We have no idea what Trump's done.

We do to some degree, mainly thanks to all the times he's been sued, but perhaps it's difficult to turn that into a clear account because of the parallel reality-show narrative. We know that after the casino bankruptcies he's mostly dropped out of property development, other than leasing the Trump name to projects built by other developers with other people's money. We know that American banks won't do business with him. We know he routinely stiffs the people he hires. We know that America's Most Famous Actual Billionaires think he's a bullshit artist.

The spontaneous part was a black guy getting elected.

To be fair, it was also a spontaneous desire to blame minorities for the 2008 crash, then spontaneously show up at town hall events with AR-15s during the summer of 2009.

Someone gave him back his phone, and he's posting every 10 minutes about how much he hates the media.

"Did you lock the desk drawer, Meredith?"
"He must have a spare key!"
posted by holgate at 10:02 AM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Which NYT article set Donny off?

I believe it's Inside the Failing Mission to Tame Donald Trump’s Tongue.
posted by box at 10:05 AM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


I believe it's Inside the Failing Mission to Tame Donald Trump’s Tongue.

Which was previously titled "Inside the Failing Mission to Save Donald Trump From Himself".
posted by cashman at 10:08 AM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Donald Trump blasts NY Times after story about 'sputtering' campaign

CNN reporting on Trump's freakout about the NYTimes.
posted by readery at 10:08 AM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


The article that trump is railing against is [NYT] Inside the Failing Mission to Tame Donald Trump’s Tongue from the Sunday edition of the paper. It's partially sourced from anonymous people inside the campaign itself, but also direct quotes from top level officials like Rove. Regardless, it seems more than plausible given what we know. It paints a picture of trump as seriously unhinged, unable to either manage or take management, and with absolutely no political sense beyond capturing headlines with populist posturing. Like his idea to campaign heavily Oregon.

It focuses on several efforts, including the much publicized meeting this past Friday, to get the campaign back on track, and the utter failure of those efforts to take hold.
posted by codacorolla at 10:09 AM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


WaPo has an article from yesterday evening on some Millennials and this election.
posted by cashman at 12:57 PM on 8/14
[1 favorite +] [!]


Some young people said they are so uninspired that they’re just going to sit this one out.


Whaaaat? Unprecedented!
(My monocle pops out and lands in my pea soup)
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:11 AM on August 14, 2016 [39 favorites]


Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
It is not "freedom of the press" when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!

posted by TWinbrook8 at 10:12 AM on August 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


I find that while I'm still concerned with the possibility of a Trump presidency, I'm currently more concerned with the possibility of his campaign failing before September 1, with all the legal and political fallout that entails.

He strikes me as the sort of person that would want to watch the house burn if he were evicted.
posted by Mooski at 10:12 AM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


So I already encountered a couple weeks ago someone who thinks that any article that uses an anonymous source means it's literally completely fabricated. Which Trump also seems to believe (though he of course has an interest in claiming this in this circumstance). Is this actually a thing, people not understanding how journalists vet and report on sources?
posted by soren_lorensen at 10:14 AM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


He could take a page from Thiel and sue, that would be fun.
posted by Artw at 10:16 AM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


It is not "freedom of the press" when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!

[Real, by the way]. He should've taken Mr. Khan up on his offer for a free Constitution back at the start of the month.
posted by codacorolla at 10:19 AM on August 14, 2016 [25 favorites]


Geez, Donny, the NYT is just saying what everybody is thinking.
posted by phooky at 10:20 AM on August 14, 2016 [36 favorites]




He could take a page from Thiel and sue, that would be fun.

I suspect that will come right after he loses. He'll sue every media outlet and network, the DNC, Clinton, and probably even the RNC, just to round-out the victimization play.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:21 AM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]



He could take a page from Thiel and sue, that would be fun.


I'm outright expecting this to happen sooner rather than later. It'll be a matter of pre- or post-election.....
posted by splen at 10:22 AM on August 14, 2016


I suspect that will come right after he loses. He'll sue every media outlet and network, the DNC, Clinton, and probably even the RNC, just to round-out the victimization play.

I'm looking forward to see those suits shake out after he's threatened the courts, both political parties, and the very institution of American Democracy itself.
posted by codacorolla at 10:22 AM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh, I have no doubt he'll round on Republicans hardest of all, TBH.
posted by Artw at 10:23 AM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


@realdonaldtrump many people are saying you’re not.

I love how down the chain a bit someone with an angry Wojak avatar asks him if he's here legally.

That really encapsulates the entire Trump campaign.
posted by Talez at 10:24 AM on August 14, 2016


Anyone know the numbers of people that are showing up at his rallies? All I remember reading about were issues with smaller venues and mentions of the holding a few thousand. Curious for two reasons, one Trump again in this series of tweet mentions big numbers and two I've had a couple of people tell me he is regularly getting tens of thousands. He's getting much more then Obama apparently.
posted by Jalliah at 10:26 AM on August 14, 2016


The article that trump is railing against is [NYT] Inside the Failing Mission to Tame Donald Trump’s Tongue

So, just to confirm, Trump is having a very public tantrum about an article which details the difficulty that campaign and party insiders are having in trying to keep him from having very public tantrums?

Because that is for reals the Trumpiest thing in the history of ever.
posted by dersins at 10:27 AM on August 14, 2016 [106 favorites]


Is this actually a thing, people not understanding how journalists vet and report on sources?

Perhaps. But from this journalist's perspective, the heart of the shame of unnamed sources is all the times they have been used to allow political operators to slam their opponents - or tip national debates - without any chance of consequences that would normally attached to named quotes. The New York Times quite specifically has had a problem with this, not starting with Judith Miller, and not ending with her either.

(This does not mean that I think the article Trump criticizes is incorrect or unfair, as I do not know about its particulars.)
posted by Andrew Galarneau at 10:28 AM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


He's getting much more then Obama apparently.

No he's not. In fact, twice in the last couple weeks Breitbart was busted showing Cleveland Cavalier celebration crowds as his.
posted by chris24 at 10:28 AM on August 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


Geez, Donny, the NYT is just saying what everybody is thinking.

Many people are saying. All the smartest people. Believe me, folks, this is what people are saying. I don't know, you decide.
posted by ctmf at 10:29 AM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Someone mentioned that this is the first job for which Donald Trump has applied. I don't know that that's literally true, but it explains a lot. He's the kind of guy that HR has to tell security about.
posted by Countess Elena at 10:30 AM on August 14, 2016 [49 favorites]


Whenever he starts tweeting like this I imagine people at desks going 'Omg he's doing it again someone get to his phone!' and frantic tweets and phonecalls being made. Then I imagine a huddle of people trying to decide who is going to go try to get it this time and several rounds of stressed out rock, paper scissors being played.
posted by Jalliah at 10:32 AM on August 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


>It is not "freedom of the press" when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!

He could take a page from Thiel and sue, that would be fun.


He's actually touched on that before; back in February of 2016, he was talking about 'opening up' libel laws. In March, the Washington Post asked him about that in a meeting with their editorial board:
RYAN: My question is not so much why you feel they should be open but how. What presidential powers and executive actions would you take to open up the libel laws?

TRUMP: Okay, look, I’ve had stories written about me – by your newspaper and by others – that are so false, that are written with such hatred – I’m not a bad person. I’m just doing my thing – I’m, you know, running, I want to do something that’s good. It’s not an easy thing to do. I had a nice life until I did this, you know. This is a very difficult thing to do. In fact I’ve always heard that if you’re a very successful person you can’t run for office. And I can understand that. You’ll do a hundred deals, and you’ll do one bad one or two bad ones — that’s all they read about are the bad ones. They don’t read about the one hundred and fifty great ones that you had. And even some of the ones they write that are good, they make them sound bad. You know, so I’ve always heard that. I’ve heard that if you’re successful – very successful – you just can’t run for—

RYAN: But how would you fix that? You’ve said that you would open up the libel laws.

TRUMP: What I would do, what I would do is I’d – well right now the libel laws, I mean I must tell you that the Hulk Hogan thing was a tremendous shock to me because – not only the amount and the fact that he had the victory — because for the most part I think libel laws almost don’t exist in this country, you know, based on, based on everything I’ve seen and watched and everything else, and I just think that if a paper writes something wrong — media, when I say paper I’m talking about media. I think that they can do a retraction if they’re wrong. They should at least try to get it right. And if they don’t do a retraction, they should, they should you know have a form of a trial. I don’t want to impede free press, by the way. The last thing I would want to do is that. But I mean I can only speak for – I probably get more – do I, I mean, you would know, do I get more publicity than any human being on the earth? Okay? I mean, [Editor’s note: Trump points at Ruth Marcus] she kills me, this one – that’s okay, nice woman.

RYAN: Would you expand, for example, prior restraints against publications?


TRUMP: No, I would just say this. All I want is fairness. So unfair. I have stories and you have no recourse, you have no recourse whatsoever because the laws are really impotent.

MARCUS: So in a better world would you be able to sue me?


TRUMP: In a better world — no — in a better world I would be able to get a retraction or a correction. Not even a retraction, a correction.

RYAN: Well, now, you’ve been a plaintiff in libel suits so you know a little bit of the elements …

TRUMP: I had one basic big libel suit, it was a very bad system, it was New Jersey. I had a great judge, the first one, and I was going to win it. And then I had another good judge, the second one, and then they kept switching judges. And the third one was a bad judge. That’s what happened. But, uh…

RYAN: But there’s standards like malice is required. Would you weaken that? Would you require less than malice for news organizations?

TRUMP: I would make it so that when someone writes incorrectly, yeah, I think I would get a little bit away from malice without having to get too totally away. Look, I think many of the stories about me are written badly. I don’t know if it’s malice because the people don’t know me. When Charles writes about me or when Ruth writes about me, you know, we’ve never really met. And I get these stories and they’re so angry and I actually say, I actually say, “How could they write?” – and many stories I must tell you, many stories are written that with a brief phone call could be corrected before they’re written. Nobody calls me.

STEPHEN STROMBERG, EDITORIAL WRITER: How are you defining “incorrect?” It seems like you’re defining it as fairness or your view of fairness rather than accuracy.

TRUMP: Fairness, fairness is, you know, part of the word. But you know, I’ve had stories that are written that are absolutely incorrect. I’ll tell you now and the word “intent”, as you know, is an important word, as you know, in libel. I’ll give you an example.
At which point he pivots to talking about something that's not really an example, and the conversation segues into a long aside about whether or not he condones violence at his rallies, during which he can't remember which incidents of violence happened in which cities, or at which rallies, but nonetheless blames the media for 'getting it wrong.'

He's been consistent, for months, in saying that the media should be held accountable, and is 'unfair,' and libel laws 'should change.' But when pressed (as here) about what exactly should change -- what the actual recourse should be -- he never offers specifics and yet still manages to contradict himself in his generalities. It would be amazing if it wasn't so horrifying.

It's also unclear what he means by 'incorrect' and 'fairness,' which is interesting to read now, in this March interview, given his current prevarication on what 'founded' means.
posted by cjelli at 10:33 AM on August 14, 2016 [31 favorites]




No he's not. In fact, twice in the last couple weeks Breitbart was busted showing Cleveland Cavalier celebration crowds as his.


Oops should have made it clear that's what these people are telling me. I know there is no way he's getting Obama numbers. Just wondering if anyone has read any reports (that can be trusted) of his actual numbers because beyond the whole fire marshall episode which talked about numbers I have no clue.
posted by Jalliah at 10:35 AM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


> *world's biggest eyeroll*
These Millennials need to grow the fuck up.
posted by Monochrome at 10:36 AM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


These Millennials need to grow the fuck up.

I got a 3rd of the way through it before I was convinced it wasn't satire. And even then, I figured it had to be somehow, some way.
posted by cashman at 10:41 AM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Every time he's asked what actions he would do, he's like a kid doing a book report who hasn't read the book.

It's like he thinks seven-year-olds are his base. We'll make a wall! And we won't have to pay for it! And we'll beat up that bully, yeah! And ride around on rockets! Ice cream whenever we want! And no more cleaning our rooms, or going to school, ever!
posted by ctmf at 10:42 AM on August 14, 2016 [25 favorites]


Does... does Trump not get that it's not libel if it's true?
posted by lovecrafty at 10:43 AM on August 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


does Trump not get that it's not libel if it's true?

He just has a different definition of true. Truth is what he wants it to be.
posted by chris24 at 10:45 AM on August 14, 2016 [25 favorites]


Maybe this WaPo one will distract him from the NYT one:

Donald Trump blames the media for his own failure to run a general election campaign.
posted by box at 10:46 AM on August 14, 2016 [14 favorites]




Does... does Trump not get that it's not libel if it's true?

Probably. Thing is I'm pretty sure that in his mind he actually believes what people write about him is not true. I think he knowingly and consciously lies part of the time and the rest of the time he either can't recall exactly what he says or his mind just makes up it's own 'truth' based on what he thinks he said or based on what he is thinking in the moment.
posted by Jalliah at 10:49 AM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Anonymous sources are problematical, and any news organisation in long trousers will have strict rules about when and how they can be used - as the CNN report says, the NYT requires the reporter shares the identity of the source with the editor (which is how I've always worked, both as reporter and editor, for good and obvious reasons).

But they are often the only way to get a story; people face severe sanctions for talking to reporters, especially where non-disclosure agreements are involved. I don't know what the law's like in the US, but in the UK we were trained that we can't legally print information that would break an NDA, which... well, it depends on a case by case basis how you choose to follow that. I've had many occasions where 'off the record' anonymous tip-offs were useful for pointing me in the right direction and equipping me to ask the right questions on the record, rather than run with the initial information received. While a story's developing, a reporter will frequently know more than they're printing: you know but cannot prove that the bastard's taking kickbacks, because someone has quietly pointed you to a deal that on the face of it makes no sense, so you set about assembling the public evidence that builds the case.

In this case, I don't doubt - and doubt that anyone else doubts - that the NYT piece on Trump's campagin woes is accurate, and that Trump's outrage is not due to the NYT making things up or being misled. Trump could easily make his case by saying that his campaign team are now free to talk to the press, or releasing minutes from meetings, or any one of a load of other ways to present evidence that the NYT is, indeed, garbage.

But he doesn't.

Go figure.
posted by Devonian at 10:50 AM on August 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


Maybe this WaPo one will distract him from the NYT one:

Donald Trump blames the media for his own failure to run a general election campaign.


Oh dear. He is not going to be a happy camper today. Wowza.
posted by Jalliah at 10:52 AM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


My take is that the primary truth in Trump's world is that he is the greatest person. Therefore any article which fails to uphold this truth is automatically a lie and a smear, even if it is completely factual.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 10:53 AM on August 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


I really am enjoying the bluntness of media responses like that after the utter failure to call him on anything during the primaries. I really did think they were going to softball him till the end.
posted by Artw at 10:55 AM on August 14, 2016 [30 favorites]


Kind of hoping that thing where blatant lies get called out in chirons sticks around.
posted by Artw at 10:56 AM on August 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


Maybe this WaPo one will distract him from the NYT one:

Donald Trump blames the media for his own failure to run a general election campaign.


And they were so close to getting their credentials back after being nice.
posted by Talez at 10:57 AM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


BTW, finally got my Clinton Kaine '16 shirt yesterday. I've been wearing it since, except for when my 4 year old pitched a fit because I didn't get him one too and he demanded to wear it. NB: it's an XL. It did not fit him.
posted by OmieWise at 10:57 AM on August 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


Some young people said they are so uninspired that they’re just going to sit this one out.

Whaaaat? Unprecedented!
(My monocle pops out and lands in my pea soup)


Another example of the shitty state of journalism. Like young people haven't been exactly like this forever. But it's a pet peeve of mine that people just can't say they're not interested or don't know much about politics (or any subject), they have to make up some excuse about how the whole system is so corrupt and they're so far above it all.

The world has plenty of ignorance, we don't need to treat it like a legitimate position. That story is like Tea Party pt. 2.
posted by bongo_x at 10:59 AM on August 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


Though a few people voiced admiration for Clinton, most talked about both her and Trump in searing, caustic words: Super villain. Evil. Chameleon. Racist. Criminal. Egomaniac. Narcissist. Sociopath. Liar. Lying cutthroat. Panderer. Word salad. Willy-nilly. Douche. Joker. Troll. Oompa Loompa. Sad. Absurd. Horrifying. Dishonest. Disgusting. Dangerous. Disaster.

Hmm.

I'm sort of guessing here, but most of this doesn't seem to be about Clinton.
posted by Artw at 11:03 AM on August 14, 2016 [27 favorites]


Donald Trump blasts NY Times after story about 'sputtering' campaign

Quote from Trump's "Senior Communications Advisor" in the story:
Mr. Trump is effectively delivering messages...while Hillary Clinton takes in-campaign vacations.
WTF is that about? Is it connected to Trump's shocking discovery that she sleeps?
posted by PlusDistance at 11:08 AM on August 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


It is not "freedom of the press" when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!

Aww, Donnie. That is exactly what "freedom of the press" is. It may not be what you think freedom of the press should be. The maintream media, just like J. Random Blogger, is permitted to shout at the top of their digital voices, "DONALD J TRUMP SUCKS." They're allowed to report only the details that support their claims and ignore the others. And, as you've noticed, you're allowed to deny them the special bonuses that a "press pass" card gets, if you don't like their coverage.

If you think that what they wrote is "completely false," I'm sure you can afford a libel suit. Election coverage is touchy stuff and everyone knows it's prone to bias; a mere handful of inaccurate details with an obviously slanted article would be a great foundation for a libel suit.

So, c'mon Donnie... which facts are wrong? You don't even have to tell us... tell the lawyer, tell the judge; file it as confidential documents for the court, and get that legal ball rolling.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:10 AM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


WTF is that about? Is it connected to Trump's shocking discovery that she sleeps?

Maybe he doesn't understand that taking side trips to local points of interest and drinking the local microbrew is all part of campaigning. It's not just about the rallies, Donald!
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 11:11 AM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Guys, he uses lawsuits as a bully tactic. He's not going to sue anyone or any entity that has the resources to stand up to him.

But he is going to keep to dialing up the incitements to violence and assassination, because that's what gets him applause and attention.

It's going to be a dangerous year.
posted by schadenfrau at 11:12 AM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


I guess "when your opponent is beating himself, keep your mouth shut" could be considered a surprise vacation if it lasts long enough.
posted by ctmf at 11:12 AM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


What would happen if Trump won? We simulated a Donald Trump presidency in Supreme Ruler.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 11:13 AM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


To be clear, the person I encountered saying anonymous source= fabricated wasn't expressing hesitance about the use of unnamed sources in journalism but rather basically was treating anonymous source as the gold fringe on a flag. If those magic words are used, that's how you know it's all fabricated, it's a code.
posted by soren_lorensen at 11:14 AM on August 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


Though a few people voiced admiration for Clinton, most talked about both her and Trump in searing, caustic words: Super villain. Evil. Chameleon. Racist. Criminal. Egomaniac. Narcissist. Sociopath. Liar. Lying cutthroat. Panderer. Word salad. Willy-nilly. Douche. Joker. Troll. Oompa Loompa. Sad. Absurd. Horrifying. Dishonest. Disgusting. Dangerous. Disaster.

There was a lot of false-equivalence reporting in that story, but none that bothered me as much as this truly awful example.

Their own reporting was in fact internally inconsistent: while they wanted to write a story about millennials being torn between two equal evils, the polling they reported within that article proved their own story wrong.

But yeah, if you want to be a 'responsible' reporter go ahead and write the above paragraph like it's just a toin coss!
posted by Dashy at 11:14 AM on August 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


But yeah, if you want to be a 'responsible' reporter go ahead and write the above paragraph like it's just a coin coss!

This is what's so funny about Donald's War On The Press, tbh. If he'd just ignore them, they'd happily give him a full campaign's worth of Both Sides Are The Same reporting. But once you start attacking the press directly and throwing them out of your rallies, that's when they'll actually turn on you.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 11:20 AM on August 14, 2016 [39 favorites]


Back during the 2008 primaries, I feared that if Obama became the nominee/president, his life would be in far more danger than previous nominees/presidents. It never occurred to me to fear for Clinton's life during that time. After the past few weeks of Donald & the Trumpeteers, I'm fearing for her in a way I never did for Obama.
posted by tzikeh at 11:23 AM on August 14, 2016 [34 favorites]


I am endlessly entertained at how Trump keeps telling people at his rallies that their lives suck.

Dude, they're already in bed with you; you can stop with the negging already.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:24 AM on August 14, 2016 [34 favorites]


Dude, they're already in bed with you; you can stop with the negging already.

It's right out of the abuse playbook. You're fucking worthless, you're lucky I stay with you. You'll never find anyone else who will put up with taking care of you.
posted by ctmf at 11:28 AM on August 14, 2016 [75 favorites]


Crooked Hillary Clinton is being protected by the media. She is not a talented person or politician. The dishonest media refuses to expose!

I'm going to take that as meaning "she is not a talented politician", not that he is claiming that she is not a politician. But even so! The reality of this whole disaster is sinking in for me. The man genuinely believes this, he's ensconced in like an alternate, talk-radio reality and is using his soapbox to promulgate the delusion that the media run by actual journalists is corrupt because they don't parrot these fantasies. That is kind of dangerous.
posted by thelonius at 11:28 AM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Maybe he doesn't understand that taking side trips to local points of interest and drinking the local microbrew is all part of campaigning.

It's almost as if Clinton and Kaine have run successful election campaigns before. There's a hint of the Black Knight there: the other side is doing perfectly conventional August campaigning -- opening field offices, getting good local press, doing smaller events that help recruit volunteers and show the campaign's gratitude for those already signed up for the long haul. But Trump wants a rally-measuring-contest, and it's killing him that he's not getting one.
posted by holgate at 11:30 AM on August 14, 2016 [28 favorites]


I am endlessly entertained at how Trump keeps telling people at his rallies that their lives suck

I'm not sure that's what he means when he says things like "you're doing terribly here," -- more like "your lives are bad because Obama so vote for me."
posted by tzikeh at 11:33 AM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Regarding Harvard and Yale law schools and meritocracy, I think there are at least two critiques at work, and both accept that these programs are actually some of the most meritocratic institutions in America. The first critique is that, relatively meritocratic as they may be, it's still the case that it is vastly harder to get in with a poor upbringing and poor high school education; while the entering classes may be far more diverse than Yale undergraduate, they are still far, far less diverse than America as a whole.

The second critique is that, even if they were perfectly meritocratic (whatever that may mean), the bottleneck effect is still real. Here is a brief discussion of law school ideology on 538. Glancing at it, it would appear that Harvard and Yale are toward the left of the distribution, so perhaps those of us complaining from the left shouldn't. But apart from whether conservatives are justified in lamenting the biases of these two overwhelmingly dominant schools, it is still the case that law, perhaps unlike electoral politics, is inherently much higher-dimensional, with many many dimensions and issue areas that actually make unidimensional Martin-Quinn ideological scores problematic both theoretically and methodologically. Yet schools do educate: they take the woolly mixed-up beliefs of entering students and train them in not just the "law" (whatever that is), but also in all the meta-law associated with how it works and should work. The distributions of Harvard and Yale are strikingly bimodal, while many of the other schools are strikingly unimodal. Yet I'm sure the students do not enter the programs that way. They enter with a much wider range of beliefs, norms and understandings, and leave with a much more coordinated, elite, politicized (in the sense of synced with existing political divisions) set of views. And even if one accepts that this is a necessary condition for education -- perhaps even the definition of education -- it is still the case that there are many possible ways to coordinate, and Harvard and Yale practice very specific types. Diversity diminishes and is aligned with established politics. There are a lot of ways of thinking about law (as any examination of any non-US legal system will show), and even more ways of thinking about justice. These schools have specific ways of doing it that are in turn deeply tied to elite legal thinking, but that's still a limitation. And if one is in favor of radical legal and political change, the bottleneck provided by these schools is a problem, even if one believed they were utterly meritocratic.

(And as a follow-up note, I realized halfway through writing the above that this is kind of an odd thing to find myself arguing here, since in this forum stuffed with those in and near academia, it's common to hear people complaining about the dominance of X or Y elite graduate program in field Z, where the complaint is not that X or Y aren't meritocratic, but that they train up their graduate students to approach the research questions in field Z in a specific way that prevents all sorts of alternative avenues of exploration. This is a very common complaint in academia, but it's no different in law than for other school/paradigm dominances in the sciences or humanities. The main differences is that in law, Harvard and Yale seem even more dominant that in most other branches of academia, and probably more so for down-stream careers than even the most committed meritocrat could explain via the pure merit of their graduates.)
posted by chortly at 11:34 AM on August 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


> TRUMP: Okay, look, I’ve had stories written about me – by your newspaper and by others – that are so false, that are written with such hatred – I’m not a bad person. I’m just doing my thing – I’m, you know, running, I want to do something that’s good.

He's one of those people who believes that intent outweighs everything else. His own intentions, at least - he certainly doesn't seem to care about the good intentions of other people. No one should talk about the negative outcomes of his intentions because hey, he's a good guy, he's trying to do good things!
posted by rtha at 11:39 AM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]




@sepinwall Trump once tried to get me to retract an opinion column about Celebrity Apprentice.

There's probably someone out there who wasn't moved by Trump's attacks on Muslims, Mexicans, Gold Star parents, women, POWs, and hell even GOP leadership, but will take offense to this attack on America's favorite TV recapper.
posted by acidic at 12:00 PM on August 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


The twisting they do before that to get out of asking for a specific retraction is hilarious. They just want it clear that this is a vague and I actionable threat, not a specific and legal one.
posted by Artw at 12:07 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]




But was Pence being sarcastic?
posted by dis_integration at 12:23 PM on August 14, 2016 [28 favorites]


"I think he was being very serious," Pence said. "He was making a point that needs to be made, that there is no question that the failed policies of President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in the wider Middle East, created a vacuum within Iraq in which ISIS was able to arise."

Pence said Trump was making a "serious point" to call attention to the issue.

"Donald Trump has a way of talking to get people's attention, and it's drawn attention to a very important issue," Pence said


So he was serious, but actually "making a point", so presumably don't take him too seriously.
posted by Artw at 12:25 PM on August 14, 2016


It is not "freedom of the press" when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!

This from a guy who cited a story from the National Enquirer in an attack on his rival.

Sometimes I think that this is all a piece of performance art that got out of hand.
posted by nubs at 12:25 PM on August 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


Unsure if the use of the VP as proxy means people with "making a point to draw attention" get to cross that one off their Trumo as Dumb Internet Troll Bingo card.
posted by Artw at 12:27 PM on August 14, 2016


Mr. Trump is effectively delivering messages...while Hillary Clinton takes in-campaign vacations.

WTF is that about? Is it connected to Trump's shocking discovery that she sleeps?


It sounds like when my wife and I say everything we do without our two young boys in tow are a date. Grocery shopping as a "lone" couple? A date! Picking up some paint to repaint the bathroom? A date!

In that vein, every time HRC sleeps? Vacation! Turns off the TV and puts her phone(s) on silent for a 15 minute break from everything? Vacation!
posted by filthy light thief at 12:29 PM on August 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


Oh Christ, now every comment from Trump or Pence is going to be followed up with, "are you being sarcastic or not" and then we'll have to parse them like those logic puzzles that Martin Gardner used to run in the back of Scientific American...

...where there's a village full of liars and another village full of truth-tellers and a third village where they alternate between lying and truth-telling, and you can only ask one question, and and and...
posted by notsnot at 12:29 PM on August 14, 2016 [24 favorites]


Sometimes I think that this is all a piece of performance art that got out of hand.

Well, I think we've all been there. This game is getting boring and tedious following the conventional strategy, I'm going to make up some arbitrary rule strategy. What if I play Civilization without ever attacking anyone? What if my character had zero intelligence? What if I always raise the pot no matter what? Like I said before, it's a Jon Bois bit.

The thing is, nobody doing that expects to win.
posted by ctmf at 12:33 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Pence: Trump was being "serious" about Obama and ISIS.

From that, Pence:
"I think he was being very serious," Pence said. "He was making a point that needs to be made, that there is no question that the failed policies of President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in the wider Middle East, created a vacuum within Iraq in which ISIS was able to arise."
And yet, earlier this week:
Mr. Hewitt asked Mr. Trump if he meant to say that Mr. Obama indirectly created ISIS by creating a power vacuum in Iraq when he pulled most troops from the country.

“No,” Mr. Trump replied. “I meant he’s the founder of ISIS."
He was literally asked point-blank, explicitly, if that was the thing he meant, and he said no. The 'what he REALLY MEANT' spin is something he's already on record as clarifying wasn't what he meant. I mean, if that was what he meant, and he wasn't sarcastic -- because he 'was being very serious' -- then why would he say that wasn't what he meant? It just doesn't make sense.

So far we've had:
- He meant exactly what he said and he was serious (Trump)
- He was sarcastic and didn't mean what he said (Trump)
- But maybe only a little sarcastic and partly serious (Trump)
- No, actually, he wasn't sarcastic, but he meant something else (Pence)

That's leaving aside all the prevarications from other campaign surrogates. The mind boggles.
posted by cjelli at 12:34 PM on August 14, 2016 [35 favorites]


We're now playing Election Legacy Edition, where the rules change during each round of play.
posted by parki at 12:34 PM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]




Another "up yours, NPR" story explores the mystery of Why Are The Media Obsessed With Trump's Controversies And Not Clinton's?, a question raised by such other fine organizations like the Media Research Center ("The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias") and the Washington Examiner.

Hmmm?

Apparently it's not because one of them is a typical politician with a standard amount of closet skeletons and one is a walking personification of Three Mile Island. Instead, Trump is just so darn wacky. So while Hillary's emails "underscore existing concerns about Clinton's ethics and transparency," Trump is "a riveting figure of ongoing fascination" who "says and does things that are different, that stand out, that surprise and even alter the landscape."

Never mind what exactly he is saying and doing that's getting mainstream media so het up. Why, no one picked up the story of the lawsuit against Hillary filed on behalf of the Benghazi soldier's mother because everyone was so focused on that whole "suggesting the assassination of a political rival" kerfuffle.

This story, along with yesterday's story about Trump's call to "watch" polling places, which ended with a reminder that liberals also use voter intimidation because look at the Black Panthers, has been making me wonder what the fuck happened to NPR? I don't remember them being so fond of mealy-mouthed false equivalence in past elections, especially when compared to the more mainstream news organizations.
posted by bibliowench at 12:42 PM on August 14, 2016 [34 favorites]


After the whole defund public radio and tv push a while back, they had to decide on a strategy. Put away the swords and lie low, or double down and count on allies to have their back. Guess they're not too confident allies have their back.
posted by ctmf at 12:50 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Another "up yours, NPR" story explores the mystery of Why Are The Media Obsessed With Trump's Controversies And Not Clinton's?, a question raised by such other fine organizations like the Media Research Center ("The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias") and the Washington Examiner.

Because Hillary listens. Like for instance the Nancy Reagan AIDS comments. She immediately knew she fucked up as soon as all of her friends started BBMing her with "WHAT DID YOU DO?". She issued a statement apologizing pretty rapidly and then she writes a fucking essay about her being wrong. She reached out to all the players that represented groups, made sure that they knew she fucked up and took their concerns seriously.

THAT'S WHAT RESPONSIBLE ADULTS DO WHEN THEY MAKE OWN GOAL FUCKUPS.
posted by Talez at 12:51 PM on August 14, 2016 [104 favorites]


There needs to be some more organized campaign to pressure NPR to get its shit together. Suggesting that the media isn't obsessed with Hillary's controversies is an untrue statement. It isn't a matter of opinion, it can be easily weighed against airtime and other metrics and be proven false.
posted by humanfont at 1:00 PM on August 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


I thought that NPR piece was a good effort in trying to explain to people who think the media is being biased against Trump and for Hillary why it's just the case that Trump makes more gaffes, has more newsworthy upset. For example:
Let's talk about the elements of a cycle-dominating story. It needs to be timely, substantial and at least somewhat credible.
Implication: what the right wants to push about Clinton is usually old news, thin, or without merit (or most often: all three), and then we get:
By contrast, the implications surrounding the Clinton emails exhumed by court order are a routine species of scandal stamp-collecting. And they are the fruit of conservative activists and advocates who have been generating anti-Clinton material since her husband was president. ... Still, the recycling of the email story lacks an immediate bite or sting.
I think this is pretty tactful balanced reporting, not teach the controversy nonsense but an attempt to reach people who think THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED without alienating them.
posted by dis_integration at 1:04 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


The twisting they do before that to get out of asking for a specific retraction is hilarious. They just want it clear that this is a vague and I actionable threat, not a specific and legal one.

There are very good and legit reasons to stop short of an outright statement of intent to sue. Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of empty uses of that vagueness but aggrevied parties with valid complaints use that style on first contact too.
posted by phearlez at 1:09 PM on August 14, 2016


Trump's butthurt tweets over the NYT piece strongly validate it, exactly as his tweets about Khan not having the right to claim he hadn't read the Constitution proved Khan right.

Which means Trump learned precisely nothing from one of his first major pratfalls, and that his advisors and the RNC have every reason to believe he really is incapable of changing even a little.

I think that's a done deal. He is what he is, and he cannot get any further.
posted by Devonian at 1:11 PM on August 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


The Green party are now certifiably insane. Their VP candidate, Ajamu Baraka, has been busy being a truther and agreeing with Kevin Barrett slamming jews on anti-semitic podcasts in his free time.
posted by Talez at 1:14 PM on August 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


Holy moly, I've actually caught up with the election threads after having been unable to watch or read about either of the party conventions while they were happening!

So some comments about things that were said over that period:

corb, I'm so sorry about what you had to go through at the convention. Your updates were the most interesting thing about the RNC threads.

I'm extremely glad I was too busy to follow the RNC in real time. I think I would have burst a blood vessel or something.

I've realized that listening to or actually watching Trump is orders of magnitude worse than just reading what he's said, which is pretty awful anyway. So I don't watch his speeches at all and I'm very glad I can just read about them here.

The DNC, I watched a lot of the speeches on YouTube. As some of you know, I work with debaters a lot, so great political speeches are pretty much like crack for me. But I don't have anything to say about the big name speeches that hasn't already been said. However...

The KHANS!!! They're originally from my hometown! They are totally typical of educated professional class Pakistanis of my parents' generation. And totally typical of educated professional class Pakistani American immigrants of my parents' generation. The nerdy obsession with handing out copies of the Constitution, the genuine love of the possibilities that American society can provide, the deep outrage at the public pummeling our whole community has been subjected to, the deeply emotional death stare of Mrs Khan. The joke amongst my friends is that even when you're halfway around the world, when you're doing something that could get you in trouble with Mom, you can just feel the laser beam between your shoulder blades. That's the look she sent out. Quick pedantic note: She was not wearing a hijab, but rather a dupatta on her head, which makes her as a middle of the road Pakistani woman, where the hijab would mark her as being either a more conservative or a more political Muslim, or both.

It was such a relief to have his and other Muslims' statements feature prominently at the DNC. It bothers me tremendously that it required the impeccable credentials of being Gold Star parents for their statement to resonate as much as it did, even as I admire the political savvy of putting forward people so difficult to assail. And the crazies still went after them! It is so insulting for the default assumption to be that one is a terrorist. The stories of people being pulled off of planes because they look wrong or speak the wrong language, of patients refusing to be treated by Muslim doctors, these are body blows. And having Khizr Sahib stand up and challenge all of that so clearly, so proudly, was balm to the bruises from all those body blows.

This odious man, the ideas he espouses, the even more odious people he emboldens and enables, they need a huge drubbing at the polls. If they aren't thoroughly repudiated by the American electorate, there is some important part of me that will die. Ever since I was a kid whose father talked about how the American constitution was the only existing blueprint for governance that came close to being in line with Islamic ideals, I've seen how we fall short on the practice of those principles. But accepting Trump would be an abandonment of the agreement that those are in fact, our ideals.

The polls look promising for now. I never did see an answer to the question of whether it was possible to phonebank or do other campaign volunteering as an American citizen living abroad.

And now back to the current state of the election...
posted by bardophile at 1:17 PM on August 14, 2016 [145 favorites]


In conclusion, attitudes about NPR reporting are a land of contrasts.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:17 PM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Triumph the Insult Comic Dog - Trump Supporters React to Outrageous Campaign Ads

Robert Smigel is a national treasure.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:18 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


The thing is that Trump literally accused the Times of making up quotes (and Jason Miller tries to play both sides by making that accusation and then saying he isn't). Yes, it's obviously happened before and it could well happen again, but the seriousness of that charge is still incredible. It is maybe a half a step less than accusing a reporter of murder. If you're going to make that kind of accusation in public, you don't just throw it out there, you put out a detailed refutation and make damn sure you've got evidence.

Vague and generic claims about the media being terrible, biased, etc... are one thing, but accusing the NYT of fabricating quotes is something far more serious, and I don't think Trump has any clue of the distinction.
posted by zachlipton at 1:20 PM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


There needs to be some more organized campaign to pressure NPR to get its shit together.

...like say, a pledge drive demonstrating support from critically thinking liberal constituencies?

Or maybe a willingness to defend the paltry level of funding they still get via Congress through political action and vocal support?
posted by Miko at 1:23 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


ever since I was a kid whose father talked about how the American constitution was the only existing blueprint for governance that came close to being in line with Islamic ideals

This sounds cool. Please feel free to expand.
posted by feral_goldfish at 1:24 PM on August 14, 2016 [26 favorites]


Thanks for the insights bardophile, and I was previously unaware of the political distinction between hijabs and dupattas.
posted by porpoise at 1:25 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


The Trump team doesn't appear to be saying the Times made up sources. They're saying the anonymous sources are lying, and that's why they're anonymous.
posted by ctmf at 1:27 PM on August 14, 2016


I never did see an answer to the question of whether it was possible to phonebank or do other campaign volunteering as an American citizen living abroad.

It should be possible to phonebank from abroad. Can you try https://www.hillaryclinton.com/calls/ and see how far you get?
posted by peacheater at 1:37 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


To be clearer, the dupatta is indigenous to Pakistan. Covering one's head with it when in the public eye is very common amongst Pakistani women. The hijab is more closely associated with the Middle East. When you see a Pakistani or Pakistani American woman wearing a hijab, she's making a conscious choice to take on this culturally foreign head covering. In my experience, that choice usually stems from having become more religiously conservative (the hijab covers one's hair more completely), from wanting to signal one's Muslim identity (dupattas are used by Muslims and non-Muslims alike), or some combination of those two.
posted by bardophile at 1:38 PM on August 14, 2016 [27 favorites]


You can't tell whether this was combined with a fiery call to arms and 'Get out there and save the world' that wasn't reported, but the subtle scent of capitulation is beginning to waft in...

Less than 90 days before the November election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the odds of Republicans maintaining control of the Senate are “very dicey.”

While on recess in his home state, the Kentucky Republican told a Louisville-area civic group Thursday that Republicans are in a “dogfight” to fend off Democrats fighting to win Senate seats, according to the Associated Press.

Listing the Senate races in New Hampshire, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, and Indiana as “very competitive,” he said that Senate Republicans will need to be “on defense” in the upcoming election.

“I may or may not be calling the shots next year," said McConnell, who became the majority leader after the GOP won control of the Senate in the 2014 election.

posted by Devonian at 1:39 PM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


This game is getting boring and tedious following the conventional strategy, I'm going to make up some arbitrary rule strategy.

Once we were really high and decided to play Monopoly without money. It was hilarious.
posted by threeturtles at 1:41 PM on August 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


Is there any doubt that at least one (and possibly many) of the members of the "Trump Team" claiming "the anonymous sources are lying" IS among the anonymous sources? And the NYT is hating its "journalistic standard" to never betray a source promised anonymity right now? And some members of the "Trump Team" consider this a victory?
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:42 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


A fun game is trying to figure out which campaign people calling the anonymous sources liars are themselves the sources.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:42 PM on August 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


I don't get the impression that the NYT is sweating this very much at all.
posted by codacorolla at 1:43 PM on August 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


(dupattas are used by Muslims and non-Muslims alike)
To further clarify, they're not necessarily only worn as a head covering, can also be worn as a scarf (as a non-Muslim Indian that's the most common context in which I've seen them).
posted by peacheater at 1:45 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]




The Trump team doesn't appear to be saying the Times made up sources. They're saying the anonymous sources are lying, and that's why they're anonymous.

"The failing @nytimes has become a newspaper of fiction. Their stories about me always quote non-existent unnamed sources. Very dishonest!" --@realDonaldTrump

"The failing @nytimes talks about anonymous sources and meetings that never happened. Their reporting is fiction. The media protects Hillary!" --@realDonaldTrump

Also see the back-and-forth with Trump comms guy @JasonMillerinDC here, where he tries to have it both ways, claiming that it isn't about manufacturing sources, but also talks about "these supposed sources" and "someone is writing down and believing that they're talking to someone."

There's obviously a bit of ambiguity, but a lot of that crosses the line from "anonymous sources are lying" to "reporter is fabricating quotes." If it was the former, the complaint should be "somebody goes out and lies about me and the NYT believes it all and reports them as an anonymous source," not that the sources themselves are "non-existent" and "supposed."

There are some pretty darn legitimate criticisms of the Times' use of anonymous sources in political stories, but this isn't a good way to make them.
posted by zachlipton at 1:48 PM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Is there any doubt that at least one (and possibly many) of the members of the "Trump Team" claiming "the anonymous sources are lying" IS among the anonymous sources?

I doubt it. I suspect the anonymous source are secretaries ("administrative assistants"), mailroom clerks, or other menial-task assistants, possibly interns if there are any of those involved.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 1:51 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sad!
posted by spitbull at 1:51 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I doubt it. I suspect the anonymous source are secretaries ("administrative assistants"), mailroom clerks, or other menial-task assistants, possibly interns if there are any of those involved.

Really? I wouldn't be surprised at all if one of their anonymous sources was none other than Paul Manafort.
posted by dis_integration at 1:53 PM on August 14, 2016 [19 favorites]


After all, if he's going to keep his career going and not go down with the Trumptanic, he needs to get the story out there that Trump is the one sabotaging the campaign, while he does his best to get him in line.
posted by dis_integration at 1:57 PM on August 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


This weekend, my family received two robocalls inviting us to a Pence event. We won't be going.

Instead, in the past eight days, I've been phone banking twice and canvassing once for Clinton and other Democrats. I plan to keep it up at least once a week.
posted by maurreen at 1:57 PM on August 14, 2016 [21 favorites]


Really? I wouldn't be surprised at all if one of their anonymous sources was none other than Paul Manafort.

Not saying right or wrong, with this election campaign anything is possible. Why would Manafort play this way? Why would he?

I know I wouldn't be surprised if there is at least one or two people who are there knowing full well they have a chance to make a whole lotta $ writing and speaking about this when it's over.
posted by Jalliah at 1:58 PM on August 14, 2016


Nope, I'd say The Media, including the "failing @nytimes" is still protecting Trumpy. If not, the biggest story about him this year would contain a list of all the Russian mobsters he is in debt to. But then, maybe they're still ashamed they protected Trumpy when the obvious story was how much he owed New Jersey mobsters when he got his Atlantic City casino built.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:00 PM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]



"The failing @nytimes talks about anonymous sources and meetings that never happened. Their reporting is fiction. The media protects Hillary!" --@realDonaldTrump
You know, I'd actually be willing to drum up more sympathy for Mr. Trump if he and his mouthpieces hadn't already outright lied or merely prevaricated on so many occasions. As an outside observer, it's impossible to distinguish between Trump fauxtrage and actual outrage, rendering any of his criticisms of the media or election season invalid. He has become such a ridiculous punchline that anyone could write anything about him and it would be believable. And he and his campaign apparatus have only themselves to blame.
posted by xyzzy at 2:03 PM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Please stop saying "Trumpy."
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:04 PM on August 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


I'm at a Hillary campaign volunteer training event right now. (Got my red Hillary pin!) "Don't ever take any election for granted," Jesse White, Illinois Secretary of State said, got a big round of applause. No complacency here.
posted by the wine-dark sea at 2:08 PM on August 14, 2016 [28 favorites]


After all, if he's going to keep his career going and not go down with the Trumptanic, he needs to get the story out there that Trump is the one sabotaging the campaign, while he does his best to get him in line.

This holds true for any of the campaign staffers, except maybe Lewandowski (who is out but still gets hit up for advice, if the news is to be believed).

If anything,the problem is going to be staffers exaggerating Trump's disfunction...
posted by Going To Maine at 2:09 PM on August 14, 2016


I've received a Trump solicitation, and this weekend my wife did as well. Neither of us have been near the Republican Party in 20 years.

Their targeting is way, way off.
posted by dw at 2:11 PM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Reporting in from battleground North Carolina. I volunteered with the local Dem Party and spent two hours this afternoon standing in front of a Dollar Store asking people if they were registered to vote and offering to register them if they weren't. I probably talked to 40+ people and only registered two. Most folks claimed to be already registered, the five or six who weren't claimed they were too busy. I told them about the deadline and gave them info about where to register. It was a little discouraging but much better than sitting on the couch yelling at Trump surrogates on TV.

I posted what I was doing on Facebook and my lefty friends got all excited. I'm known as a pretty sedentary and introverted person, so I'm hoping at least one of those people will say "If marxchivist can do that, then so can I.
posted by marxchivist at 2:12 PM on August 14, 2016 [60 favorites]


Their targeting is way, way off.

I've found that signs and answering machine messages that begin with FUCK A BIG BAG OF DONALD TRUMP get the message across nicely.
posted by Mooski at 2:13 PM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


People are saying Trump wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the First Amendment. By the way, if he gets to pick, if he gets to pick his spokespeople, nothing you can do, folks. Although the First Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.
posted by peeedro at 2:16 PM on August 14, 2016 [82 favorites]


I don't know why the NYT doesn't just adopt the "many people say" standard that Trump uses. Or "my friend, a great guy, said that..."

I am finally caught up with these threads again. I was tempted to just skip to the end, but I like what y'all have to say!

But I will be falling behind again soon. I have a vacation starting Thursday so won't be much online for the 8 or 9 days while I am away. I am already getting facial tics just contemplating how far I will fall behind. The horror!
posted by madamjujujive at 2:16 PM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


I do not believe Burns and Haberman rely on low level staffers when they are characterizing what amounts to an implosion of loyalty in the Trump campaign. They can be annoying but they're at the top of the profession writing for the paper of record and the quality of your anonymous sourcing can make all the difference to your reputation-- ask Judith Miller or Woodward and Bernstein.

Maybe a longtime low-level staffer, but not interns or others who have no skin in the game. Among other things an anonymous source, if outed, can face serious retribution and there's an ethical issue in exposing low level staffers who have no personal stake in a poltical enterprise to the risk of falling on their swords or losing their careers.

A tip might come from someone at the bottom, or a confirmation of a damning fact. But when the sources are characterizing the mental state of a major party candidate for president in no uncertain terms to Burns and Haberman from the Times, you can bet someone close to Trump himself is the source. I'm sure there was more than one editorial meeting on the subject.
posted by spitbull at 2:17 PM on August 14, 2016 [28 favorites]


Although the First Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know

They do say the pen is mightier than the AR-16.
posted by dis_integration at 2:17 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


> ...if one of my relatives were a hedge fund manager you can bet my dough would be in that hedge fund making me returns hand-over-fist, not languishing in some anonymous index fund.

One of my relatives is a hedge fund manager. They have never encouraged any family members to invest with them; if anything they've actively discouraged it.

Hedge funds are high-yield because they're high risk, and they are solely the toys of wealthy entities for whom losses in the hundred-millions of dollars can dismissed as the cost of doing business, and churned into their books to be written off as a standard operating expense.

Proles like us would be destroyed by playing the market that way.
posted by at by at 2:28 PM on August 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


I don't know why the NYT doesn't just adopt the "many people say" standard that Trump uses. Or "my friend, a great guy, said that..."

Just an aside, but if you ever read early anthropological writings from the 19th century, the ultra-racist "scientific" claims are backed up by statements like "a gentleman in this country has observed their behavior on this matter, and he assures me that..." And this was considered valid scholarly discourse.
posted by teponaztli at 2:29 PM on August 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


Wow, an 11 minute gap. Thought the internet died.
posted by kingless at 2:32 PM on August 14, 2016 [23 favorites]


And this was considered valid scholarly discourse.

Yeah, it's fascinating, isn't it? We hadn't gotten to the point where we had any reflexivity about agreed procedures for the production of collective truth. If there is much of a civilization in the years to come, I think it will have to start here: in conscious and overt agreements, at societal scale, about how we define that which is operationally true.

If there's anything these past few weeks have driven home for me, between Brexit happening to the land I live in and Donald J. Trump to the land I hail from, it's that public discourse needs some kind of broadly-agreed procedure for reality testing. I don't see how the project of human civilization is any longer tenable without one.
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:05 PM on August 14, 2016 [25 favorites]


I ought to emphasize that I believe all "truths" to be local, situated, contingent, subject to verification, etc. I don't think you need any notion of transcendent absolute truth to say, "In our society, we agree that these are the procedures for testing reality, and that for the purposes of public policy we agree that only assertions to which we've applied these procedures will be accepted as true."

And then you have to specify how those procedures may be modified when they become inadequate. Turtles all the way down, and so on. But still: preferable by far to a world in which "Obama is the founder of ISIS" is entered into public debate, and not immediately rejected by our collective epistemic immune system.
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:13 PM on August 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


adamgreenfield - that realisation has been hitting the right wing commentariat too...
posted by Devonian at 3:16 PM on August 14, 2016 [30 favorites]


"In our society, we agree that these are the procedures for testing reality, and that for the purposes of public policy we agree that only assertions to which we've applied these procedures will be accepted as true.

That's what the legal system is for. Trial procedures and standards of evidence are exactly what you're asking for. And if anyone (including the person saying it) really believed Obama "founded ISIS" they'd bring charges of treason against him, and those charges would be subject to exactly those official procedures and standards. But nobody does believe it, so it won't even get far enough to get dismissed by a judge for not even meeting the most basic requirements of provable truth...

And yet, no doubt, people will keep repeating it.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:19 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


secretaries ("administrative assistants"), mailroom clerks, or other menial-task assistants, possibly interns if there are any of those involved

The Merediths are everywhere. And they are getting pissed.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:20 PM on August 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


I don't think it's enough to say that the legal system will take care of things. It's not enough, because people believe the "legal system" is biased too. Look at the number of people calling into question Comey's testimony from the Republican side, even though he's a Republican himself.
posted by peacheater at 3:21 PM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I do not believe Burns and Haberman rely on low level staffers when they are characterizing what amounts to an implosion of loyalty in the Trump campaign.

Me neither. Campaign staff tend to gossip, especially on losing campaigns when everybody is trying to get their excuses on the record (though off the record) ahead of time. One of the more remarkable things about the Obama campaigns in '08 and '12 was its internal discipline, particularly the '08 primary when the Clinton campaign (with people like Mark Penn on board) was leaking like a sieve. Obama's election team behaved a lot more like Apple over product secrecy than a traditional US campaign. The Clinton '16 campaign seems to be a lot less chatty than the '08 one and that's probably because it has a lot more Obama people in senior positions.
posted by holgate at 3:22 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


that realisation has been hitting the right wing commentariat too...

Even there he's still saying "there's a lot of bias" in the mainstream media. That's why there won't be a reality check, the Right's reality now really is whatever Trump and Hannity and Rush say it is. They worked for 40 years to come to this point, and now that they have their alternate reality, they're learning that when no one is an authority, everyone is the authority.

The African elephant tripled in population in the last 3 years. That's just truthiness.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:23 PM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


That's what the legal system is for.

Can't speak for adamgreenfield, but I've been pondering this a lot lately too, and the legal system isn't a remedy to our current chaos.

My angle has been that everyone is getting their news from increasingly fragmented sources, many of which have no vetting at all - a lot of my friends are just reading headlines without bothering to look at how or why current events are going on, and that's just the people I'd normally *trust*. Without some way to agree that 'here are a list of sources we can actually agree upon,' everyone's just going with their gut, and that way lies torches and pitchforks. Basically, there have to be nonpartisan outfits both sides are willing to listen to for just 'here are the events that occurred, we've got the tapes.' (I feel like it's a combination of the loss of the Fairness Doctrine, the slow death of print journalism and people getting more of their news from places like Facebook.)

I don't really see this being fixed any time soon either, and not just because of the FOX News crowd. I'm not sure my *own* people are amenable to it anymore.
posted by mordax at 3:28 PM on August 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


It's not enough, because people believe the "legal system" is biased too. Look at the number of people calling into question Comey's testimony from the Republican side, even though he's a Republican himself.

Well of course they believe the legal system is biased. That is a core issue in this campaign: will we accept the rule of law (which presupposes that there can be methods, flawed certainly but still acceptable, that can adjudicate conflicting claims)?
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:31 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't think it's enough to say that the legal system will take care of things.

I have to agree with this, though I wish I didn't. I don't blame anyone for not trusting a legal system that can produce a Freddie Gray outcome, to name only the most recent obscenity that comes to mind.
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:31 PM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've received a Trump solicitation, and this weekend my wife did as well. Neither of us have been near the Republican Party in 20 years.

Their targeting is way, way off.


By any chance, were you and/or your wife donors to Bernie? I'm wondering if they're targeting Bernie supporters.
posted by palomar at 3:35 PM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


The man genuinely believes this, he's ensconced in like an alternate, talk-radio reality and is using his soapbox to promulgate the delusion that the media run by actual journalists is corrupt because they don't parrot these fantasies. That is kind of dangerous.

The thing is, there are an awful lot of people who believe the same thing. I've been super depressed by the friends and family who have rejected "mainstream media" since it doesn't reflect what they believe is true. Again, Trump is talking to his fan base. They really believe this, you know? That Trump is an honest businessman who is being opposed on all sides because of the corrupt establishment.

And it isn't just them-- I see the same thing on the left. People pushing links from vague left-wing sources and swearing that the mainstream media is in the hands of the pharmaceutical industry. These are the people who will vote for Stein no matter what giant stinker of an opinion she drops because they are convinced she's not being covered fairly because Establishment.

And the thing is that media is naturally biased. How can we have a discussion about the natural bias without throwing out any belief in journalism? I sometimes feel that as a nation we're getting much worse at nuance instead of better.
posted by frumiousb at 3:38 PM on August 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


The legal system is not an arbiter of truth, it's the adjuducative arm of the political system. Nothing more.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:39 PM on August 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


that public discourse needs some kind of broadly-agreed procedure for reality testing

Such processes exist, and used to exist. Not they're not problematic in themselves (truth is a tricky beast). But in general the problem isn't that we need them, it's that it's in the best interest of, first, organizations like the tobacco companies and energy companies to undermine them, and then it's been in the interest the right, primarily since the Bush years, to dismiss the credibility of mainstream adjudicators of truth, like universities, because it was politically expedient. Shit, there's a whole alternative to wikipedia (conservapedia) that exists solely so that conservatives can be sure to educate themselves about the world without ever running into anything that challenges their worldview. It's such a bizarre alternate universe, because it uses all the trappings of normal academic standards of citation and justification to paint a picture of the world entirely at odds with, well, the world. And it's so sincere.

How do we get ourselves out of the perspectival nihilism of the modern age? I have no idea. Nothing, not even education, seems capable of convincing people of the falsehood of something that it's in their best interest to be true. People are irrational meatbags, I guess.
posted by dis_integration at 3:42 PM on August 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


And it isn't just them-- I see the same thing on the left.

Yeah, this. I swear I'm not drawing a false equivalence, and I do think this is a far bigger deal (and of far greater consequence) on the right. But my Facebook has been a little disheartening lately, with quite a few people I love and respect doubling down on various Jill Stein absurdities. I'm significantly further to the left on most issues than Bernie was, for example, but I like to think of myself as what we used to call a member of the reality-based community.
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:42 PM on August 14, 2016 [32 favorites]


Yeah, this. I swear I'm not drawing a false equivalence, and I do think this is a far bigger deal (and of far greater consequence) on the right. But my Facebook has been a little disheartening lately, with quite a few people I love and respect doubling down on various Jill Stein absurdities

Yeah I realized the contagion had spread well beyond the right when way back at the beginning of this year a bunch of pro-Sanders Facebook acquaintances and soon-to-be-former friends started sharing anti-Clinton screeds that prominently featured mentions of Vince Foster.
posted by dersins at 3:49 PM on August 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


People aren't looking for truth and being mislead by the media. They're looking for confirmation of what they already suspect, and if they don't find it in one place they'll just keep looking.
posted by jon1270 at 3:50 PM on August 14, 2016 [26 favorites]


Everybody likes to think of themselves as members of the reality-based community, even the people initially defined as outside of it. Ascribing perspectival nihilism to the US as a whole seems like generalizing from the particular, perhaps so broadly as to be moot.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:52 PM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


The same could of course be said for my lack of nihilism...
posted by Going To Maine at 3:55 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


In conclusion, attitudes about NPR reporting are a land of contrasts.

It's kindof as if NPR is using the "some say" method to actually evaluate and refine their own efforts.

Conservatives claim NPR is biased towards liberals? Maybe even socialist state propaganda? Well, we have to give that point of view a place in the conversation. Who knows, maybe we are part of a communist plot!
posted by wildblueyonder at 3:55 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


People aren't looking for truth and being mislead by the media. They're looking for confirmation of what they already suspect, and if they don't find it in one place they'll just keep looking.

I'm sure this isn't new, but the big difference now is there's way more places one can easily look now, and with aggregators and cheap worldwide distribution it's easier to lose track of the actual source you're getting your [mis]information from. So it's easier for fringe views to flourish.
posted by aubilenon at 3:56 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is there a word for, like, an anti-shibboleth?

As in, that thing where someone says "chemtrails" or "Vince Foster" or "9-11 was an inside job" or whatever and you know you can instantly discount literally everything they have to say?
posted by dersins at 4:00 PM on August 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


"Red flags"?
posted by EarBucket at 4:03 PM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


dersins, I think that that's a regular shibboleth.

Though, you can follow in my example and loudly, publicly refuse to believe in conspiracy theorists. What are they covering up by pretending to believe in that claptrap?
posted by The Gaffer at 4:03 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Cuck."
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:03 PM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


> "... that realisation has been hitting the right wing commentariat too ..."

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
posted by kyrademon at 4:07 PM on August 14, 2016 [32 favorites]


Another thing that I find troubling is that people just pick up their talking points piecemeal and don't seem to understand when they've picked up right-wing points of view even when their overall viewpoint is liberal.

I have a friend at work who is generally fairly reasonable to talk to - he was really distressed by the Brexit vote, and we've had several conversations about rising intolerance across the world. He's as scared at the thought of Trump winning as I am.

However in one breath he will rail against Monsanto and then in the next he will complain about estate taxes being too high. Nothing I said about the 5M per individual (10M per couple) exclusion seemed to have any effect, it was all in one year and out the other. He'll say he doesn't understand how people can vote Republican and then say that he'd love to become an American citizen, except their "taxes are too high" (he's an Australian citizen).
posted by peacheater at 4:08 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


What I can't get over about "cuck" is that it literally came from porn. Dudes who use it act like they're the toughest bastards out there and I am thinking: that is a literal reference to your creepy-ass fetish.
posted by Countess Elena at 4:08 PM on August 14, 2016 [26 favorites]


Published in the Arizona Daily Star: Jack O'Donnell: I know Trump, and he's not fit to be president:

Back then, Donald Trump’s ego was as big as it is today. He was short-tempered, he was judgmental without facts, he judged people based on their clothes or the color of their skin. His attention span was so small it was almost impossible to have a strategic conversation with him about the business. He would say something one minute and change his mind the next. He would demand something be done one way, only to criticize that directive later, never taking blame. He never said he was sorry for anything. He was crude and sexist toward women, he was a philandering fool publicly. He would humiliate his wife without a second thought.

Donald Trump was humorless, cold and selfish. He would hurt the little guy if he could see even the slightest gain for himself. He refused to pay his bills, he sued anyone who got in his way. He threatened people like myself for telling the truth.

posted by peacheater at 4:10 PM on August 14, 2016 [28 favorites]


What I can't get over about "cuck" is that it literally came from porn. Dudes who use it act like they're the toughest bastards out there

Pretty sure nobody who has ever used the word "cuck" as an internet insult/dominance display is anything even remotely close to IRL "tough."
posted by dersins at 4:14 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


I can't stand people using the word "cuck" even ironically. It makes me feel angry and afraid. It's not the ugly sound of it, it's the racist sexual fetish at the root of the term. Every time I read or hear it, I think of the worst kind of people using it with glee.

Can we please not use the term here at all? Throwing it around even as a joke just isn't fucking funny. There may be a thread where it's appropriate to carefully discuss the word, but we can get by without it quite well in this thread.
posted by maudlin at 4:19 PM on August 14, 2016 [41 favorites]


I'm sorry, maudlin, I meant no offense. I only offered it as a sure-fire indicator that the person you're talking to can safely be ignored. Your (sensible) objection is duly noted.
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:22 PM on August 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


(Thanks! I'm actually surprised by how much I hate the word. It's all part of this generally horrible year's cumulative effect, too.)
posted by maudlin at 4:24 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


We hadn't gotten to the point where we had any reflexivity about agreed procedures for the production of collective truth.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'm not sure I agree that the problem was a lack of reflexivity. The word of a gentleman is weak evidence by modern standards, but at the time it was unremarkable because it made sense within that society. Collective truth was always the goal for 19th century society, but the problem was that society didn't encompass all people.

The people being studied and classed as subhuman (or savage, or really any kind of racial classification) were not a part of society. They were not just below, but well outside the gates of the elites who drove innovation in thought. We can look back now and say that was wrong, but at the time it was a given that they existed wholly outside the society that would be producing knowledge about them. The problem wasn't that academics relied on weak evidence to support spurious claims. Rather, to grossly oversimplify it and summarize, it's that their thinking was so constrained by the society they were operating in that even careful self-reflection didn't lead to dramatically different conclusions.

This is what scares me so much about the future. It's not that people will believe anything they hear, it's that the conversation continues to be constrained, and acceptable truth is narrowly defined. In the 19th century it was slavery and colonialism. What's driving our societal blind spots nowadays?
posted by teponaztli at 4:31 PM on August 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


Sorry, it's really hard to write clearly about this on my phone. I'm sure theres a joke in this somewhere.
posted by teponaztli at 4:33 PM on August 14, 2016


Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'm not sure I agree that the problem was a lack of reflexivity.

Yeah, I expressed myself poorly, sorry. Sure, the Victorians had agreed procedures for the production of collective truth. But they didn't reflect on them — didn't realize they were bounded by their understanding of class, race, gender and so on.
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:37 PM on August 14, 2016


I went to Trump's site to check out policy statements. I accidentally went to his business site, Trump.com, which, oddly, has absolutely no mention of the campaign. On his campaign site, issues are barely addressed, certainly not with any depth or thought. It's a thin veneer of a campaign.
posted by theora55 at 4:45 PM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I ought to emphasize that I believe all "truths" to be local, situated, contingent, subject to verification, etc.

that public discourse needs some kind of broadly-agreed procedure for reality testing

We aren't suddenly in some unprecedented crisis of epistemology. "Obama is the founder of ISIS" and the like are false in the ordinary sense that a child can understand.
posted by thelonius at 4:46 PM on August 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


Dude, they're already in bed with you; you can stop with the negging already.

They have to stay in that bed for several more months and he shits in it every day.

He has to convince them the smell is from their lives rather than from his bed.
posted by srboisvert at 4:48 PM on August 14, 2016 [9 favorites]




truth isn't something you're given, it's something you have to struggle for

most people aren't willing to do that

and yes, i realize how little help that is
posted by pyramid termite at 4:53 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


cjelli: He was literally asked point-blank, explicitly, if that was the thing he meant, and he said no. The 'what he REALLY MEANT' spin is something he's already on record as clarifying wasn't what he meant. I mean, if that was what he meant, and he wasn't sarcastic -- because he 'was being very serious' -- then why would he say that wasn't what he meant? It just doesn't make sense.

Assuming he's trying to make sense, he says what he does for a reason: "... they won't talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?" -- Trump talking to conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who realized he and Donny actually agreed about the whole "Obama founded ISIS" phrasing, but would say it more ... truthfully and clearly than Donny, who gets the free coverage for this phrase and lack of clarity.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:58 PM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think that this assumption that our society is somehow more mired in prejudice and subjective perception than other societies were is proof, more than anything, of our own blinkered takes on the world. Superstition, dogma, and ignorance have defined virtually every society in history. In fact, we commonly disregard the various profound wisdoms and intellectual advances made in prior eras because their idiocies were so gross, so grotesque, that many of us find it hard to believe those same societies were capable of enlightenment in the least!

We can talk about Fox News and right–wing organizations teaching "the masses" not to trust the truth, but the honest fact is that Fox was merely a decade or so ahead of its time. Freedom from the media constraints of the early twentieth century and virtually every era before then—the same freedoms that enabled all manner of leftist and progressive revolutions—guaranteed that individuals would, for the first time, have the freedom to sculpt their culture around their tastes and biases, to a deeper extent than was ever possible before. The Internet has made that freedom closer to global than ever. And, as some people have noted, it isn't just the right wing that buys into that nonsense. Progressives do the same superstitious and dogmatic bullshitty things as the rest of the world do. Witness the monstrous misogyny from certain self–declared feminists of the left. You can be very smart and caring and still excuse some odious, self–important beliefs.

As a literal student of the ways in which society and modes of informational media feed off one another, I don't see this as a crisis so much as I see it as a growing pain. We now have the potential, for the first time in human history, to observe and study one of the most fundamental individual and cultural biases in all of human nature, and to see the ways in which traditional ideas about "empowerment" fall way too fucking short of the ideal. The fact that we can even articulate this distress suggests we're capable of perceiving the dilemma, which is highly unusual.

We've only had a few decades, if I'm being generous, to learn how to deal with the phenomena of global information creation, curation, and distribution, and in many ways we've already seen several substantial evolutionary steps being taken—with quite a few more being successfully implemented at the fringes of culture, but in ways that will eventually be scalable outward to tremendous effect. (We might be posting on one of those right now?? who even knows)

Relatedly, I'm also way less nervous about the phenomenon that Trump represents than it feels to me sometimes that I ought to be, given the parallels between him and other famous fascist dictators. I think we will face terrifying tyrannies in my lifetime; I also think that Trump poses a genuine threat to democracy. But I am relentlessly optimistic about his movement failing: it feels like a last gasp, not a triumphant resurgence. There are a lot of structural inequalities in America that favor him and his ilk, including institutional media idiocy and individual confirmation biases as well as things like gerrymandering, a broken House, voter suppression, and a hundred billion other things. But the tide is turning, and I think that certain awful strains of humanity are going to find it harder—though of course not impossible—to thrive in our changing world. That last bit, to me, feels like it'll outlast any individual shittinesses implemented within our societies, even ones as long–lasting as our frequently–horrid Supreme Court. I have a lot of hope for the world going forward, beneath the churning nightmare waves of the most obvious aspects of our present.
posted by rorgy at 4:59 PM on August 14, 2016 [36 favorites]


Wow.

The Wall Street Journal just posted a scathing editorial:
"Trump's Self-Reckoning."

Concludes:

If they can’t get Mr. Trump to change his act by Labor Day, the GOP will have no choice but to write off the nominee as hopeless and focus on salvaging the Senate and House and other down-ballot races. As for Mr. Trump, he needs to stop blaming everyone else and decide if he wants to behave like someone who wants to be President—or turn the nomination over to Mike Pence.

ETA: should be a google news link, but normally WSJ is paywalled.
posted by spitbull at 5:05 PM on August 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


"Obama is the founder of ISIS" and the like are false in the ordinary sense that a child can understand.

We shall see. I devoutly and sincerely hope you're right.
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:06 PM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Well, the child can always do something else....
posted by thelonius at 5:12 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm late - we were out camping at Olive Lake and there was NO INTERNET. For days.

When we were driving back home, we stopped in Granite OR on August 12 and went into the store to get some fuel. As we walked in I heard one person tell another:
Well, it makes sense if you think about it, that Hillary and Obama started ISIS.
Thankfully our appearance stopped that conversation, but I was completely perplexed.
  1. When did this come up, Obama starting ISIS?
  2. To whom would this "make sense"?
  3. Did the meaning of the word "sense" change while we were away?
Fortunately, by spending every single moment since we returned to civilization reading the last thread and this one to get (momentarily) caught up, all my questions (and more) have been answered.

I would like to add - for any other introverts out there who are hesitating to call bank for Hillary, as far as I can tell, no one in West Virginia answers the phone. I used the online call bank today and got up ALL THIS NERVE to talk to people I don't know.... and just left a lot of somewhat mysterious voicemails for strangers letting them know that someone named "Hilary" would like them to vote for Hillary.
posted by hilaryjade at 5:15 PM on August 14, 2016 [49 favorites]


I accidentally went to his business site, Trump.com, which, oddly, has absolutely no mention of the campaign.

Well, he wouldn't want his summer project to get in the way of real business concerns, y'know.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 5:17 PM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well, it makes sense if you think about it, that Hillary and Obama started ISIS.
It makes a lot of sense when you live in the bubble where you have made the two greatest threats to your way of life (1) Islamic Terrorism and (2) the Democratic Party. Why shouldn't they be working together?
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:21 PM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


You guys! I met EatTheWeak today thanks to this thread. It's a Trumpsmas Miracle brought to you by Santa Matt, metal, and insane election threads. He is a solid dude and we should get him to a Seattle meetup soon.
posted by Special Agent Dale Cooper at 5:27 PM on August 14, 2016 [25 favorites]


"Well, it makes sense if you think about it, that Hillary and Obama started ISIS."

As if on cue. I'm afraid, thelonius, that there's your answer. : . (
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:28 PM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Wall Street Journal just posted a scathing editorial:

It was definitely pointed. It also had this part in it:
The political scientist Alan Abramowitz has spent years developing his “time for a change” forecasting model. The model looks at the rate of GDP growth in the second quarter of an election year (1.2% this year), the incumbent President’s approval rating, and the electorate’s desire for change after one party has held the White House for eight years.

No model is perfect, but Mr. Abramowitz’s has predicted the winner of the major-party popular vote in every presidential election since 1988. His model predicts that Mr. Trump should win a narrow victory with 51.4%. A mainstream GOP candidate who runs a reasonably competent campaign would have about a 66% chance of victory.
So, the model has only been right 7 times, but the repeated theme on televised media and in other places, is that if Trimp straightens up and flies right, he can win. Maybe he's too prideful, stubborn and arrogant to do that.

Maybe he's starting this kerfuffle with the media so that he has an excuse not to debate.
Maybe he says one ridiculous thing after another because he's so devoid of actual knowledge about issues.

I don't know, and I just hope he keeps losing. But since 95% of his appeal is, in my view, him being a racist, sexist, xenophobic jackass, if he does the about face people increasingly act like he is incapable of doing, I think a lot of the "I'm just waiting to see more from Trimp" people will latch in like a chain on the wheels of a ten-speed, and he'll start rolling. I hope to goodness that doesn't happen, but I just know almost everywhere I look, that's the subtext to all his current failures.
posted by cashman at 5:29 PM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oliver Darcy interviews conservative radio host Charlie Sykes (twitter)

But, at a certain point you wake up and you realize you have destroyed the credibility of any credible outlet out there.
posted by chaoticgood at 5:34 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yeah, that WSJ editorial reminds me why I never read the WSJ.

As ever, it seems that more "mainstream" Republicans' major problem with Trump is his bad PR and bad polls. They would be willing to forgive all the racism, sexism and xenophobia if the rest of the country didn't care and would elect him anyway, and to that end they're willing to keep trying to cover his faults.

I also love how they just state as a fact in the first paragraph that the media obviously wants every Republican nominee to not become President.
posted by peacheater at 5:34 PM on August 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


We aren't suddenly in some unprecedented crisis of epistemology.

I don't know, you guys. Maybe Obama and Clinton really are terrorist Hitler poopy-faces, did you ever think of that?
posted by ctmf at 5:38 PM on August 14, 2016


Well, I have my dreams. If someone tells me there is orange juice in the refrigerator and I go and it is empty, I will have no brook with talk of personal realities, or orange-juice-like sensations. The guy was just wrong, or he was lying to me! If there were a table here I would thump it now.
posted by thelonius at 5:39 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]




But once you start attacking the press directly and throwing them out of your rallies, that's when they'll actually turn on you.

Implementing torture and blatantly fear-mongering the US into an insane war, though - they'll eat that shit up.

The 15th-or-so time I heard NPR parrot "enhanced interrogation" they ceased to be anything worth listening to.
posted by petebest at 5:41 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


So, the model has only been right 7 times, but the repeated theme on televised media and in other places, is that if Trimp straightens up and flies right, he can win.

This would be the narrative no matter what. Horse races sell, blowouts don't. Besides that, the editorial board is unabashedly partisan, like the NYT editorial board.

They would be willing to forgive all the racism, sexism and xenophobia if the rest of the country didn't care and would elect him anyway, and to that end they're willing to keep trying to cover his faults.

If you don't believe racism is racism, it doesn't bother you.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:49 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


I also love how they just state as a fact in the first paragraph that the media obviously wants every Republican nominee to not become President.

Ignoring completely, of course, that the WSJ is as "mainstream media" as any other outlet.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:51 PM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Further evidence of how disorganized Trump's campaign and/or supporters are; a friend of mine got an email today advising him that his Trump lawn signs are ready to be picked up. My friend lives in Canada and was visibly dismayed that anyone could mistake him for a Trump supporter. Pointing out that this means fewer lawn signs being displayed for Orange Julius Caesar seemed to help.
posted by peppermind at 5:52 PM on August 14, 2016 [17 favorites]


@misskaz: Perhaps that needs to be a Pokemon.

Seriously, the more I think about it, this election has completely inverted the political alignment axis from good-vs-evil to order-vs-chaotic. And that completely rewrites the political playbook. Most years, we can expect candidates to agree at least on the subjects they will disagree over -- taxes or immigration or education spending. This year, we have a candidate who seems to be getting money from the Russians and who has asked why we don't actually set off our nuclear weapons.

Which also answers a question from awhile back: Why would Kissinger endorse Clinton? Not because they agree on real issues, nor because she promised him favors. But because he, for all his flaws, is apparently lawful evil.

The frightening part is that Trump's approach seems to be to take the system down with him -- if he loses, it'll be because American democracy is broken, not because the system works.

(FWIW, this argument was also straight out of the BoB playbook -- and I think the Bernie to Trump voters make sense if you assume they are supporting a chaotically aligned candidate.)
posted by steady-state strawberry at 5:53 PM on August 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


If someone tells me there is orange juice in the refrigerator and I go and it is empty, I will have no brook with talk of personal realities, or orange-juice-like sensations. The guy was just wrong, or he was lying to me! If there were a table here I would thump it now.

But what if someone tells you that the orange juice you bought is in the fridge but while you're out they drink all the oj, go to the store, buy an indistinguishable new bottle of oj and put in the fridge, and you get home, and find a bottle of oj there. Is your oj still in the fridge? /justphilosopherthings
posted by dis_integration at 5:56 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


This would be the narrative no matter what. Horse races sell, blowouts don't.

No matter, it's still being said, and will still likely help the race to tighten. I definitely understand the horse race aspect. I love blowouts, but even in sports they do that thing where they root for the team down by 30 in the 3rd quarter, talking about all they can do to come back.

What I wish I could prognosticate better is - if Trimp (and I keep calling him this because of those images that got produced, they're hilariously scary but funny because it's almost like his horrific statements and slurs finally have something they look like they would come out of) - if he is internet comments come to life. If he's mra's all rolled into one - then what would happen next?
posted by cashman at 6:02 PM on August 14, 2016


Which also answers a question from awhile back: Why would Kissinger endorse Clinton? Not because they agree on real issues, nor because she promised him favors. But because he, for all his flaws, is apparently lawful evil.

This is kind of interest8ing because it is pretty clear to me that Trump is chaotic neutral-- the "it does what it wants" alignment.
posted by dersins at 6:12 PM on August 14, 2016




Lewandowski shared that? I take it he's not feeling too hot about being replaced.
posted by dis_integration at 6:19 PM on August 14, 2016 [17 favorites]


damn: Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump’s Campaign Chief, NYT
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.

In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies that helped members of Mr. Yanukovych’s inner circle finance their lavish lifestyles, including a palatial presidential residence with a private zoo, golf course and tennis court. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:19 PM on August 14, 2016 [38 favorites]


This is kind of interest8ing because it is pretty clear to me that Trump is chaotic neutral-- the "it does what it wants" alignment.

Really? I'd have called him Chaotic Evil. But then I'd call most supposedly CN RPG characters very much chaotic evil.
posted by Francis at 6:19 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Not only did Lewandowski tweet that, he did it on a day when Trump is all about bashing the New York Times.
posted by zachlipton at 6:21 PM on August 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


there's something very bizzarro world about growing up hearing right wing extremists claiming that democrats and liberals are russian/commie agents and then finding out that the republican candidate of 2016 is suspiciously cozy with the russian power structure

i mean, what the hell?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:24 PM on August 14, 2016 [77 favorites]


Trump is definitely chaotic evil given his vindictive nature. He wants to spend time and effort attacking his former competitors for the Republican nomination. That is not the act of a neutral man.
posted by nolnacs at 6:24 PM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


We have tweets:

I have always been the same person-remain true to self.The media wants me to change but it would be very dishonest to supporters to do so!

"Stay on message" is the chant. I always do - trade, jobs, military, vets, 2nd A, repeal Ocare, borders, etc - but media misrepresents!
posted by infinitewindow at 6:24 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, Trump's surrounded himself with back-stabbing shit bags? How utterly shocking.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:24 PM on August 14, 2016 [31 favorites]


Oh, Trump's surrounded himself with back-stabbing shit bags? How utterly shocking.

Almost as satisfying as Romney's campaign running for the parasitic economic rentier class and having a massive mountain of money blown on parasitic middle men.

Democrats seem to know the value of a dollar while Republicans rock up to billionaires to shake the money tree and give it to their consultant buddies.
posted by Talez at 6:30 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


i missed the whole d&d whatever grid thing

is there a category 'chaotic stupid'?

trump is that category
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:33 PM on August 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


WOW. Like, WOW. Like, that should - just - WOW. That is an honest to God huge scandal. Not "Trump says something beyond outrageous". Not even "Trump's campaign manager is a thug." WOW.

I was going to write an "if this were a normal campaign..." sentence, but nothing about this is normal.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:35 PM on August 14, 2016 [32 favorites]


Trump is tanar'ri, RNC are baatezu
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:35 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Here's the obvious question: why would Manafort spend so many years advancing Russian interests in Kiev if there weren't many millions of dollars in it for him?
posted by zachlipton at 6:37 PM on August 14, 2016


I mean, is it even a question now that Trumps campaign is a FSB/KGB operation? Manafort has to be a KGB asset. [real].
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:38 PM on August 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


Surely this ...?
Egads.
posted by Dashy at 6:40 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


See, this is why it's become so hard to put the news down. When else would you get this after 9 pm on a Sunday?

Just now, himself tweeted, "Certain Republicans who have lost to me would rather save face by fighting me than see the U.S.Supreme Court get proper appointments. Sad!" Sad, indeed. Even he can smell decay.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:40 PM on August 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump’s Campaign Chief

Yes! This is the first real shot across the bow. Good on ya New . . what is it, New York . . Times? Whatever, great work keep going! Follow the spice!

Money. Follow the spice money.
posted by petebest at 6:41 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


It will all come out years from now in a fascinating book. How Russia almost pulled off the greatest spy operation of all time - getting elected president of their worst enemy, entirely legally! - except one narcissistic chump blew the whole thing.
posted by ctmf at 6:42 PM on August 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


Keep focusing on the Supreme Court, Donald J. Trump. Motivate those younger voters.
posted by puddledork at 6:42 PM on August 14, 2016


Here's the obvious question: why would Manafort spend so many years advancing Russian interests in Kiev if there weren't many millions of dollars in it for him?

Apparently he was leading Ukraine "closer to Europe" by helping to get Yanukovych elected. I'm not sure why the spineless twit that interviewed Manafort at the time didn't point out that any idiot with a modicum of political acumen could see that getting Yanukovych elected was basically installing a Putin surrogate in the Ukrainian presidency.
posted by Talez at 6:45 PM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Manafort has to be a KGB asset. [real].

This seems plausible enough that I'd love to some op-eds from CIA types on the subject. That said, I kind of think that if Manafort were known to be an FSB asset the security community would have figured it out ages ago and shut him down.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:47 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Every tweet from Trump today has either attacked the media or fellow republicans. Hillary's been mentioned in a few, but only one really says anything negative about her other than the usual "Crooked Hillary" namecalling.

That NYT article on Manafort is huge. I don't know how the campaign moves forward with him at the helm. I don't know how anyone in a position of responsibility can support Trump now without the tax returns. Hell, now it's important to see how financially tied Trump is to Manafort, to say nothing of the Russians themselves.
posted by Chanther at 6:48 PM on August 14, 2016 [43 favorites]


I just moved, and have been offline for about a month. So forgive me if someone posted something similar in the numerous comments above, I apologize in advance.

I remember when Geraldine Ferraro ran for Vice President, and the absolutely huge backlash. That was a time when I was still forced to wear skirts and pantyhose at work as part of my dress code, and having sex was not young hippie love in my area of the country, when I got pregnant in college, and didn't get married, I was either a "slut" or "so brave" to have a child "out of wedlock."

I also remember the Reagan years, oh yes, I remember them well. I was a single mother, and my folks were supporting me, as I have a wicked nice family, and my mom and dad both love babies, and they would never cast me out like some do, or force me to go to some weird camp for unwed mothers and give up my baby for adoption, hell no, they were like, "it's your choice, and if you want to keep your baby, come on down and we'll all be helping you, Marie." And they did!!! My Dad was the best Grandpa, and I still have a picture of my Mom holding my daughter, as a baby, in the old antique family rocking chair, with a smile on her face, because my Mom loved babies, and she watched my daughter when I went back to work, part-time at first, and then when I went to school...

Which was a program for single mothers, called JTPA. I was taking a course in Wang Word Processing, and advanced typing, and office bookkeeping. It was 1985, and it was sponsored by JTPA.

My teacher was an old Katherine Gibbs school graduate. Her name was also Marie, that's how I remember her. White blouse, navy blue skirt, very proper, but very practical as well. We had to learn typing on an IBM Selectric, and she had us typing sentences backwards, to make sure we were very accurate. I remember that, because after two weeks of Marie's typing tutelage, I could all of a sudden type 80 wpm on an IMB Selectric, with no errors. So her methods worked.

And she was hip and down with the Wang Word Processor, she knew it all, and she had us learn it, one by one, and then teach the next woman in line, and some of the students were also "Displaced Homemakers," that is, women who had stayed at home and been housewives, but then they were divorced for whatever reason, and had no job skills, so the JTPA program allowed them to take secretarial courses in order for them to be able to get a "real" job. And we "girls" used the word processor to compose and type resumés for the guys, who were in the technical side of the JTPA program, learning skills that would ultimately pay them a living wage, unlike being an office grunt, or, as we called it back then, secretary. My dream job. Not.

So what I have observed, throughout my career at such places as Ameritech, McDonnell Douglas Payment Systems (now defunct), and oh, Motorola Corporate, among others, is that misogyny is still alive and well in this day and age of newfound technology and enlightenment. And the backlash against Hillary Clinton is much like that against Geraldine Ferraro in the Year of Our Lord, 1984.

In short: it stinks, and she is our next President of the United States. Because there is no way in hell that someone as small-minded and self-centered as Donald Trump can possibly overcome progress. I have seen it and I have experienced it to the nth degree, and this utter drivel is on its way out, because the younger generation is too smart to let it happen. THEY are the silent majority, and Trump had better watch out for THEIR backlash, because if I thought I was a rebel, well, these kids have the Internet, and they are not afraid to use it to speak their minds. Money aside, it's the voice of the People who will ultimately determine the outcome of this election. Peace out.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 6:49 PM on August 14, 2016 [155 favorites]


Surely this...!
posted by spitbull at 6:51 PM on August 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bless you Marie. And Hunter Thompson is smiling on you from somewhere, he loved that IBM Selectric.
posted by vrakatar at 6:53 PM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Surely this...!

Donald Trump feels like some sort of horrible Frankenstein monster designed to test whether such a limit actually exists.
posted by mordax at 6:54 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


"Speaking as someone who has a story coming this week: This is just the beginning for Manafort. It gets worse."

Adam Weinstein, Senior editor, @Fusion
posted by chris24 at 6:54 PM on August 14, 2016 [56 favorites]


I think we passed our "surely this" moment long ago, and we're just in the hellish illogical glitchworld we pass into when a candidate doesn't drop out in disgrace like a normal person would.
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:56 PM on August 14, 2016 [20 favorites]




Jesus Christ, how much worse can it get? Are there literal bodies buried somewhere?
posted by lovecrafty at 6:58 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


I guess CNN just found its new Russian correspondent.
posted by Artw at 6:59 PM on August 14, 2016 [43 favorites]


Interesting. Manafort might bluster the corruption thing away, but the IRS is going to be interested in whether he declared that as income, and their investigatory powers in the USA are at lot greater than the NYT's.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:00 PM on August 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


In His Words: 19 Notable Thoughts From Donald Trump (today in Connecticut)

These are the rantings of an unbalanced individual.
posted by zakur at 7:01 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


i missed the whole d&d whatever grid thing

From earlier in the season, but here you go.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:03 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


This feels like the GOP trying to take him down before the ballots close up.

Jesus, it's so weird trying to figure out who to root against here.
posted by Mooski at 7:05 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Marie Mon Dieu, somewhere up-thread, someone linked one of the old American Spectator hitjobs against Hillary Clinton, from the 1992 campaign, and , even though I am old enough to remember that very well, I was shocked at how vicious it is.
posted by thelonius at 7:06 PM on August 14, 2016


You know it's a sinking ship with no exits, when the rats start eating each other.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 7:06 PM on August 14, 2016 [22 favorites]


Mooski, I hope not. I have to admit that when I voted for Bernie in the primary, it wasn't so much that I preferred him as that I thought Hillary would never be able to lift the weight of 25 years' worth of misogynistic right-wing nonsense. I think she can do it now, but I'm afraid she still needs Trump's help. As it is, I think it's Lewandowski's pique that put the story on blast, not an RNC plot.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:08 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


The thing is that Trump didn't have to elevate Manafort after the Lewindowski fallout; he could have put literally anyone else in the job as late as the end of May. Even if Manafort was an ill-considered advisor to an unserious longshot campaign back in 2015, it would have been super easy to pick someone else to run the show through the general. Any remotely normal candidate would have used that opportunity to not promote the guy with a track record of advising and lobbying on behalf of dictators around the world and extensive ties to Russia, including his name in a secret register of people who received payments. Manafort would have been old news at that point.
posted by zachlipton at 7:11 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


They are fucked. Trump has to withdraw for them to replace him. Even if he does in time to be replaced on the ballot in all states (Aug 28th), he would no doubt try to sabotage the new nominee, tell his supporters to stay home, campaign against Rs, etc. If he stays and the RNC cuts the staffing and $$ support, he can do the same things and blame his loss on their betrayal.
posted by chris24 at 7:12 PM on August 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


MY XXL BAG OF EVENS IS EMPTY
posted by Going To Maine at 7:13 PM on August 14, 2016 [35 favorites]


This delicious Manafort story has to break now? It's past three here, I'm desperate to get to sleep.
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:13 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Reasons not to call the NYT 'garbage', part 1...
posted by Devonian at 7:13 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Corey Lewandowski retweeted the NYT piece. The long knives are out.
posted by Justinian at 7:17 PM on August 14, 2016 [19 favorites]


Something that has been bothering me for a while: if America is so terrible and Mexico is the "eighth wonder of the world" and takes all our jobs, why do we need Trump's deportation force at all? Surely people should be clamoring to get back into Mexico if the situation is as he describes it.
posted by zachlipton at 7:20 PM on August 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Juanita Broaddrick Wants to Be Believed, by Katie J.M. Baker.

I am not posting this to discourage anyone from voting for Clinton - I certainly will be, and enthusiastically! - but because I believe Juanita Broaddrick and she deserves to be heard. (I don't think Hillary Clinton played any intentional role in intimidating Broaddrick - the article does a good job detailing why Broaddrick's story matters in the current campaign nevertheless.) Knowing what we do about Trump's treatment of Ivana, I think there will be a rapist living in our White House for the next four years regardless, and that is fucking horrible to contemplate.
posted by sallybrown at 7:20 PM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Even if Manafort was an ill-considered advisor to an unserious longshot campaign back in 2015, it would have been super easy to pick someone else to run the show through the general

Maybe right after the RNC. After the post-DNC reaction, Trump was toxic to a lot of competent Rs.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:21 PM on August 14, 2016


From earlier in the season, but here you go.

Oh no I mean I know what it is as a meme but I just missed the whole actual game thing for unknown reasons.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:21 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Jesu Tortilla! Just when I thought things would settle down enough for me to get decent sleep...
(Last night I dreamed we were surrounding Paul Ryan saying "Shame! Shame!"
He was wearing an orange blazer)
posted by Floydd at 7:23 PM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Corey Lewandowski retweeted the NYT piece. The long knives are out.

Is it important? A blip? End of the republic? I no longer have the capacity to differentiate.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:23 PM on August 14, 2016 [30 favorites]


"Speaking as someone who has a story coming this week: This is just the beginning for Manafort. It gets worse."

Adam Weinstein, Senior editor, @Fusion


If there are documents with enough proof to make a case that Manafort was taking direction from Putin or planned to in the future, would that be illegal? It seems he is essentially selling influence/control over our federal government to a foreign government...
posted by sallybrown at 7:25 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Bless you Marie. And Hunter Thompson is smiling on you from somewhere, he loved that IBM Selectric.

Thanks! Perhaps I should watch the movie based on his life, I am a huge Johnny Depp fan, but unfortunately, I was working and raising kids when it came out, so je ne sais pas :::shrug::: I was more of an Edward Scissorhands afficiando, as I was into Vincent Price as a youngin', so that was more my jam. Appreciate the comment, tho'! :-) Keep on keepin' on, man.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 7:26 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well, foreign agents have to register with the government (a law that's been used for a number of abuses over the years), and Manafort has not done so. As the NYT story notes, it's not clear that he did anything on behalf of Ukraine that required registration, but obviously that's something people are going to be looking at. Beyond that, money laundering and tax fraud come to mind if he received payments under the table and didn't report them.
posted by zachlipton at 7:29 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]




... I think there will be a rapist living in our White House for the next four years regardless, and that is fucking horrible to contemplate.

I absolutely don't mean to diminish this point at all, but considering how badly men have been allowed to act about consent, there have probably been rapist residents of the White House since it has been built. Not constantly, I mean. Probably not James Buchanan, for a start. But even so. We can't keep holding Hillary accountable for Bill just because she's supposed to be the ball on the end of his chain.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:34 PM on August 14, 2016 [54 favorites]


You ever read Jon Bois's yearly "Breaking Madden" columns on SB Nation? I feel like I'm a voter in "Breaking the Election."
posted by infinitewindow at 7:34 PM on August 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


I grew up in a time when I assumed I'd probably die in a nuclear war because we had a president who joked about pushing the button and our enmity with the Soviet Union was Very Serious Bizness and I was unironically red-baited in college .... and now I live in a world where the Republican nominee for president lurves the president of Russia and his right hand is tightly joined to the same and the Republican leadership can't seem to bear to even mention this and basically I just do not know what the fuck is going on any more.
posted by rtha at 7:35 PM on August 14, 2016 [56 favorites]


Marie Mon Dieu - definitely check out Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Soon.
posted by porpoise at 7:35 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Today in Seattle I passed some people at a "Register to vote" table, and gave them a big smile and thumbs up (I didn't stop to talk; it's Seattle, one doesn't do such things). One of the people gave me a really nasty look. I was in my Hillary 16 T-shirt. I wonder if there was a connection; are Trump supporters out there registering people, too? It seems unlike them.

Or maybe it was the hot weather, or he was thinking about something else, or maybe I don't look as friendly as I think I do.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:36 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Ivanka is on vacation with Wendy Deng.

Enough. I can't take this anymore. I'm with tivalasvegas. I can no longer differentiate between what is important OR real.
posted by Sophie1 at 7:38 PM on August 14, 2016 [35 favorites]


I have the feeling that the Trump campaign rallies will reach their end at Magic Mountain in a second billing below a puppet show.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:39 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Enough. I can't take this anymore. I'm with tivalasvegas. I can no longer differentiate between what is important OR real.

Welcome to the Trumpendome.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:40 PM on August 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


As a Wendy, I feel it desperately important to point out that Ms. Deng spells her name with an inferior i, not a majestic y, thank you very much.
posted by palomar at 7:41 PM on August 14, 2016 [30 favorites]




people getting more of their news from places like Facebook

Can anyone explain to me what this means? I hear this constantly, but it makes no sense. Facebook does not publish news articles.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 7:54 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm a little confused by this new story to be honest. Did anyone really think the guy who made it his life's mission to support dictatorships around the world wasn't paid handsomely for his efforts? What part of the story is a revelation?
posted by acidic at 7:55 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


> Horse races sell, blowouts don't.

True, true...but you know what else audiences can't get enough of? Disasters.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:56 PM on August 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


Can anyone explain to me what this means? I hear this constantly, but it makes no sense. Facebook does not publish news articles.

Facebook doesn't publish news articles, but anyone can post a news article on their Facebook wall or on a friend's wall.
posted by peacheater at 7:56 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


i am trying to come to terms with the fact that i am basically going to be the dog in a "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON" meme for the remainder of this campaign.
posted by murphy slaw at 7:58 PM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


"Can anyone explain to me what this means? I hear this constantly, but it makes no sense. Facebook does not publish news articles."

It's kind of like if I said, "I get most of my Trump/Clinton news from this very thread here on MetaFilter."
posted by komara at 7:58 PM on August 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


Are people not aware that Facebook has a thing called trending topics that's accessible from the search bar on the mobile app? Tap on the search bar and tada, a huge list of news topics for you to read about and comment on!
posted by palomar at 7:59 PM on August 14, 2016


Roger Stone just tweeted this:

"My God! @CLewandowski_ is working for @HillaryClinton now- Clinton Talking point nonsense"

#notenoughpopcorn
posted by chris24 at 8:00 PM on August 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


Can anyone explain to me what this means? I hear this constantly, but it makes no sense.

Facebook publishes "trending stories", but more likely they're talking about simple sharing of news stories. Teabaggers are only friends with other teabaggers, and only link to teabagger sources, which becomes their reality. Or vice versa, Jill Stein supporters only read about how energy crystals cure wifi cancer. They trust because it came from Uncle Bill, or whoever. And it's self-reinforcing, I only see stories from people I either agree with or at least respect, because idiots reposting Glen Beck I unfriended in 2011.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:00 PM on August 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


Manafort has to be a KGB asset.

I honestly think that Manafort is worse than that: he's one of those mercenary bastards who seem to materialise in the background of the world's worst regimes and you wonder how they fuck they ended up there and how long they've been there. You can't buy them, but you can rent them for a while. Lots of them end up with very big, very nice houses in the DC suburbs.

Manafort's career is the kind of thing that conspiracy theorists point to when they want you to believe.
posted by holgate at 8:00 PM on August 14, 2016 [36 favorites]


people getting more of their news from places like Facebook

Can anyone explain to me what this means? I hear this constantly, but it makes no sense. Facebook does not publish news articles.


Facebook is like a common carrier; links to news created and curated elsewhere are very easily shared on Facebook.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:01 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Have any of the news networks picked up this latest Russian angle? Can we call them the Grand Old Putins or the Russpublicans now?
posted by vrakatar at 8:02 PM on August 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Manafort's old partner from the lobbying for sociopaths days, Roger Stone? Say it ain't so.
posted by Yowser at 8:03 PM on August 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also, you can join Facebook groups, which then feed stories directly to your individual timeline if you let them. So if you liked "Moms for Sarah Palin" or whatever, whoever runs that page has a direct line to pump SarahPAC emails into your Facebook feed.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:03 PM on August 14, 2016


Corey Lewandowski retweeted the NYT piece. The long knives are out.

Correction: The longest, most tremendous knives in the history of bladed weapons are out. And, you know, people tell me that they will have the most success at backstabbing ever. There's going to be so much treachery that you're going to get tired of it!
posted by the return of the thin white sock at 8:04 PM on August 14, 2016 [41 favorites]


I'm a little confused by this new story to be honest. Did anyone really think the guy who made it his life's mission to support dictatorships around the world wasn't paid handsomely for his efforts? What part of the story is a revelation?

I believe that most of the difference is between "that guy has a shadowy past" and "these are the concrete details of that guy's past." On top of that, with well known specifics you get whole new implications that you'll have a much easier time investigating- did he pay taxes on that 12 million? If he did any work advancing Ukranian interests in the US and didn't register as a foreign lobbyist, that's another crime, and there could be a lot more I don't even know. I bet you'd need a damn team of lawyers from several continents to figure out everywhere this guy's fucked up in his life.
posted by fomhar at 8:04 PM on August 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Facebook publishes "trending stories", but more likely they're talking about simple sharing of news stories. Teabaggers are only friends with other teabaggers, and only link to teabagger sources, which becomes their reality. Or vice versa, Jill Stein supporters only read about how energy crystals cure wifi cancer.

The sharing thing is precisely what I was talking about, yes.
posted by mordax at 8:04 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's Sunday night, vrakatar, this won't hit most places until the morning.
posted by Justinian at 8:04 PM on August 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wait, Putin is dating Rupert Murdoch's ex-wife? Or should I say, Rupert Murdoch's ex-wife is dating Putin? She has some taste in men, that's for sure.
posted by gingerbeer at 8:06 PM on August 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


Have any of the news networks picked up this latest Russian angle? Can we call them the Grand Old Putins or the Russpublicans now?

Slate has it, for what that's worth.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 8:06 PM on August 14, 2016


What part of the story is a revelation?

That not only was he paid handsomely, but he was paid handsomely off the books out of a secret slush fund. At least, that's what I got form the story.

It won't have legs with lower-info voters because there's too many moving parts. Ukraine, which isn't Russia, but which had a pro-Russia President, hired Manafort to do... something--but not a something that would require him to register as a foreign agent unless actually he did and completely broke that law--and the money he was paid with wasn't in the regular ledger but a secret ledger--it takes too long to get to the money shot and you do kind of have to already know who Yanukovych is and what the situation in Ukraine has been for the past decade. So, don't expect people to be talking about this around the water cooler. But jesus on a surfboard, it looks bad.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:06 PM on August 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


Eh, seems like a good time of night to ask Paul Ryan if it's true the Republican Party has been infiltrated by russian agents.
posted by ctmf at 8:07 PM on August 14, 2016 [34 favorites]


(with the follow-up, "how do you know?")
posted by ctmf at 8:09 PM on August 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Wait, Putin is dating Rupert Murdoch's ex-wife?

seeing "dating" and "putin" in the same sentence makes me think there should be a people magazine feature titled "BLOODTHIRSTY OLIGARCHS: THEY'RE JUST LIKE US!"
posted by murphy slaw at 8:09 PM on August 14, 2016 [22 favorites]


It won't have legs with lower-info voters because there's too many moving parts.

Not partisans who don't want to hear, but I think 'Trump's campaign manager was taking millions under the table for Russia' sells pretty readily to anyone on the fence.
posted by chris24 at 8:10 PM on August 14, 2016 [17 favorites]


Wait, Putin is dating Rupert Murdoch's ex-wife?

I thought she was dating Tony Blair?
posted by octothorpe at 8:12 PM on August 14,