The campaign lurches into the summer
June 29, 2016 7:48 AM   Subscribe

 
But Sanders and his supporters will be working with labor, environmental and human rights groups to call for amendments when the draft goes to the full 187-member Platform Committee for final approval in Orlando July 8 and 9. If he doesn’t succeed there, Sanders said he will have the votes to bring amendments to the convention floor in Philadelphia and “we are certainly intending to do that.”

Just personally, as a Bernie voter, this is what I thought my vote was going to be used for, and I'm glad to see this happening.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:56 AM on June 29, 2016 [35 favorites]


As someone who caucused for Bernie, I am growing increasingly frustrated with him and his semblance of a campaign. I voted for him mainly because I was excited about what his campaign was doing to push Clinton to the left, but he seems to be frittering his influence away and taking his hard-core supporters down a rabbit hole. I found this compelling.
posted by lunasol at 8:00 AM on June 29, 2016 [27 favorites]


#bernieputasockinitalready
posted by y2karl at 8:01 AM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


"The neo-Nazis who organized the pro-Donald Trump rally in Sacramento, California, that turned bloody over the weekend have a new destination: The Republican National Convention in Cleveland."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:03 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Just personally, as a Bernie voter, this is what I thought my vote was going to be used for, and I'm glad to see this happening.

Yeah, if he'd pivoted to this after it was obvious that he wasn't going to win (and dropped the "I'm not for sale wink wink knowwhatImeanVern" stuff in the process), I'd have ground my teeth a lot less over the past coupla months.
posted by Etrigan at 8:04 AM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


Bernie has overplayed his hand, and is in serious danger of undermining his goals.

"You got to know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run."
posted by Dashy at 8:06 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I voted for him mainly because I was excited about what his campaign was doing to push Clinton to the left,

Actually, let me amend that to say I was excited about what he was doing to push the Democratic Party and therefore politics as a whole to the left. I'm still excited about that.
posted by lunasol at 8:07 AM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


I like Janet Napolitano for Veep. Two term governor of Arizona. Secretary of Homeland Security. Current president of the University of California. Served as attorney for Anita Hill.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:12 AM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Bernie Sanders is probably prepared for a lot of things that aren't going to happen.
posted by East14thTaco at 8:16 AM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


I like Janet Napolitano for Veep.

Nooooooooo! She's just getting around to doing some good things for the UC! Don't go, Janet!
posted by Sophie1 at 8:16 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bernie has overplayed his hand, and is in serious danger of undermining his goals.

On the contrary; Bernie is looking at a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity here. He has 40+% backing among 2016's primary voters and double-digit state primary wins. He is perceived as the current spokesman for the progressive wing of the modern Democratic party, and WHILE I AM NOT ARGUING WHETHER OR NOT SAID WING SHOULD HAVE ISSUES WITH HILLARY CLINTON it is undeniable that many of them do. Hillary has a historically weak and self-destructive general election opponent, meaning that if there was ever room to pull the platform to the left and not risk a loss by doing so, this is that year. Bernie is 74 years old and not likely to ever get another bite at this particular apple.

As the nominee, Hillary has every right to say "I won, the platform is ours, we'll do it our way." Or she can attempt to draw in some of the angry left flank by reaching out to a degree, some means other than yelling "vote for me or Orange Julius Caesar gets in." It is Bernie's job to make sure that the progressive wing gets more than lip service from that process.
posted by delfin at 8:21 AM on June 29, 2016 [66 favorites]


Bernie Sanders wrote an op-ed in the NY Times today. (via an ex-Bernie fan at balloon-juice.com)
posted by NoMich at 8:23 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


The good news is that Bernie did so much good with his campaign to push things in a more progressive direction that he'd really have to screw up in order to reverse that positive impact, but the bad news is that he seems to be doing all he can to give the impression that he'd trade all of those progressive gains in for another chance to tilt at the windmill.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:23 AM on June 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


Orange Julius Caesar
omfg
Welp, that's my new name for him.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 8:24 AM on June 29, 2016 [42 favorites]


The pro-Bernie posts on my facebook feed have steadily grown more and more toxic. The moment I say anything that isn't completely fawning over him that I get piled on by the same people and called a shill or a sellout.

It is only a few people, but their volume of output is wearying. At least my ultra conservative family members only post completely unhinged tea party dreck once or twice a day, not every 15 minutes.
posted by Badgermann at 8:25 AM on June 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


NoMich: "Bernie Sanders wrote an op-ed in the NY Times today. (via an ex-Bernie fan at balloon-juice.com)"

In which he doesn't once mention Clinton by name.
posted by octothorpe at 8:27 AM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]




Or she can attempt to draw in some of the angry left flank by reaching out to a degree, some means other than yelling "vote for me or Orange Julius Caesar gets in."

It seems that Clinton is attempting to do that now by having Elizabeth Warren stump with her. It seems, though, some are not buying that Warren is a true progressive anymore for endorsing Clinton. However, it does seem that Bernie voters will vote for Hillary after all.
posted by NoMich at 8:32 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]




Or she can attempt to draw in some of the angry left flank by reaching out to a degree, some means other than yelling "vote for me or Orange Julius Caesar gets in."

Perhaps the "the most progressive platform put forth by Democrats in decades" could do it?

Or is that still not enough because $Hillary and also reasons?
posted by dersins at 8:39 AM on June 29, 2016 [40 favorites]


On the contrary; Bernie is looking at a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity here.

He was, right up until Elizabeth Warren came out hard for Clinton and stole his thunder. The number of Sanders supporters who say they won't vote for Clinton is rapidly dwindling, and Bernie's ability to influence general election is going down the drain with that figure. A man with something people need is a man with leverage. A man without it is just shouting into the uncaring wind.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:40 AM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]


Turns out that having leverage is only meaningful if you actually accomplish something with it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:41 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sanders lost. By a wide margin. And many of the people that did vote for him are exhausted and turned off by his actions over the past month or so. He seems entirely blind to the fact that he no longer has the support he once enjoyed. He doesn't need to give up entirely, many of us would still like a more progressive platform. But a floor fight is not the way to go about it, and is unlikely to actually do anything more than cause trouble.

I'm glad we have a new post, but it's sort of irritating that it is framed entirely as Hillary v Bernie and not Clinton v Trump, which is what the actual race is at this point.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 8:42 AM on June 29, 2016 [46 favorites]


As the nominee, Hillary has every right to say "I won, the platform is ours, we'll do it our way." Or she can attempt to draw in some of the angry left flank by reaching out to a degree, some means other than yelling "vote for me or Orange Julius Caesar gets in." It is Bernie's job to make sure that the progressive wing gets more than lip service from that process.

We already know the answer to this: she has been reaching out. The current draft of the party platform reflects substantial input from the Sanders campaign, including a $15/hr minimum wage, for example; she's been campaigning with Elizabeth Warren and has been hinting at her as VP, rather than a more moderate Democrat. Whether the platform should reflect more of the Sanders campaign, or, in general, whether Clinton is reaching out 'enough' is in the eye of the beholder, but although she has every right to say 'I won, this is the deal,' she isn't. That's not even a question.
posted by cjelli at 8:42 AM on June 29, 2016 [42 favorites]


I also wonder how much traction a No True Progressive Scotsman argument against Elizabeth Warren will get, considering how she has her own considerable fan base already.
posted by Gelatin at 8:43 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Just in case you thought the DNC Platform Committee has been standing still ...
The Democratic National Committee Platform recently voted to keep corruption and corporate influence as mainstays within the Democratic Party.

In an effort to pander to labor unions
This seems like a solid and unbiased source which I will definitely keep reading!
posted by beerperson at 8:43 AM on June 29, 2016 [64 favorites]


And I agree -- Hillary has been reaching to her left. It's a good start. It depends on what your pet issues are, of course, and there are some whom HRC can simply never make happy.
posted by delfin at 8:45 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


This seems like a solid and unbiased source which I will definitely keep reading!

That's an unfair place to cut off. The complete paragraph:
The Democratic National Committee Platform recently voted to keep corruption and corporate influence as mainstays within the Democratic Party.

In an effort to pander to labor unions, Hillary Clinton opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2015, but the surrogates she appointed to the Democratic National Committee Platform have formally supported the controversial agreement. This hypocrisy is unsurprising. Although Clinton helped move forward TPP negotiations during her service as secretary of state, her involvement with the deal has been omitted from the paperback version of her autobiography, Hard Choices. Even the Obama Administration has had a hand in shielding Clinton from TPP criticism, delaying the release of emails pertaining to the agreement until after the general election.
They're not condemning appealing to unions, they're saying that she told the unions what they wanted to hear and then did the opposite in actual practice, and declined to admit to it in her accounts of her activities. That's a claim that can be confirmed or rebutted, and if true is worth holding her feet to the fire about.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:46 AM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


The DNC voted down language opposing the TPP to not oppose Obama's position, though both Sanders and Clinton have come out against it. The AP source of that article is clearer.
posted by Peccable at 8:48 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


That's an unfair place to cut off. The complete paragraph:

Complete paragraph or no, it's utterly reasonable to stop reading at--and ignore everything that comes after--"The Democratic National Committee Platform recently voted to keep corruption and corporate influence as mainstays within the Democratic Party."

That is not reporting, it is propaganda.
posted by dersins at 8:50 AM on June 29, 2016 [39 favorites]


Oh please, if it were "The Republican National Committee Platform recently voted to keep patriarchy and white supremacy as mainstays within the Republican Party" neither you nor I would blink at it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:51 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


Besides which, that same website also posted this trash about leftism being fascism so I mean maybe your expectations for the quality of its "reporting" are a bit high.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:53 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I read the whole Observer article and found this at the bottom:

"Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media."
posted by FJT at 8:55 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Hey I have an idea maybe this thread could not 100% consist of Hillary vs Bernie Round 78
posted by saturday_morning at 8:55 AM on June 29, 2016 [77 favorites]


Corporate America could support Clinton unlike any past Democrat. It could deliver her a win but for a very unlikely extreme mobilization of middle class white voters in battleground states. The only thing that could put that in jeopardy is a wild-eyes platform that makes business really worry -- and look at Trump as at least someone who believes in capitalism.
posted by MattD at 8:56 AM on June 29, 2016


On a lighter note, Alex Jones is concerned about Trump kissing goblins, perhaps even taking a goblin succubus. I must admit that although I've read what he says and read about him, I never literally listened to Alex Jones. It sounds like he's about to bring up the time he had to kill a Frankenstein.
posted by Countess Elena at 8:59 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Oh please, if it were "The Republican National Committee Platform recently voted to keep patriarchy and white supremacy as mainstays within the Republican Party" neither you nor I would blink at it.

I would also be pissed about this, for the record. Tell me the god damned FACTS and let me draw my own conclusions, please!
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:01 AM on June 29, 2016 [17 favorites]


The amusing thing about fights over party platforms is that they're totally non-binding and usually instantly forgotten about as soon as the convention is over.
posted by octothorpe at 9:01 AM on June 29, 2016 [19 favorites]


Hey I have an idea maybe this thread could not 100% consist of Hillary vs Bernie Round 78

We could avoid it if Bernie would endorse Clinton already. Until he does, the conversation is inevitable.
posted by stolyarova at 9:01 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Actually, it's really not. It's just as easy to ignore Bernie Sanders until he does that too.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:03 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


We could avoid it if Bernie would endorse Clinton already. Until he does, the conversation is inevitable.

Roughly 8% of his voters, who mostly don't even seem to be Democrats, are voting for Trump. I don't think his endorsement is relevant anymore.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:03 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


There's no way Alex Jones could have killed a Frankenstein. Torch fire does not get hot enough to melt metal neck bolts, sheeple!
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:04 AM on June 29, 2016 [26 favorites]


For at least the second time (and at least the second poll), Trump is touting a poll on Twitter showing him losing to Clinton. I'm not sure what message Trump thinks we're supposed to take away from that.
posted by cjelli at 9:05 AM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton v Trump, which is what the actual race is at this point

Well, technically not until the conventions. So there's still time for the Republican party to step back from the abyss and embrace a less chaotic, destructive - and frankly stupid - vision of the future than Donald Trump's.

There's still at least a sliver of hope in the form of the nascent "Draft Violent J/Shaggy 2 Dope" movement.
posted by Naberius at 9:06 AM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think Trump surrounds himself with so many yes-men that his vision of reality is growing increasingly more warped and narcissistic. He may genuinely believe that he saw himself winning that poll when he tweeted it.
posted by stolyarova at 9:07 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not sure what message Trump thinks we're supposed to take away from that.

That he never wanted to be the candidate and this thing has gone too far?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:07 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


Until he does, the conversation is inevitable.

I wouldn't say it's inevitable, but that it's actually a lot more substantive a conversation than collectively WTFing about whatever latest WTF thing Trump said or did. This is about a very important election, but also about the future of the Democratic party, and when these rifts occur, I think it's important to analyze them and figure out how the party will try to unite behind a progressive agenda in the coming years. That's worth discussing.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 AM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


"The neo-Nazis who organized the pro-Donald Trump rally in Sacramento, California, that turned bloody over the weekend have a new destination: The Republican National Convention in Cleveland."

I'm not naive enough to think that if Trump totally denounced these groups, that he'd lose their support -- I'm sure there'd be a lot of "it's fine, he's just saying what he has to say to get elected, we know what he REALLY means" within those groups. But at least, if they're in Cleveland causing a violent scene at his convention, he'd be in a position where he'd *have* to either denounce them in clear, consistent terms (haha no) or not (goodbye to the more reality-based half of the GOP, forever).
posted by saturday_morning at 9:11 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Actually, it's really not. It's just as easy to ignore Bernie Sanders until he does that too.

I'm increasingly inclined to do so even after, and I voted for him in the Indiana primary.

Elizabeth Warren should do a fine job of keeping income inequality and the pernicious influence of the corrupt financial sector on the national agenda.
posted by Gelatin at 9:11 AM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


NoMich: "It seems, though, some are not buying that Warren is a true progressive anymore for endorsing Clinton."

So, before endorsing Clinton, Warren was a progressive hero. Afterwards, she's not a true progressive after all. As far as I know, she didn't renounce any of her previous positions or policies. So, simply the act of endorsing Clinton is considered poisonous to a certain subset of people (that presumably includes the author of that article, Walker Bragman).

I've been thinking more and more about the constant use of the word "corruption" in certain circles of political commentary. I'm starting to suspect that, in some ways, the connotative implications of the word can start to overwhelm any denotative definition. Specifically, "corruption" implies impurity, dirtiness, contamination. If you touch something dirty, you can't help but become dirty (corrupt) yourself. Conversely, something (or someone) that isn't "corrupt" is pure, unblemished, immaculate. Bringing in anything from outside of this bubble of purity can only result in corruption.

Under this (admittedly exaggerated) framework, it is the inevitable conclusion that by endorsing Clinton, Warren is also now corrupt, perhaps not as corrupt as Clinton herself but certainly no longer pure. Whether it was because Clinton drove a Brinks trunk worth of unmarked, non-sequential bills onto her front lawn or promised her a VP/Secretary of Treasury/Ambassador to Bahamas post is beside the point. Also beside the point would be if Warren decided that endorsing Clinton -- even if she doesn't agree 100% with her on all issues -- would be the most effective way of advancing her own agenda. That would also probably be a form of corruption.
posted by mhum at 9:12 AM on June 29, 2016 [25 favorites]


I like Janet Napolitano for Veep. Two term governor of Arizona. Secretary of Homeland Security.

If you held that job and didn't immediately call for half of its operations to be shut down you're not going to be someone I respect.
posted by phearlez at 9:13 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


[Couple comments removed. Let's skip yet another round of the Yeah But Bernie Should Be The Candidate rehash stuff.]
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:14 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, before endorsing Clinton, Warren was a progressive hero. Afterwards, she's not a true progressive after all.

I seem to recall a not insubstantial number of the lefty #neverclinton crowd touting their hypothetical support of a hypothetical Warren candidacy as proof that they're totes cool with the idea of a woman on the ticket as long as it's the right woman and not $hillary.

How strange and unexpected that this seems to be changing as things become less hypothetical.
posted by dersins at 9:22 AM on June 29, 2016 [75 favorites]


No fan of the GOP here, but every person with a security clearance whom I've spoken with has told me they would be fired and imprisoned for Hillary's level of email fuckery. Shouldn't we be at all concerned about the possible outcomes of the ongoing FBI criminal investigation?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:26 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Afterwards, she's not a true progressive after all.

Not even then. A lot of at-the-time Sanders supporters were critical of Warren for not endorsing Sanders during the primary. In their perspective it's an outright betrayal and possibly cost Sanders the nomination. I think similar to Benedict Arnold, some dislike those that betray them even more than someone that's always been seen as an enemy (like Trump).
posted by FJT at 9:28 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


No fan of the GOP here, but every person with a security clearance whom I've spoken with has told me they would be fired and imprisoned for Hillary's level of email fuckery. Shouldn't we be at all concerned about the possible outcomes of the ongoing FBI criminal investigation?

Ask David Petraeus about that. Everyone knows the rules are for the little people.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:29 AM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


Trump's already written off the reality based GOP contingent. Meanwhile, I'm wondering if I should dress to look whiter for the RNC Just In Case. Thanks, Trump, you unrepentant dickwad. I love having to add calculations about white supremacists into my thinking.
posted by corb at 9:30 AM on June 29, 2016 [24 favorites]


Also FYI, do you guys know Trump supporters are telling even legal immigrants that when Orange God King wins, we will have to go back?
posted by corb at 9:31 AM on June 29, 2016 [17 favorites]


That nobody is calling for Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell to be jailed for the same crime as Clinton, or for the Bush administration to be jailed for running their official state business over RNC-controlled servers to elude accountability and archiving regulations, tells you everything you need to know about the Clinton email server "scandal".
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:32 AM on June 29, 2016 [99 favorites]


Corb - I really want you to be careful in Cleveland. I am genuinely concerned about your welfare. That said, I hope we can get regular updates from you as to what is actually going on. I don't think the news media will have anywhere near the insight that you will.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:33 AM on June 29, 2016 [41 favorites]


Also FYI, do you guys know Trump supporters are telling even legal immigrants that when Orange God King wins, we will have to go back?

Given the tenor of his campaign thus far I honestly couldn't tell you if I knew it for a fact or just assumed they were doing that.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:33 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Corporate America could support Clinton unlike any past Democrat. It could deliver her a win but for a very unlikely extreme mobilization of middle class white voters in battleground states. The only thing that could put that in jeopardy is a wild-eyes platform that makes business really worry -- and look at Trump as at least someone who believes in capitalism.

The platform would have to get pretty wild eyed to solidify corporate support around Trump. At this point, Clinton is the sane, supportable choice, and Trump is the unpredictable loon, and takes every opportunity to ensure he'll be the unpredictable loon. It's far from clear that Trump represents capitalism at all, as he's been as populist and shitty on some key issues as Bernie. Not to mention that Trump believes in Trump far more than capitalism, or the people.

The platform could get pretty wild eyed if Sanders somehow manages to exert influence at the convention. Just making a spectacle I think would be damage enough.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:34 AM on June 29, 2016


Also FYI, do you guys know Trump supporters are telling even legal immigrants that when Orange God King wins, we will have to go back?

I kind of want to see what happens when they pull that shit with a Native American, but past experience has shown that the cognitive dissonance is simply too much for them to process.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:37 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


A lot of at-the-time Sanders supporters were critical of Warren for not endorsing Sanders during the primary. In their perspective it's an outright betrayal

Betrayal? Did she promise to endorse him? Or ever campaign for him? (A hasty Google search turns up a Mother Jones article saying she won't rule out doing so, but that's hardly a promise.)

It seems plain that Warren sees the path to achieving her progressive goals as being much more via a Clinton presidency than a Trump one. It's also logical to infer that she would accept half a loaf of incremental gains to the ascendancy of the plutocracy that Trump and a Republican Congress would usher in.

If Sanders can't recognize that he, Warren and Clinton share many of the same goals and differ only in their preferred approach -- and more, acknowledge that an incremental approach might be at least possible, if not preferable, means of achieving those goals -- then what's inevitable is questioning how much his run was about his revolution versus just being about him.
posted by Gelatin at 9:38 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


Shouldn't we be at all concerned about the possible outcomes of the ongoing FBI criminal investigation?

Not really, considering it's just the latest incarnation of the proverbial 'other shoe' that Clinton haters have been predicting is juuuust about to drop for the past 25 years now.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:39 AM on June 29, 2016 [48 favorites]


every person with a security clearance whom I've spoken with has told me they would be fired and imprisoned for Hillary's level of email fuckery.

I doubt any person you spoke to was at Clinton's level of decision maker. Which I don't entirely mean as a "the rules are different at that level" (though that's true) but rather that they - if they're cleared - are presumably dealing with materials handed to them by other folks who set those classifications. Clinton was dealing with material that was not classified at the time it was going across the wire - and if it had been that would have been a violation of handling rules regardless of where the server was because email is not secure. So anything emailed to her which should have been kept under TS rules represented a violation on the part of the person emailing it.

Clinton's choices on the email thing were bone-headed and I have commented on that at length from my perspective as a technologist and having been in the government contracting world. But there's not much credible to support the idea that it was criminal. And as others have said, it's not remotely unique in the specifics. I can assure you it's not the tiniest bit unique as a general if-its-not-forbidden-go-for-it way of end-running around bad/inadequate government systems offerings.

I'd also suggest you temper the respect you give these opinions offered to you by these folks based on their answer to the question "does the current method and amount of classification in government documents strike you as too extensive?"
posted by phearlez at 9:41 AM on June 29, 2016 [39 favorites]


Yoa -- Kevin Drum cites a report that Donald Trump's campaign spent no money at all on TV ads in June.

Related anecdata: My father is spending time in Florida this week, and tells me that TV ads run heavily -- something like 10 to 1 -- for Clinton (the other ads must be pro-Trump PACs, I presume).
posted by Gelatin at 9:41 AM on June 29, 2016


Geez, you guys are being very harsh on Sanders. The big money in the politics is still a big problem, and Clinton won't fix it/Sanders shouldn't shut up about it.
posted by clawsoon at 9:41 AM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


look at Trump as at least someone who believes in capitalism
That may be one of the biggest lies being perpetrated by Trump, unless you define "capitalism" as "living off daddy's money". "cheating everybody you do business with" and "making your 'personal brand' the only asset you have that's actually worth something".
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:42 AM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


corb, please do be careful in Cleveland, and keep your head down as much as you can.
posted by Gelatin at 9:42 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


That may be one of the biggest lies being perpetrated by Trump, unless you define "capitalism" as "living off daddy's money". "cheating everybody you do business with" and "making your 'personal brand' the only asset you have that's actually worth something".

Unless you're one of those libertarians or ancaps who likes to rant about how what we really have, sheeple, is corporatism/cronyism/communist/etc, then yeah all of those are super-common and super-compatible with capitalism.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:45 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Thinking about down-ticket races and the future direction of the Dems, the New York Times has a list of 14 young Democrats to watch. Curious what those who've seen more of these folks at the state and local level think...
posted by une_heure_pleine at 9:47 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


"corporatism/cronyism" is totally compatible with "libertarianism"... that's why Peter Thiel is a delegate for Trump.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:50 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


I will. Supposedly there will be one bodyguard accompanying our state delegation, but I have no idea how he's supposed to protect 88 people. I'll be updating regularly though, and a couple mefites have my info and permission to tell you if I get seriously injured.
posted by corb at 9:54 AM on June 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


88 people

O_o
posted by tonycpsu at 9:55 AM on June 29, 2016 [19 favorites]


I also found the Slate article lunasol linked to compelling, and it represented a train of thought I'd been following into something of a morass for a long time now. I don't think Sanders voters were supporting him because they've always had a thing for aged socialists from Vermont. Even though they now seem to think he's the messiah and all that, I'm pretty sure most had never heard of him in 2013. They were drawn in by his support of progressive issues. In a Democratic party moving farther right all the time, because a collapsing GOP is giving them plenty of room to do so, Sanders presented a vision of a Democratic party that could serve some purpose for voters who didn't go to Yale and don't have a trust fund. (Beyond just being an alternative to living in The Handmaid's Tale, obviously.)

So like a lot of people here, I voted for Sanders in my primary. And like a lot of people I did so not so much because I thought he should be President as because I thought he was doing good work in forcing Hillary to tack left against her instincts. But then, as things started to go south, I had to consider how exactly was he going to do that? Sanders is using the stick, offering voters an alternative and forcing Hillary to fight to keep them. But that only works as long as Sanders remains an actual alternative. The moment he concedes, he has no leverage and Hillary tacks back to the right. So okay, he stays in right to the convention and has some influence on the platform. But as noted above, that still doesn't get him anywhere as the platform ultimately doesn't mean shit. If he isn't the candidate, then he eventually loses all his clout.

So I reluctantly concluded that Sanders couldn't really change the party in any permanent way. So what the hell good was any of this? But Elizabeth Warren, being in my view a considerably more savvy politician, may have actually found a way to do it. Warren is using the carrot approach. She's basically saying, if you come over here to the left, I can create some really fertile ground for you. That is working, and it doesn't go away after the convention.

I would have loved to see Warren as the candidate. (As I said previously, I think she represents a fantastic combination of Sanders' progressive instincts and Clinton's political skill.) And I think she may really have the answer that Sanders was going for but missed. I don't want her to be VP, as I've also said before. I think that actually weakens her. But I'm even more impressed with what she's been doing lately. She's found a way to not just fulfill a basic mitzvah we all face -- doing her utmost to destroy Donald Trump and the mob of troglodytes he leads -- but at the same time to at least begin steering the Democratic party away from neoliberalism. That's got to happen before another election cycle comes up and the GOP nominates Ted Nugent or some damn fool, and so much of the country is so desperate that no one can stop them and America simply collapses. Like Britain.
posted by Naberius at 9:56 AM on June 29, 2016 [29 favorites]


then yeah all of those are super-common and super-compatible with capitalism.

I think there was an article linked before about how since Trump is from the real estate development world his perspective of capitalism and business is completely zero sum, which happens, of course, but isn't the only way things occur. In theory and usually in reality "good deals" happen when all parties are better off because the pie grows, not because one party gains and the other loses.
posted by FJT at 9:58 AM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think Trump surrounds himself with so many yes-men that his vision of reality is growing increasingly more warped and narcissistic.

When Trump loses (or God forbid wins), the competition for Greatest Donald Trump/Hitler Reacts Downfall Meme is going to be absolutely epic.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:58 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Castro is a rising star, but the limits for a Democrat on the TX cursus honorum have limited him, and he's been quiet at HUD.

Gabbard has two issues - she has a past of having more right wing views, and she was one of the people who hitched their wagon to Sanders' star firmly, jumping ship from the DNC to do so.

Kennedy's well...a Kennedy, for good and ill. Seems to have picked up the better parts of that heritage, though.

Raimondo - no. Just no. She practically defines "DINO", which is par for RI.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:00 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


A lot of at-the-time Sanders supporters were critical of Warren for not endorsing Sanders during the primary. In their perspective it's an outright betrayal


A friend of mine is a self-described Marxist who has generally positive feelings about Jerry Brown and Bernie Sanders but dislikes Clinton. When Brown endorsed Clinton he could not wrap his head around it. "Maybe she's going to give him a cabinet position."

It did not occur to him that there might actually be reasons why accomplished politicians, people who actually get things done in the government, might have a look at Sanders' record, his stated goals, and his absolute dearth of ways to accomplish them (Break up the banks! How? I don't know. Why? Because they're bad and unfair) and conclude that Clinton is the better bet for moving the country leftward from the executive office. I mean, this is a campaign which has made single-payer healthcare a core message, but apparently does not employ anybody familiar enough with healthcare in America to know what we spend on drugs every year. If anybody in Sanders' org had even the most basic familiarity with that very important number, they never would have issued a proposal that claimed to save more money on medication than the country actually spends.

I think it's incredibly telling that basically none of his colleagues are endorsing Sanders -- his endorsements are almost entirely from entertainers (a group in which I include your Cornwell Wests and HA Goodmans). But for the true believers it's not an indication that there might be problems with his fitness for the office, it's just further evidence that he's the one! true! savior!

It really is a cult of personality.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:01 AM on June 29, 2016 [38 favorites]


The platform could get pretty wild eyed if Sanders somehow manages to exert influence at the convention. Just making a spectacle I think would be damage enough.

Sanders isn't a "wild-eyed" socialist, he's a mainstream social democrat of the type the financial industry and corporate world have been working alongside for decades in the rest of the world. Compared to a guy who's promising to make their work a million times more difficult in almost every conceivable way, I doubt that the damage would be severe even if Clinton implemented his entire platform unchanged.

I'm beginning to think that, at this point, the only people that believe Sanders is a massively destabilizing force are the idiot extremists on both sides that think (or hope) that he'll seize the means of production and oil the machines with the blood of the bourgeoisie.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:01 AM on June 29, 2016 [19 favorites]


Cronyism is a way of getting things done, not a philosophy of government. There's no reason why any particular society wouldn't suffer from it. (Especially given that the line between cronyism and networking remains tenuous.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:02 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I have zero problems with what Sanders is doing. The left/progressives/liberals in this country need to get over the idea that political engagement begins and ends with supporting the Democratic candidate in the General election. Sanders is mobilizing an army of young activists to both influence the Democratic platform in July but also, and more importantly, continue to work to elect like minded candidates after the Presidential election is over. It might not work, but I am glad someone is trying to do it.

As for the present election, Clinton doesn't need another surrogate against Trump. Elizabeth Warren is already doing a good job, and hell, even members of the Republican establishment who don't like Trump are willing to pitch in.

Also, I doubt Sanders suddenly turning into a Clinton attack dog would convince the portion of his supporters who don't like Clinton to suddenly support her. The best way to convince those individuals to support Clinton is to convince them that a vote for Clinton is tactical vote in the service of their goals.

Tactical voters is probably a good description of many Democractic voters, even if they don't realize it. In a country with a parliament, Sanders voters would be able to vote for a political party that would form a coalition government with Clinton's wing of the party. Our political system doesn't allow that opportunity.
posted by eagles123 at 10:02 AM on June 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


Sure, the DNC will have two Presidents appearing, but will it have Mikes Tyson and Ditka like the Trumpaplooza? Put Mike on stage with a chair and there's no telling what he'll say to it!

And Trump might be a capitalist, but he seems like the kind of capitalist only a marxist could love.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:02 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


One of my friends who voted for Bernie in the primary, as I did, is scaring me on Facebook by posting these, to me, anti-productive rants asking how she is supposed to simply give up all of her values to vote for Clinton. I hate sore losers. It's one thing to have an election stolen, and we all know what I'm talking about. But Bernie is not the presumptive nominee and this bullshit about taking your ball and going home drives me crazy. We have got to overturn Citizens United, and that will not happen if Bernie supporters stay home and sulk in the corner. Or worse, demand that everybody stays home and sulks in the corner. This may be the most important presidential election in my lifetime, given the Republican nominee. Sure, the Democratic Party is the compromised, corrupt institution sucking from the corporate tit. We totally need to fix that. Like, after kicking Trump's ass. I really hope Democrats and progressives can pull together on this one and get rid of the rancor in a hurry. Or rather, put it on hold until after November.
posted by Bella Donna at 10:08 AM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


I just want to say that if we need a Kickstarter or something to get a Game Change-style recounting of the Trump campaign, I'm good for at least a few hundred dollars. It would be fucking amazing and would probably win a Pulitzer Prize for Fiction despite being real.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:12 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Can we stop using the pejorative "$hillary", even ironically? For one thing, it's not cool, and for another, it's giving me Perl flashbacks.
posted by a car full of lions at 10:13 AM on June 29, 2016 [40 favorites]


Garcetti, if he can keep everything running smoothly here in L.A., is definitely a democrat to watch. He's Mexican, Jewish and Italian. His great-grandfather, a judge, was hung during the Mexican Revolution. He speaks fluent Spanish, his father was also the Los Angeles County DA forever and has really incredible name recognition. That said, keeping L.A. running smoothly is not an enviable task, but I think Eric could potentially go very far in the democratic party. Recently, he was on Chris Hayes show on MSNBC talking about the drought, and I felt like he was definitely working toward something other than his next term as mayor.
posted by Sophie1 at 10:14 AM on June 29, 2016


Re the "Young Democrats To Watch" article, I'm just impressed in a "knew him when" kind of way about Hakeem Jeffries making the list. I remember when he was first running for NY state assembly in my district, shaking hands outside my subway station! Go Hakeem!

Their point about him not fitting neatly into any particular box is on point. When the Atlantic Yards project was the new thing everybody in brownstone Brooklyn was pissed about, I don't remember ever seeing him speak at any of those rallies. (Though I guess it's possible that the footprint of that project was just outside his district?) He's definitely more in the model of HRC or pre-scandal Anthony Weiner than your Zephyr Teachouts and such. But I'm happy to hear that he's getting involved in police brutality issues and has a strong track record against Stop-And-Frisk and prison population based gerrymandering.
posted by Sara C. at 10:15 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


but will it have Mikes Tyson and Ditka like the Trumpaplooza?

I believe the RNC has denied the Ditka/Tyson/other sports figures rumors (for the moment, anyway). No telling who they will end up with.
posted by yhbc at 10:15 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


One of my friends who voted for Bernie in the primary, as I did, is scaring me on Facebook by posting these, to me, anti-productive rants asking how she is supposed to simply give up all of her values to vote for Clinton.

A lot of people have this weird view of voting as being some kind of manifestation of their innermost moral will, in an almost religious sort of way, such that you should only vote for a candidate if they're exactly the candidate you want, as if voting for a candidate who is less than perfect or ideal stains you morally. (It ties in with personal purity narratives of morality, to which of course I'm unsympathetic. )I wish we could vaccinate against this, but I'm not sure how to do that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:16 AM on June 29, 2016 [57 favorites]


rants asking how she is supposed to simply give up all of her values to vote for Clinton

Ask her to list which specific values she would have to give up, and exactly how her values conflict with those of Clinton.

Though even that is silly, since of course the term "values" is a lot mushier than something like "policies" or "goals" or "record on the issues".
posted by Sara C. at 10:18 AM on June 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


I just want to say that if we need a Kickstarter or something to get a Game Change-style recounting of the Trump campaign

I pretty much guarantee every major publisher will be paying top dollar to secure book deals from Trump campaign insiders. There will be no need for crowdfunding.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:18 AM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


2016 is a reminder that the Left is not unified and never will be, except snarking in comment threads under a right-wing government.
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:20 AM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Sure, the Democratic Party is the compromised, corrupt institution sucking from the corporate tit. We totally need to fix that. Like, after kicking Trump's ass.
A three sentence demonstration of the problem with the two-team sport that is the US presidential election.

We've totally got to overhaul our party... just...later... after we get to see them win this one next time.

Rinse. Repeat. And later becomes never.
posted by -1 at 10:21 AM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


Can we stop with the Bernie v Hillary stuff and spend more time mocking how Trump is actively soliciting money from foreign nationals, including every member of Iceland's Parliament?
posted by TwoStride at 10:24 AM on June 29, 2016 [21 favorites]


In a country with a parliament, Sanders voters would be able to vote for a political party that would form a coalition government with Clinton's wing of the party. Our political system doesn't allow that opportunity.

I think our system is better in that regard, because it forces the deals to be made before people go to the polls, not after.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:25 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


That Buzzfeed letter reads so much like a Trump speech.
posted by ethansr at 10:25 AM on June 29, 2016


I pretty much guarantee every major publisher will be paying top dollar to secure book deals from Trump campaign insiders. There will be no need for crowdfunding.

Apparently Harper Collins offered Lewandowsky $1.2M but the deal fell apart when he would not show them his NDA with Trump
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:25 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


In a country with a parliament, Sanders voters would be able to vote for a political party that would form a coalition government with Clinton's wing of the party. Our political system doesn't allow that opportunity.

Sure it does; it's just that our political system has coalitions form before the election.
posted by Gelatin at 10:27 AM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


2016 is a reminder that the Left is not unified and never will be, except snarking in comment threads under a right-wing government.

Part of the problem is the assumption of commonality between the Democratic Party and the Left. We're not the same, even if we sometimes have certain common goals and common interests. We can work together, but the demand that the Democrats do what socialists say as though they owe it to us is every bit as weird and misinformed as the demand that socialists owe the Democrats our allegiance.

We can work together sometimes, and I think it's obscenely foolish to ignore the harm reduction in (in the realm of electoral politics) backing the Dems over the Republicans. But the idea that we're a subset of the Democrats, or that either side owes the other anything, is foolish and won't lead to political insight or effective policy.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:28 AM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]


I think our system is better in that regard, because it forces the deals to be made before people go to the polls, not after.

Doesn't that mean such deals are often opaque though and possibly not accountable to the voters, since there is no formal system for deal-making?
posted by kyp at 10:28 AM on June 29, 2016


Try reading the BuzzFeed letter in Mark Wahlberg's voice. Perfect, right?
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:29 AM on June 29, 2016


The deals are opaque and not accountable to the voters in a parliamentary system too. Nick Clegg will explain it to you in song form.
posted by zachlipton at 10:30 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Pretty damn telling that you've got facism on one side and a woman on the other and there's a question of how some people are going to vote.
posted by Mooski at 10:30 AM on June 29, 2016 [75 favorites]


women to the left of me
fascists to the right
here I am stuck in the middle with you
posted by murphy slaw at 10:34 AM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


I voted for Sanders in the primary and I still wish he had won even though there was never really a point at which I actually believed that he would. And while I'm not so thrilled with the choices he and his campaign have made towards the end, but what really depresses and frustrates me is how quickly the media and Clinton supporters want to throw him under the bus.

I believe his campaign did significantly shift the national conversation further to the left. So what if he's going for a "floor fight?" Hillary will win the nomination either way. Does that mean the conversation needs to stop? This idea that political competitions should be run and covered like sports, with
clear victors and losers only hurts the democratic process. Sanders does not need to support Hillary simply because she won.

And to there are/were differences between the candidates. People generally supported who the supported for, I assume until proven otherwise, perfectly valid reasons.

This whole election cycle has been so draining and depressing. With a whole lot of useless bullshit coming from both the Sanders and Clinton side.

And because it seems to be required of all Sanders supporters that choose to express frustration and concern about the state of American politics and democracy, I will be voting for Clinton in the general.
posted by AtoBtoA at 10:35 AM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]


If you focus on the picture used in this TPM article you can see the sphere of Trump’s head hiding beneath that massive comb-over. Don’t start too hard though, or the void will stare back.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:36 AM on June 29, 2016


*cuts off a superdelegate's ear while dancing*
posted by delfin at 10:36 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Don’t start too hard though, or the void will stare back.

brrrr that is the most unsettling picture of his hair I have yet seen

it's like the branch that hovers in front of The Beast's face in The Magicians
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:42 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Pretty damn telling that you've got facism on one side and a woman on the other and there's a question of how some people are going to vote.

The DC direct-market comic book series Sonic Disruptors from the late eighties had a fascists Trump-like blowhard take power to save America from a woman president. The solution was Rock and Roll.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:44 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Jonathan Martin: Plagiarized Lessons and Deceptive Tactics: A Look Inside the Trump Institute
As with Trump University, the Trump Institute promised falsely that its teachers would be handpicked by Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump did little, interviews show, besides appear in an infomercial — one that promised customers access to his vast accumulated knowledge. “I put all of my concepts that have worked so well for me, new and old, into our seminar,” he said in the 2005 video, adding, “I’m teaching what I’ve learned.”

Reality fell far short. In fact, the institute was run by a couple who had run afoul of regulators in dozens of states and been dogged by accusations of deceptive business practices and fraud for decades. Similar complaints soon emerged about the Trump Institute.

Yet there was an even more fundamental deceit to the business, unreported until now: Extensive portions of the materials that students received after forking over their seminar fees, supposedly containing Mr. Trump’s special wisdom, had been plagiarized from an obscure real estate manual published a decade earlier.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:46 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


88 people

I noticed that just after you did. Bizarre.
posted by corb at 10:47 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


the Trump Institute promised falsely that its teachers would be handpicked by Mr. Trump

this was a selling point? and not a threat? what
posted by poffin boffin at 10:47 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sanders does not need to support Hillary simply because she won.

He doesn't, but endorsing Hillary Clinton does no harm to him, his supporters, or his movement. It makes zero sense why he's lollygagging on the endorsement.
posted by FJT at 10:52 AM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]


like imagine, just imagine the kind of people he thinks are worth listening to. it's himself and who else? prolly anyone who gives him money or attention, maybe hitler, idk.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:56 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


“I’m teaching what I’ve learned.” ... the institute was run by a couple who had run afoul of regulators in dozens of states and been dogged by accusations of deceptive business practices and fraud for decades.

Sounds to me like he delivered on his promises.
posted by metaBugs at 10:58 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


As many have observed, Trump is a symptom, not the disease itself. Even if Trump is defeated this year, others will carry the torch of xenophobic ethnic nationalism. Stephen Miller might run for President in 2028. Imagine someone eloquent and genuinely skilled at public speaking with Trump's philosophy of hatred.
posted by stolyarova at 11:00 AM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


Of course, maybe I'm scared of nothing. Maybe it's like pornography, where Trump's lower-resolution, Rorschach-blot kind of speech is more palatable than ultra-high-resolution articulation of the same ideas.

But the way he's shifting the Overton Window makes me suspect we'll see a rise of more explicit "race realism" in the next ten to twenty years.
posted by stolyarova at 11:02 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I dunno if there's an Overton Window in the U.S. anymore. You've got at least two windows nowadays, and the people looking out of them see completely different countries and have two completely different sets of acceptable political discourse.
posted by clawsoon at 11:05 AM on June 29, 2016 [42 favorites]


It makes zero sense why he's lollygagging on the endorsement.

Messiah complex.
posted by box at 11:06 AM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


Sure it does; it's just that our political system has coalitions form before the election.

We have people in this very thread arguing that over whether there actually is a difference between the views of Sanders and Clinton (for the record there is - Clinton herself will tell you as much). Given the relative disengagement of the American voter, I don't think the ad hoc coalition building that occurs within American political parties gives voters the same sense of being represented by their vote as a system where voters have the opportunity to vote for parties that more closely align with their views.

That being said, this is a weird side discussion because we aren't switching to a parliamentary democracy in my lifetime.

Sanders problem isn't that he's a mainstream social democrat of the type the financial industry and corporate world have been working alongside for decades in the rest of the world (never mind that the US isn't the rest of the world). It's that his proposals are hopeful at best. It's that, even if his ideas were completely mainstream *here in the US*, he'd still be a cranky, finger-wagging old coot who seems to have gotten a snoot full of himself and took it to mean something more than it does. His motivation at this point seems to be to make sure he can still hear his own fiery voice in the election coverage, not making sure that Trump goes down in flames.

There are some of us who want Sander's platform to become part of the mainstream of U.S. political discourse. Sanders is currently supporting candidates who agree with him and his supporters are trying to build a movement that will elect like minded candidates in future elections. Hopefully those efforts will shift the political conversation to the left so that Sander's ideas won't be outside of the mainstream anymore because there will an infrastructure to support them.

Moreover, Sanders himself has said he will vote for Hillary Clinton, and he does often attack Trump. I'm not sure what more people want.
posted by eagles123 at 11:09 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


[Couple more comments removed. Folks, really really please make an effort to not just fall into whatever your personal reflexive grump-about-Sanders/Hillary mode is, it's not adding anything to the conversation. ZenMasterThis, you in particular have been grinding your beef pretty hard in here today and you need to cut it out immediately if you don't want me to cut it out for you.]
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:10 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm not sure what message Trump thinks we're supposed to take away from that.

The same one as when he gave a speech in front of a giant pile of garbage? I kept waiting for them to set it on fire.

I thought about an FPP but this works here: A Child's First Book of Trump.
posted by emjaybee at 11:12 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


He'll endorse during or after the convention. He's stated all along he's going to take his campaign to the convention, and now he's doing so to move the party more firmly to the left, and spotlight issues important to his voters and downticket candidates. Why is this such a surprise? Why is this so enraging? I really don't get it.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:13 AM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm not seeing any rage in here, Slap*Happy, just frustration.
posted by stolyarova at 11:15 AM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm not sure what message Trump thinks we're supposed to take away from that.

Isn't it obvious? The poll has Trump's name in it! HIS name! It's about HIM, which means it's huge, a quality poll! What more could he want?
posted by happyroach at 11:16 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


> No fan of the GOP here, but every person with a security clearance whom I've spoken with has told me they would be fired and imprisoned for Hillary's level of email fuckery.

Of course that's what people with a security clearance say. Cops tend to think a certain way, too; doesn't make it right, or even endurable for those not obsessed by fantasies of total control.

(Not cop-hating here; every profession has its professional outlook, and that of cops and other badge-wielding gun-carriers is one of the absolute necessity of control = law and order, something civilians just can't understand. That doesn't make them vicious or unable to do their necessary work, but it needs to be taken into account. Similarly for people with a security clearance, who tend to wind up with a security clearance because they've bought into the vital importance of security = secret information that if the little people only knew it would make them fall into line like they should. I often wonder how they deal with the fact that our security apparatus was hopelessly compromised by the Soviets for decades and yet nothing terrible came of it and we wound up "winning" anyway.)
posted by languagehat at 11:20 AM on June 29, 2016 [32 favorites]


The DC direct-market comic book series Sonic Disruptors from the late eighties had a fascists Trump-like blowhard take power to save America from a woman president. The solution was Rock and Roll.

Sonic Disruptors also bears distinction as being the only miniseries DC Comics ever cancelled before it was completed.
posted by mightygodking at 11:30 AM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


There are some of us who want Sander's platform to become part of the mainstream of U.S. political discourse. Sanders is currently supporting candidates who agree with him and his supporters are trying to build a movement that will elect like minded candidates in future elections. Hopefully those efforts will shift the political conversation to the left so that Sander's ideas won't be outside of the mainstream anymore because there will an infrastructure to support them.
Sanders is currently supporting a candidate who is anti-choice. As a woman who is committed to the idea that I am fully, 100% human, that's not a direction in which I want the conversation shifted.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:33 AM on June 29, 2016 [60 favorites]


Yeah, I don't feel We The Sanders Supporters really have claim at this point on being the left, or more progressive, or whatever, given those anti choice endorsements, his strange comments after the Orlando shooting, etc.

Also the convention should be a time for the party to come together, not for Sanders supporters to turn their back on Clinton while she speaks or whatever else.
posted by zutalors! at 11:37 AM on June 29, 2016 [22 favorites]


He'll endorse during or after the convention. He's stated all along he's going to take his campaign to the convention, and now he's doing so to move the party more firmly to the left, and spotlight issues important to his voters and downticket candidates. Why is this such a surprise? Why is this so enraging? I really don't get it.

Politicians often “state things all along” about their run until they don’t - it’s part of the theater of the campaign, and part of being able to be inspiring. (“I’ll run until I lose” is a self-fulfilling prophecy.) A candidate saying they are going to take things to the convention is fine until it’s suddenly certain that the candidate has lost, and then they are expected to change. It’s fine if Sanders pulls to the left for down-ticket races, but his inability to concede the reality of what has occurred -to even eat that modest amount of crow- seems like the height of being a sore loser.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:39 AM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


I've really come to the conclusion that while Bernie might care about Black people or Women or whomever his feelings concerning the economic issues he wants addressed simply make anything resembling being progressive on women's issues or minority issues pretty much insignificant in comparison.

For people that are getting tired of white guys explaining to them why Y isn't a focus because X is the more critical issue it's gotten really fucking tiresome. It's always back of the line when someone white and male comes up with something new to worry about.
posted by vuron at 11:43 AM on June 29, 2016 [39 favorites]


Moreover, Sanders himself has said he will vote for Hillary Clinton, and he does often attack Trump. I'm not sure what more people want.

I guess I just wonder why Sanders is making it a sticking point. Given that I don't doubt that he supports Clinton (for some value of "support"), don't doubt that he'll work to defeat Trump, and don't think that an endorsement/lack thereof will have much effect on his ability to get a platform he wants, why not endorse the presumptive candidate, if for no other reason than that any politician would seem to prefer the kind of media coverage that comes with "Opponent supports candidate" over "Why doesn't opponent support candidate?" What does he gain by withholding his endorsement?

It all begins to look more like a "You're not the Boss of me I'll do it when I'm good and ready" thing than any tactical plan—and I say that as a Sanders voter who voted for him in part because he seemed much more savy than a mere "message" candidate.

I hope I'm adding to the conversation. Don't cut me, cortex. Please.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:44 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Of course that's what people with a security clearance say. Cops tend to think a certain way, too; doesn't make it right, or even endurable for those not obsessed by fantasies of total control.

Are you saying that they are wrong that they would be in huge trouble? Or that they simply don't understand the big picture and why the law wouldn't be applied equally?
posted by cell divide at 11:46 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders is currently supporting a candidate who is anti-choice.

I was really surprised when I found out about this, but in retrospect I shouldn't have been.

Sanders has said (or heavily implied) that women's and minority issues are a distraction from the "real issue" of economic justice.

For those that want more Marxists in office: this is what real, doctrinaire Marxism looks like. Women will have unlimited rights over their bodes *after* the Revolution, comrade!
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 11:48 AM on June 29, 2016 [43 favorites]


Hey, the 538 forecast tool is finally live!
posted by nicepersonality at 11:49 AM on June 29, 2016 [20 favorites]


Meanwhile, in Bernie-endorsement news, Zephyr Teachout just won the #NY19 Democratic primary:

Zephyr Teachout 2.0: A great Democratic hope for the fall - Politico

Lucy Flores (#NV04) and Eric Kingston (#NY24) lost in their respective primaries.
posted by kyp at 11:50 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


nicepersonality: "Hey, the 538 forecast tool is finally live!"

And it's currently giving Hillary an 80.6% chance of winning. I like those odds.
posted by octothorpe at 11:55 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


He's stated all along he's going to take his campaign to the convention, and now he's doing so to move the party more firmly to the left, and spotlight issues important to his voters and downticket candidates. Why is this such a surprise? Why is this so enraging? I really don't get it.

I would be fine with Sanders spotlighting issues important to his voters and downticket candidates.

But his campaign continues to be focused on convincing his followers that anyone who doesn’t support him is a bad person. In the previous thread somebody shared an email from his campaign that said “our delegates are not wealthy campaign contributors. They're not party insiders or establishment elites. They're working folks” — the obvious implication being that the other delegates ARE wealthy, establishment, insider elites.

The only reason to include that kind of language in your campaign mailing is to make your supporters feel superior to and dislike the other candidates supporters. Its very aim is to pit members of the same party against each other.

That’s not “A $15 minimum wage is ambitious and some worry that we can’t get it through congress, or that it will ultimately be bad for the economy, but here’s why that’s not true.” It’s “this campaign is us against them” — and the them isn’t even people who want to keep money in politics! Overturning Citizens United has been one of Clinton’s talking points since before she announced, and it's one that is extremely important to many of her supporters.

That’s the part that pisses me off. What he’s doing isn’t useful. It’s not helping the party meaningfully move leftward because he’s not even addressing the reasons some of his positions are ambitious. It’s just giving his supporters a false narrative that the whole rest of the party doesn’t care about their interests.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:56 AM on June 29, 2016 [39 favorites]


Hopefully those efforts will shift the political conversation to the left so that Sander's ideas won't be outside of the mainstream anymore because there will an infrastructure to support them.

Y'know, there's a lot of Sanders voters who are actually pretty upset at assumptions like this about said infrastructure. One of them is my father, a veteran of organizing and campaigning for leftist candidates and causes since before Sanders ever held elected office. He found it frustrating that Sanders and his campaign team squandered dozens of opportunities for months on end, sometimes incorrectly (whether by design or not) blaming them on the structure of the Democratic Party. For example, Sanders shouldn't have waited until last week--long after the primaries began, let alone the point they needed to apply to be on ballots--to make a strong push for his supporters to run for office. On multiple occasions his team couldn't get organized before caucuses or state conventions, and then complained about it as if it was all the Evil Clinton Machine at work.

People like my father want someone like Sanders to win. They want his ideas to be the foundation of a new direction for the party. They want changes to how elections are conducted. But they also want someone who can run a decently-competent campaign, and who doesn't let some of the most horrible of his supporters (like Weaver) be the ones who run the show. In a way, Sanders lucked out immensely that the other side was and is a clown-car that is on fire and driven by lunatics, because this might end up being a fluke. Hell, it might not even lose the Republicans the White House, and it certainly won't lose them control in the states and local legislatures where Sanders and his campaign* could have spent the last year working diligently to foster talent.


* Although, to be fair, Clinton and the DNC are guilty as shit in this respect as well.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:57 AM on June 29, 2016 [19 favorites]


Feeling kinda sick right now.
Passed a car on Aurora Ave in Seattle. Driver was a white dude with a greying mullet and a red "Make America Great Again" ball cap, which is how I know his rear window sticker wasn't meant to be ironic.

It said, "Trump*Cosby 2016."

Someone is actually printing and selling that shit. And people buy it and display it.
This election is fucking awful.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:09 PM on June 29, 2016 [26 favorites]


Hey, the 538 forecast tool is finally live!

And it’s currently giving Hillary an 80.6% chance of winning. I like those odds.

Esme Cribb at Talking Points Memo: “Fool Me Twice: Trump Continues Streak Of Tweeting Polls That Show Him Trailing”
posted by Going To Maine at 12:10 PM on June 29, 2016


Kind of wondering what epithet Trump is planning for Nate Silver…
posted by Going To Maine at 12:11 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


FJT: " It makes zero sense why he's lollygagging on the endorsement."

Ok. So one other half-baked theory I've been thinking about is trying to understand how and why certain politicians do the things they do. For my own sanity, I've sometimes found it helpful to orient my understanding of these public figures around certain archetypes.

For example, when I couldn't figure out why Obama was seemingly wasting so much time reaching out to congressional Republicans during his first term, especially when he had congressional majorities and the Republicans had openly declared that their main goal was to ensure that he was a one-term president. Then, I recalled some article(s) (probably the early New Yorker profile, though I'm not sure) that outlined a couple of key moments in his career up to that point: his tenure as president of the Harvard Law Review and his time in the Illinois senate. In the first case, he managed to somehow bring together (and/or appease) the different liberal and conservative factions within the Review to preside over a surprisingly orderly and non-contentious term. Similarly, in the Illinois senate, I think his signature achievement was to getting a gun control bill passed with bi-partisan (!) support by bringing enough Republicans over to his side. Looking at these events, together with his experience as a community organizer, it was to easy for me to slot Obama into an archetype of a bridge-builder. His first move is to try to bring together opposing groups, even if it seems hopeless.

As for Sanders, I look back at what he was doing for CORE and SNCC in Chicago. His work there was largely dominated by direct action (e.g.: sit-ins, demonstrations, pickets) and fiery denunciations. Even through his congressional career, his biggest moves have been protest votes and filibusters, not passing signature legislation or political horse-trading. He seemed to have relished his role as an outsider even from within Congress. So, for Bernie, I think of him as typifying a firebrand. His mode of getting things done is by making big, dramatic, and sometimes symbolic gestures to shake up the opposition and the status quo (often one and the same). Given this (again, totally simplistic) framework, his actions with respect to Clinton and the DNC make a little more sense. When you're most proficient as a protestor, it may be a little harder to shift into negotiator mode.

Now, of course, a lot of this is probably nothing more than post facto rationalization. Most glaringly, I have no idea what kind of archetype to slot Hillary Clinton into, despite the fact that she's been in the public eye for over 25 years. Of course, some of that is due to the fact that the (probably) most significant events in her political life were things that happened to her (and her husband), not things that she herself did -- the vast right-wing conspiracy, Arkansas Project stuff (e.g.: Whitewater, Vince Foster was murdered, Travelgate, etc..) and the Lewinsky affair and subsequent impeachment. Leaving those things aside, I'd probably want to further understand what kinds of lessons she drew from the defeat of her health care proposal (a public option! in 1993!).
posted by mhum at 12:11 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hey, the 538 forecast tool is finally live!

Oddly enough, the polling averages for NC are (just barely) favoring Clinton, yet they've got it shaded pink. I assume this is a combination of polling trends and historical data and etc, but I thought I'd point it out anyway.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:22 PM on June 29, 2016


mhum: Leaving those things aside, I'd probably want to further understand what kinds of lessons she drew from the defeat of her health care proposal (a public option! in 1993!).

There was an interesting article linked in one of the thousands of previous comments in one of the many previous threads that made a case for the defeat of Hillary's healthcare proposal in 1993 as a defining moment for her. If I'm remembering the narrative correctly, she was quietly approached by the health insurance industry to tone it down a bit, she refused and believed in The Power of the People, and then the health insurance industry crushed her with ads like Harry and Louise. She's been loathe to take on the power of money, or to encourage others to dream that dream, since then.
posted by clawsoon at 12:25 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


And it's currently giving Hillary an 80.6% chance of winning. I like those odds.

And closest races include SC, GA, MS and AZ. That's interesting.

showbiz_liz, I see NC as pale blue (59% Clinton)
posted by Rumple at 12:28 PM on June 29, 2016


Sanders clearly isn't trying to pull the party to the right on abortion. I don't agree with that representative's views on abortion either, but its clearly untrue that the focus of Sander's campaign is to pull the Democrats to the right on abortion. From the beginning his focus has been to pull the party to the left on economic, issues, environmental issues, and the influence on money in politics. I think its fair to criticize him for his messaging outside of those areas, but its clearly untrue that he is trying to pull the party to the right.

Besides, Kaptur has been in congress since 1983 as a Democrat. I'm sure she's been endorsed by many national democrats during that time. Treating Sander's support of her as somehow indicative of his overall platform is simply dishonest. I don't know of any other way to put it. If supporting Kaptur is problematic, you might as well criticize every other Democratic, from Clinton (either one) to Obama.

Look, I'm not trying to turn this into a Bernie vs Hillary thing. I plan on voting for Clinton in the fall. I have been all along. I've was surprised by how well Sanders did. I just think its important, for the future health of the United States, for Democrats and people in general to not dismiss Sanders and his supporters as personality cultists or some other form of asshole. Just because someone might want Sanders to try and pull the party to the left (on most issues) and not have a problem if he doesn't spend 100 percent of the time attacking Trump (or whoever the current big Republican bad is) doesn't mean that person also doesn't think its important for Clinton to beat that big Republican bad, or that person hates Clinton, or whatever. Basically, what I am asking for is at least some recognition that politics isn't just some gigantic sporting event or reality TV show where concepts like "sore losers" have any kind of meaning and everyone has to be cast as either a hero or villain.

Since 2010, the Democrats have suffered unprecedented losses in Congress and at the state level. The party has serious problems mobilizing people, especially young people, to vote. Rather than expressing frustration at a candidate who managed to garner unprecedented support from young people and mobilize hundreds of thousands of, mostly young, volunteers, Democrats should be trying to understand why that candidate was able to do what he did. I don't think millennials voted for Sanders in unprecedented numbers because they had a deep desire to vote for an old white guy. There is far more to be said about, and drawn from the Sanders campaign, than "lol Berniebro" or "lol personality cultist". Such attacks amount to slurs against people who are clearly the future of the Democratic party.

Is Sanders perfect? No, I would never say that. Has his campaign been perfect? No, clearly not. Has he made mistakes? I would say so. But then again, who hasn't? Nobody is perfect, and I think Sanders, warts and all, still has value and will continue to have value for as long as he chooses to serve as politician.

To summarize, I object 100 percent to the impulse to bury one of the few progressive politicians in this country (like I said, Republicans control most branches of government). I also object 100 percent to the impulse to write off the concerns of the people supporting him. Basically, its possible to believe all of these things: (a) Sanders isn't perfect, (b) Clinton isn't perfect, (c) Clinton is the rightful Democratic nominee, (d) Sanders has a right to fight for the views of himself and his supporters, (e) its important for Clinton to win in November, and (f) its important to the future health of both the country and the Democratic party for the effort to reform the Democratic party and push it to the left that Sanders is a part of to succeed. All of these things are true.

This is the last I'll post about this. Like I said, I don't want to contribute to just making this a thread about Sanders versus Clinton. I consider myself a supporter of both politicians, actually. I think they both have something positive to contribute. Its that when the first few posts consist of attacks against Sanders and his supporters, its hard not to respond. I also think the internal dynamics of the Democratic party, like it or not, are going to be an important feature of the coming election, as well as future elections.
posted by eagles123 at 12:33 PM on June 29, 2016 [29 favorites]


Hey, the 538 forecast tool is finally live!

Missouri R+1
Arizona D+1
Georgia R+2

That should absolutely scare the shit out of the Republicans. Arizona is officially in play thanks to the human cheeto.
posted by Talez at 12:33 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


showbiz_liz, I see NC as pale blue (59% Clinton)

Ah - it's different in 'polls' and 'polls plus'
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:37 PM on June 29, 2016


To summarize, I object 100 percent to the impulse to bury one of the few progressive politicians in this country

He's already dug the hole, jumped in, and is frantically trying to bury himself without any help from the outside. The question is should we try to stop him, and the more he drags this out, the less sanguine I am about him being an agent of progressive change after November, and the more I'm inclined to tell him he can keep the shovel.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:43 PM on June 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


That should absolutely scare the shit out of the Republicans.

I think most of them have no shits left to scare out. Trump looks absolutely unelectable at this point.
posted by Devonian at 12:44 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


And closest races include SC, GA, MS and AZ. That's interesting.

Trump did say that he was going to put traditional strongholds in play.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:46 PM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]


"Trump*Cosby 2016."

Someone is actually printing and selling that shit. And people buy it and display it.


I drove past a pickup this morning that had 'Killary For Prison 2016' written on it, plus a sticker that said 'Too Many Liberals, Not Enough Bullets' and almost rear-ended the guy in front of me while my brain tried to parse out the logic of the truck owner's moral code. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by robocop is bleeding at 12:47 PM on June 29, 2016 [19 favorites]


Sanders clearly isn't trying to pull the party to the right on abortion. I don't agree with that representative's views on abortion either, but its clearly untrue that the focus of Sander's campaign is to pull the Democrats to the right on abortion. From the beginning his focus has been to pull the party to the left on economic, issues, environmental issues, and the influence on money in politics. I think its fair to criticize him for his messaging outside of those areas, but its clearly untrue that he is trying to pull the party to the right.

For the record, I don't believe that Sanders is really trying to pull the party to the right on abortion issues. However, it is interesting that we are being asked to give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue, when Clinton supporters were widely derided for accepting that Clinton, whatever her pie-in-the-sky wishes might be, would be necessarily constrained by what she could get the American public/Congress/Senate to accept. That is, there is an expectation of purity on the economic side of things that Sanders supporters expect, but expecting a similar sort of bright line for abortion is unreasonable.
posted by peacheater at 12:48 PM on June 29, 2016 [48 favorites]


That should absolutely scare the shit out of the Republicans.

I think most of them have no shits left to scare out. Trump looks absolutely unelectable at this point.

Ahem! The model clearly says he is 20% electable.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:49 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Besides, Kaptur has been in congress since 1983 as a Democrat. I'm sure she's been endorsed by many national democrats during that time. Treating Sander's support of her as somehow indicative of his overall platform is simply dishonest. I don't know of any other way to put it. If supporting Kaptur is problematic, you might as well criticize every other Democratic, from Clinton (either one) to Obama.

Regardless of Kaptur's politics, she has, as you note, been in congress for more than thirty years. She won her last two elections by 50-some and 30-some points, respectively.

It's not that it's problematic in itself that Sanders has selected her as one of the relatively small number of candidates he is actively supporting, but rather that choosing to raise money for someone who doesn't actually need it is just plain dumb from a resource-allocation standpoint.

This dumbness is only compounded by the fact that he is at the same time sending out different fundraising emails harping on the fact that his supporters are so poor they can't afford to attend the convention.

Seriously--if they're that poor, stop fucking asking them to give money to candidates who aren't even in competitive races.
posted by dersins at 12:54 PM on June 29, 2016 [34 favorites]


There are quite a few prominent Republicans who are jumping ship this time around. Trump seems symptomatic of a final split between the Buchanon wing of the Republican party and the party's business wings. I think there is a decent chance that Gary Johnson might grab enough of the Republican presidential vote to tip things to the Democrats in some western states if his campaign takes off.

The current political balance in this country seems like a weird mirror image of the 70's and 80's. After 1968, the Democratic coalition came apart at the Presidential level, and Republicans won wide victories in Presidential elections. Nevertheless, the Democrats remained strong in congressional elections and elections at the state level.

Now it seems like the opposite is occurring.
posted by eagles123 at 12:54 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Geez, you guys are being very harsh on Sanders.

You're new here, aren't you?
posted by vibrotronica at 12:55 PM on June 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


Trump looks absolutely unelectable at this point.

Perhaps we should actually be grateful for Trump. If it weren't for him, we might quite possibly be looking at President Ted Cruz, and then god help us all.

If nothing else, Trump's brought all the neo-nazis and racist monsters out from under the refrigerator of American culture, so now we know who they all are. I honestly believe we should build a monument to Trump, a long black wall like the Vietnam Memorial, except this will be the Trump Election Memorial. And it will list the name of every elected Republican official (are there any Democrats? Surely not.) who fell in line behind Donald Trump rather than renounce the party and relinquish their grip on personal power to save the country. We'll take our grandchildren to see it. And we'll tell them that when we stood at the brink of the abyss, and we all held our breath to see if America would survive or fall, these people failed the test, and it's our duty to always remember who they were. First name, obviously, will be Chris Christie.
posted by Naberius at 12:55 PM on June 29, 2016 [17 favorites]


Sanders clearly isn't trying to pull the party to the right on abortion.

Nobody is saying that, so you can stop beating on that strawman. What they are saying is that reproductive rights are not a major issue for him, and it's unlikely that he would be a major supporter of them.

Which is why Planned Parenthood and NARAL chose to back Clinton, who does have a long standing history of defending reproductive rights.

The problem there was that Sanders, instead of accepting that these progressive organizations were fully in their right to support the candidate that better aligned with their goals (and perhaps shift his position to make himself more palatable to them), he publicly attacked them for supporting Clinton over him. And we saw a further pattern with other progressive activists and their interactions with the Sanders campaign, of how they were expected to just support the campaign line.

Which comes back to the core issue with the Sanders campaign that has dogged it from the start - the myopic focus on economics. That, more than anything, is why he failed. And the constant refusal of the progressive left to recognize that there are other groups with their own focuses, and the demands that their positions are the important ones, is the reason so many people wind up looking askance at them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:56 PM on June 29, 2016 [35 favorites]


PredictWise is going with a 59% chance the Democrats retake the Senate!
posted by readery at 1:03 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well Predictwise was showing an 85% chance of a Remain victory the morning of the Brexit vote, so I've decided I'll take everything they say with a giant pinch of salt.
posted by peacheater at 1:07 PM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


I'm not going to let myself get caught up in poll fever.
I'm not going to let myself get caught up in poll fever.
I'm not going to let myself get caught up in poll fever.
I'm not going to let myself get caught up in poll fever.
posted by bardophile at 1:11 PM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]


The Democrats should be able to retake the Senate because Republicans will be defending Senate seats in a lot of states that traditionally vote for Democrats at the presidential level and the increased turnout in presidential election years benefits Democrats.
posted by eagles123 at 1:11 PM on June 29, 2016


Remember when we were told to keep calm and trust Nate Silver? I still think we should, despite his miss on Trump being the nominee.
posted by zutalors! at 1:16 PM on June 29, 2016


The current political balance in this country seems like a weird mirror image of the 70's and 80's. After 1968, the Democratic coalition came apart at the Presidential level, and Republicans won wide victories in Presidential elections. Nevertheless, the Democrats remained strong in congressional elections and elections at the state level.

White nationalists and their enablers have always had a structural advantage in the lower house of Congress. They just switched their dance partner is all.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:18 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Democrats were dancing with white nationalists after 1968? What?
posted by zutalors! at 1:20 PM on June 29, 2016


No, they switched from the Dems.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:23 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ahem! The model clearly says he is 20% electable.

Yeah, the problem is that the 20% of Trump that's electable is the R. Don't underestimate the willingness of people to hold their noses and say to themselves "At least he's not Hillary."
posted by Etrigan at 1:25 PM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


My mechanic is in the "at least he's not Hillary" camp. He's a conservative Christian, and abortion and gun rights are his big issues. There's no convincing him not to vote for Trump.
posted by stolyarova at 1:27 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


True enough, but there may be some convincing voters like him to stay home, or to vote third party.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:30 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also latent sexism. But that probably doesn't need a mention :(
posted by stolyarova at 1:30 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Guys I don't think we're going to get any debates this year

1. Trump knows that he can't do three 2-hour marathons of getting lectured to by a girl without losing his marbles
2. Says the lying media has it in for him and refuses to participate altogether or only under outrageous conditions
3. He's already refused to do several traditional-but-not-constitutionally-required campaign things (release tax information, stop running his businesses, etc) so really who's even counting anymore
4. Ten thinkpieces about how the debates were archaic political theater anyway and obsolete in this age of twitters
posted by theodolite at 1:31 PM on June 29, 2016 [17 favorites]


I think Trump would be wise not to debate, for all the reasons you mention.

Happily I think he has more hubris than wisdom.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:37 PM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


I honestly believe we should build a monument to Trump, a long black wall like the Vietnam Memorial, except this will be the Trump Election Memorial.

A field of Twitter eggs, surely, with a giant emoji eggplant in the middle.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:38 PM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump: "There were the Walking Heads. What are they called, talking heads or walking heads? I call them walking heads."
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:39 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


4. Ten thinkpieces about how the debates were archaic political theater anyway and obsolete in this age of twitters

You are assuming that Trump has staffers who write think pieces.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:39 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Guys I don't think we're going to get any debates this year

Say it isn't so! My husband has been trying to talk me into buying a Hillary pantsuit so that we can play Hillary and Donald at our First General Election Debate Party 2016. We've been planning it for months!

(I'm actually not kidding about this. He really wants to don a Donald wig. I've been resistant. I'm more interested in pizza and cupcakes and trying not to hide, cringing behind various pillows and dogs.)
posted by Sophie1 at 1:39 PM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


As far as I could tell, the problem Nate and Sam had with the Republican primary was that they didn't trust the aggregated polls. Nate argued that the Republican establishment or a gaf would derail Trump even when he was leading in the polling, and Sam argued that the supporters of the other Republican candidates would coalesce around an anti-Trump candidate once other candidates dropped out. Maybe that will happen in future primaries if/when Trump proves to be a disaster in November, but it didn't happen this time around.

I didn't follow it closely, but it looks like a similar thing happened with the Brexit vote. Polls consistently showed that the vote would be essentially too close to call until the day of, but it seems like people expected some sort of reversion to the status quo like what happened during the Scottish independence vote.

Democrats were dancing with white nationalists after 1968? What?

I think tivalasvegas is referring to the South switching from being solidly Democratic in congress and at the state level to being solidly Republican. Certainly the switch of the Dixiecrats from the Democrats to the Republicans played a part in that.

That being said, the South didn't switch from Republicans to Democrats in sufficient numbers to tip the balance in he House until 1994, 30 years after the passage of the civil rights act and 46 years after the initial split with the Dixiecrats in 1948. You even had odd holdouts like Zell Miller well into the 2000's.

There were other forces at work. The switch of white supremacists to the Republicans played a part, though.
posted by eagles123 at 1:40 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


1. Trump knows that he can't do three 2-hour marathons of getting lectured to by a girl without losing his marbles

On the other hand, Warren spending the next 4+ months holding a picture of Trump up to the news cameras while making chicken noises.

Either way he loses his shit.
posted by dersins at 1:41 PM on June 29, 2016 [32 favorites]


Tommy Wiseau chicken noises
posted by Countess Elena at 1:42 PM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


After watching Trump climb from a laughable one of the many to the one guy standing, I refuse to underestimate his chances in November. This is no year for complacency.
posted by jetsetsc at 1:43 PM on June 29, 2016 [38 favorites]


Countess Elena: "Tommy Wiseau chicken noises"

We will also accept Arrested Development chicken noises.
posted by mhum at 1:44 PM on June 29, 2016 [17 favorites]


If Trump tries to avoid any debates he will lose in a landslide. It's one thing to just kinda sorta not get around to releasing your medical and tax records. Only political wonks know that's a thing, and the only people it pisses off are people who wouldn't have voted for Trump anyway.

But the debates are a Thing. Especially since Trump was happy to debate other Republicans. At best, it will come off as highly unorthodox to longtime Republicans who were planning to hold their noses and vote. At worst, the Clinton campaign will spin it as Trump is a gigantic manbaby who is afraid to lose to a girl, and start making a real dent in his base.
posted by Sara C. at 1:45 PM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


I agree. I think he'll debate, or at least commit to debates, but perform haphazardly, both in the debates and in the scheduling, with petulant last-minute pullouts and sudden demands. He'll probably get off some good lines that make his base cheer. Whatever he does won't hurt him with his base, because anything that looks bad will be the lamestream media's fault. But he will hopefully show his ass enough to convince some reluctant conservatives to vote third party or abstain.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:47 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Cleveland is sounding scary:
“This is a whole different animal from other political conventions,” he said, noting that typically, most RNC protesters come from the left. “The serious problems that you had in terms of any kind of disruption by and large came from the anarchists. Here you’ve got a big number that are coming from the right this time … it presents a different dynamic.”

Bresler noted that firearms will be allowed in the “event zone” because of Ohio’s status as an open carry state, even though other more mundane items will be banned — from water guns to tape to sleeping bags.
posted by octothorpe at 1:48 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


The NRA has released a pro-Trump Benghazi-themed ad . I'm increasingly confused about the use of Benghazi by the right wing. Is that really a winning issue for them? It seems like first degree choir preaching.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:49 PM on June 29, 2016


I don't think it's a winning issue for them, but I'm also not sure what are winning issues for them. What should they go with instead?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:51 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bresler noted that firearms will be allowed in the “event zone” because of Ohio’s status as an open carry state, even though other more mundane items will be banned — from water guns to tape to sleeping bags.

Wow, if there's anything that sums up the insanity of American gun politics to me, it's this sentence.
posted by peacheater at 1:52 PM on June 29, 2016 [44 favorites]


Just want to go on record in encouraging corb to start a "Live! From Cleveland! Starring Corb!" thread once the convention hits the fan.
posted by SPrintF at 1:53 PM on June 29, 2016 [19 favorites]


If sleeping bags are outlawed, only outlaws will have sleeping bags.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:53 PM on June 29, 2016 [19 favorites]


Wait, so you can bring a real gun but not a water gun to the Republican national convention? But you could probably smuggle in a water gun if it looked enough like a real gun?

We live in interesting times.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:54 PM on June 29, 2016 [20 favorites]


I feel very happy to live thousands of miles from Cleveland.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:54 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Water guns don't dampen people. People dampen people.
posted by Sara C. at 1:55 PM on June 29, 2016 [54 favorites]


The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a roll of tape is a good guy with a roll of tape.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:59 PM on June 29, 2016 [21 favorites]


Eeeeeew.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:59 PM on June 29, 2016


Considering that the Cleveland PD has a hard time distinguishing replica guns from real ones I think I might leave my water pistol at home regardless.
posted by murphy slaw at 2:00 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


god wtf is the convention theme IT'S HIIIIGH NOON
posted by poffin boffin at 2:01 PM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


i fucking hate high nooning
posted by poffin boffin at 2:01 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


The NBA has released a pro-Trump Benghazi-themed ad . I'm increasingly confused about the user of Benghazi by the right wing. Is that really a winning issue for them? It seems like first degree choir preaching.

Turnout, turnout, turnout: getting the whole choir to actually vote matters more than winning over the accompanist, to mangle that metaphor, within the context of winning an election.

Given the number of Republicans who are unwilling to vote for Clinton, but are also either unwilling or reluctant to vote for Trump, preaching to the choir might more important than in more normal election season.
posted by cjelli at 2:02 PM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


While it's so absurd it borders on funny, we're talking about people's lives here. Somebody's probably going to die in Cleveland. The Traditionalist Workers' Party (a neo-Nazi group) is going to be there, and so are a lot of protest groups (including, probably, BLM).

Stay safe, corb.
posted by stolyarova at 2:02 PM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Not that it's much better, but the "event zone" is the secured public area surrounding the arena. The actual convention floor is Secret Service territory and definitely no-guns-allowed.
posted by theodolite at 2:04 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Can we stop exhorting corb to stay safe? it's getting a little patronizing and creepy.
posted by zutalors! at 2:05 PM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


They can have my water gun when they pry it from my cold, soggy fingers.
Hopefully they'll at least give me a towel in exchange.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:05 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I have a very strong hunch that there's going to be another one of these large-scale national news cycle dominating mass shootings (as opposed to the humdrum routine mass shootings that don't make the news) in Cleveland during the RNC.

If white supremacists shoot up a restaurant full of nice Republicans in town for the convention, does that change the national dialogue even a little?
posted by Sara C. at 2:05 PM on June 29, 2016


I hadn't previously exhorted corb to stay safe. Won't do it again. Though it's the dangerousness of the situation that's creepy, in my opinion, not us caring about an acquaintance's well-being.
posted by stolyarova at 2:07 PM on June 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


If a school full of children getting massacred didn't change the national dialogue, I kind of doubt a restaurant full of people who believe that the lack of guns implicitly (or worse, explicitly) means they are somehow responsible would.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:11 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Looks like Trump's going to try to make a go of it in Colorado. I was kinda hoping he wouldn't bother.
posted by rewil at 2:12 PM on June 29, 2016


...But there is another reason why the MSM haven’t called out the Republican Party, despite its egregious behavior, and this one is especially relevant in this election: The media simply won’t discuss the Republican Party’s values, as values are the third rail of political journalism. You just don’t talk about values, because when you do so, you can’t fake balance. We all know that there is a big difference between Republicans and Democrats, and it isn’t just a matter of philosophy-cum-policy. It is a matter of what values underlie the parties’ philosophies. And, if I may be blunt, Republican values just aren’t very consistent with what most of us think when we think of good values.

So the GOP’s blatant contradictions, its hate disguised as individual rights and its disdain for the weakest among us, largely go unexamined. Indeed, our media state of affairs is so sad that it largely has fallen to comedians to be our primary truth tellers about what one of our two major parties really stands for — among them, Jon Stewart in his day, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, and Samantha Bee, whose recent broadcasts on Orlando and guns and on Republican racism have torn the so-called “principled ideological” veil off the GOP and exposed it for what it is: a cult of cranks.
America Has a Republican Problem — and the Media Is Partly to Blame
posted by y2karl at 2:13 PM on June 29, 2016 [15 favorites]


In all honesty: I'm really worried about any violence at the convention. I'll be thinking about corb, but I'm also genuinely worried about all the people who will be caught in the middle. Apart from delegates, conventioneers, protesters, etc., there will be a couple metric tons of people who work at the event sites and nearby businesses who will be caught up in this shit.

And I don't know whether it's poor taste to think about it now while it's still only a hypothetical, but I am not at all looking forward to whatever "dialogue" we have in the media and the country if this gets ugly. There is ZERO reason to doubt that Trump and the Republicans will deliberately spin and play politics with any violence to their benefit.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:15 PM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


I don't get what's weird about fearing somebody could get hurt at the GOP convention. I'd say the odds of violence are like 60-65 percent.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:20 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah, I mean, I'm worried about corb, because I think she's the only person I know who will be there. But I'm also worried in general: about everyone there, whether as a delegate or because its their job or whatever, and about what violence at a convention would mean for the country's political culture, which Trump already seems to be taking to some weird and unsettling places.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:20 PM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


The media simply won’t discuss the Republican Party’s values, as values are the third rail of political journalism. You just don’t talk about values, because when you do so, you can’t fake balance.

But "values" was a HUGE media buzzword in favor of the Republicans and against the Democrats in the 90s and early 2000s.

Is this another one of those IOKIYAR things?
posted by Sara C. at 2:23 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump (speaking in Bangor, Maine):
I have to say one thing about Bernie — he, you know, he'll be nasty and say, 'Oh, I'd never vote for Trump,' but that's OK. I know what he thinks inside." Trump said. "He hates her. He hates her."

Trump continued, "I mean, he cannot stand her."

I'm pretty good with people," the Manhattan businessman declared. "Bernie Sanders cannot stand Hillary Clinton."
He's good with people. The Hispanics love him! And he has the Best Words. That's why it is "nasty" not to vote for him.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:28 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


> Are you saying that they are wrong that they would be in huge trouble? Or that they simply don't understand the big picture and why the law wouldn't be applied equally?

I'm saying I take their thoughts on the matter exactly as seriously as I took the advice of the cop who told my friend looking for a neighborhood in which to look for an apartment in Brooklyn to go to Canarsie when we were all standing in Brooklyn Heights. To the (white) cop, it was clearly of paramount importance that my (white) friend be able to live in a place surrounded by the maximum possible number of white people, even if that place was far, far away and inconvenient to pretty much everyplace else. He had his priorities, and the security-clearance people have theirs, none of which are mine.
posted by languagehat at 2:37 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Mike Huckabee Fined $25K for Playing "Eye of the Tiger" at Kim Davis Rally
The former presidential candidate, who is still settling up his campaign debts, had to pay it off in two installments.
Well he'll just have to buckle down and work harder on his email scams.

And speaking of email scams....Reform Group File Complaint Against Donald Trump For Soliciting Foreign Money to Fund His Campaign
Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign committee is violating black-letter federal law by sending campaign fundraising emails to foreign nationals – including foreign politicians – in at least Iceland, Scotland, Australia and Britain. The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 today will file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission highlighting this violation and demanding the agency send a clear message that foreign money is not allowed in U.S. elections.

“Donald Trump should have known better,” said Paul S. Ryan, CLC deputy executive director. ”It is a no-brainer that it violates the law to send fundraising emails to members of a foreign government on their official foreign government email accounts, and yet, that’s exactly what Trump has done repeatedly. The FEC’s forum last week highlighted how foreign corporate money could infiltrate U.S. elections, but Trump’s fundraising antics show that the FEC must also monitor candidates directly soliciting foreign money. [snip]

Federal law provides that a candidate violates the foreign national fundraising ban if they make a solicitation despite being aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person “to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited . is a foreign national” or “to conclude that there is a substantial probability that the source of the funds solicited . is a foreign national.”
I don't know what penalties the FEC can bring if they decide that the solicitations were done knowingly and not just a stupid goof on the part of Trump's campaign.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:43 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump (speaking in Bangor, Maine)

But what is he even doing in Maine? That's like Clinton holding a campaign event in Montana, there's just no upside to spending time there if you're trying to win an election.
posted by peeedro at 2:45 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Their governor is Paul LePage (R-Crazytown), a big Trump booster.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:46 PM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Thus confirming once again that Trump is not an incorruptible businessman, but a pure Tammany Hall candidate.
posted by stolyarova at 2:48 PM on June 29, 2016


I was just reading the other day that LePage's wife works as a waitress 3 days a week to save up for a car. The Governor of Maine is paid $70,000 a year and the LePages just bought a new house. She says she is "First Lady of Maine" 4 days a week and a waitress the rest of the time. Not really pertinent to this election but just an odd fact that stuck in my brain.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:50 PM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Having listened to family complain about the state of Maine's finances, I couldn't imagine a bank giving a LePage a car loan either.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 2:52 PM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Tammany Hall was an organization composed of people who made politics a career. Trump was only peripherally involved in politics until the present election. He's more analogous to Ross Perot with the addition of Pat Buchanon's explicity nativist rhetoric and Sarah Palin's communication style.

Berlusconi is also an interesting comparison from another country.
posted by eagles123 at 2:57 PM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Meanwhile, in Canada...
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:58 PM on June 29, 2016


I think the Tammany Hall reference was in pointing out that Trump is just as much a "you scratch my back..." politician as anyone else (possibly even moreso than others), and not a think outside the box disrupting businessman.
posted by Sara C. at 2:59 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Of course that's what people with a security clearance say. Cops tend to think a certain way, too; doesn't make it right, or even endurable for those not obsessed by fantasies of total control.

Are you saying that they are wrong that they would be in huge trouble?


Well, they are wrong for a multitude of reasons. You can do your own googling or old-thread-reading about what was and was not actually classified material when it passed through that email server. But even aside from that, the opinion of a TS holder on what would or wouldn't amount up to a handling violation is about as significant as the opinion of a driver's license holder on the intricacies of traffic law.

Having your clearance as a government employee or contractor means you went through a vetting process and were found to be sufficiently inoffensive trustworthy to be allowed to handle certain material within the scope necessary for you to do your job. It's not some sort of blanket access to the secrets of power, and the knowledge these folks have about the ins and outs amounts up to a fairly minimal overview. Here's Grummon's little slide deck about one's obligations as a cleared individual handling materials which is used for the every 2 years refresher training.

Does this strike you as the sort of rigorous learning that will equip someone to judge the likelihood of prosecution of a member of the Cabinet?

So, if they say "if I did X I would be fired" is undoubtedly true. And when I was a government employee much of my work product was subject to FOIA and I couldn't expect to refuse requests the way someone would in the executive branch. Shit's different.
posted by phearlez at 3:00 PM on June 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


SNEED EXCLUSIVE: Ditka politely declines Trump’s invitation

There's an actual transcript of the call because the Sun-Times set it up and jesus christ how is this election getting more ridiculous still.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:00 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Re the emails thing, here's an analogy. I work for a television production company. I'm an assistant. The owner of the company (my boss) can decide to take a random Tuesday off with no notice. But if I did that, I'd be fired.

"If I did that, I'd be fired" is not germane to the situation at all in the case of Hillary's private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
posted by Sara C. at 3:02 PM on June 29, 2016 [28 favorites]


Question for polling experts:

I live in a very important Ohio county and over the last few months have received an onslaught of random number calls to my cell phone from every state imaginable (at least 3-4 a week). I sometimes pick up and much of the time it's a polling company. I always ask who it's with, because I'm wary of push polls. They never answer any of the names I've heard of like Gallup, Quinnipiac, or any recognizable news organization, etc so I usually hang up, assuming it's a push poll.

I'm starting to wonder if the big polling orgs contract out their calls. I'd love to answer if it was a big reputable polling org, but usually when I ask questions the person on the other line gets super cagey about who the poll is being conducted for. Thoughts, MeFites?

(If it matters, I am on pretty much every liberal mailing list imaginable so I don't know if that factors into anything)
posted by mostly vowels at 3:09 PM on June 29, 2016


Nick Gass at Politico: “Trump: Sanders hates Clinton”
posted by Going To Maine at 3:19 PM on June 29, 2016


I'm wary of push polls.

It doesn't have to be push polling--and even if it is, you don't have to allow yourself to be pushed. It could be campaigns, parties (national, state, or even county), c3/c4's, superPACs, etc. doing (non-push)polling for their own internal use. Generally they'll contract with polling/research firms to do that for them, and mostly you will not have heard of those polling firms because they don't make their results public .

Confidentiality is usually part of the contract, and anyway the people actually making the calls may not have any idea who the client actually is.
posted by dersins at 3:23 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


By now, we should all know that there are four things on Facebook:

1) Restaurant specials and menus.
2) HELP ME I NEED ENERGY IN CANDY DRAGON VAMPIRE MAFIA JEWEL SAGA
3) Cats.
4) Horror.
posted by delfin at 3:25 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Worth it for the cats. I highly recommend Tussetroll and Tingeling as an antidote to Facebook horrors.
posted by stolyarova at 3:28 PM on June 29, 2016


Also during his speech in Bangor: Trump: Rivals who don't back me shouldn't be allowed to run for office
Trump said his primary opponents who now refuse to support his candidacy should not be allowed to run for office in the future, since they've gone back on their word.

“It was a rough campaign, and I wasn’t nice, but they weren’t nice either,” the presumptive GOP nominee said at a rally in Bangor, Maine.

“Honestly, you sign a pledge, you’re supposed to honor the pledge,” he continued.

Trump called them “really sore losers” and said they only signed the pledge so he would do so as well.

"They broke their word, and in my opinion, they shouldn’t be allowed to run for office again ... because what they did is disgraceful."
My first thought on reading this was that Trump would have broken that pledge in a nanosecond without thinking twice about it but my second thought was "Why bring it up at all?" He won the nomination. He should be looking towards the GE but he is whinging about guys who lost to him. Why? What does it get him? It makes him appear petty and vengeful rather than Presidential and he can't legally stop them from running for office again. So why waste his speaking time?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:30 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


because he's a gigantic fucking manbaby
posted by dersins at 3:32 PM on June 29, 2016 [38 favorites]


Because it reinforces to his supporters that he's a Tough Guy who doesn't mind breaking the rules to hit back at The Enemy.

*shudder*
posted by stolyarova at 3:34 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah, that was pretty much my conclusion. I still can't get over that the GOP nominee for President is this guy. It's surreal every time he opens his mouth.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:35 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


tbh i suspect it was inevitable that the republican party would come to this
posted by dersins at 3:40 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


tbh i suspect it was inevitable that the republican party would come to this

Been expecting it since they tapped Sarah Palin, personally.
posted by mordax at 3:43 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I have nothing against Trump going after people who signed the pledge and then refused to endorse him. They bullied him into it thinking that it would work out when cooler heads prevailed and cooler heads didn't. Why is he the bad guy for holding his opponents to an agreement he didn't want to sign in the first place?

He's the bad guy for a million other reasons, but that's not one of them.
posted by East14thTaco at 3:50 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think the criticism of Trump is for the "they shouldn't be allowed to run for office again" comment, which is super dictatorial - not for him saying he's mad at the others for not supporting him.
posted by stolyarova at 3:53 PM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


What is it with Republicans and pledges, anyway? Are they just pining for the good old days of loyalty oaths?
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:56 PM on June 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


He could stop them from running again if the Republicans had implemented the no takes backsies rule after the loss in 2012.
posted by snofoam at 3:57 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


He should be looking towards the GE but he is whinging about guys who lost to him. Why?

Because he still hasn't figured out that he's in a Presidential campaign, not an episode of The Real Candidates Of The GOP.

(And because he's a gigantic fucking manbaby.)
posted by octobersurprise at 4:09 PM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]


Yes, East14thTaco, I get where you are coming from they most certainly did go back on their pledges and it isn't wrong to point that out. Yet he isn't running against them anymore. That's what I mean about it being pointless. It isn't that Trump is being 'bad" or a jerk, it is that any normal candidate wouldn't bother with those guys. They lost. He won. Yet he can't let it go.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:16 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have to say, when I read Bernie's NYT editorial I shared Trump's hot take on it. Maybe it's something more refined, like, "hatred of established politics" but Bernie is like a man with no game hating a woman with game.
posted by angrycat at 4:25 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


but Bernie is like a man with no game hating a woman with game.

I'm not so sure that needs to be a simile.
posted by dersins at 4:28 PM on June 29, 2016 [22 favorites]


After watching Trump climb from a laughable one of the many to the one guy standing, I refuse to underestimate his chances in November. This is no year for complacency.

I'm living through Brexit. I strongly STRONGLY advise against complacency in the face of right-wing demagogery.

You guys should be working your guts out to get everyone gagging at the bit to get to the polls in November and vote every possible ticket in the largest possible numbers from Alaska to Florida to drive a stake through anything that even hints it might have once looked at an elephant.

It should hurt that you have to wait that long.

I heard a story today about the recording of Iron Maiden's The Number Of The Beast. The producer kept making Bruce Dickinson redo and redo and redo the intro. For hours. Just the intro. "Isn't that enough? Can we do the scream?" "No, it's not quite right. Let's go again on the intro." Dickinson was throwing chairs across the studio. Eventually, "Yeah, that's good. OK, let's move onto the scream."

If you know the track, you'll know that scream. That's what finally being allowed to stick it to the fuckers should feel like, when you get into the voting booth. That's what everyone, and everyone you know, should be wound up to do.

Think of all the stuff the Republicans have done these past eight years. Think of the shit they've made worse. Think of the madness they've injecting into your country, the people they're hurting, the sheer awful stupidity.

Nothing else matters, not Bernie vs Clinton, not veepery, not bloody email servers.

Make it happen. Please make it happen.
posted by Devonian at 4:44 PM on June 29, 2016 [67 favorites]


Frankly, some people's assertion that Bernie or other progressive candidates should 'put a sock in it already' (as said in the start of the thread) sounds like concern-trolling to me. It's nauseating : 'don't get uppity, you've lost! be gracious and yield to the winner! guide your voters to more productive activities (grassroot activism), etc!'.

Some of the people here has said that the notion of Sanders continuing his campaign is detrimental to the Democratic party as a whole (from a loooooong time ago and the remarks were repeated in every election thread) - that's pretty bullshit, though. If anything, if Sanders did give up his campaign early in his trail, we wouldn't see people - lots of young people - vote in term of what they really believe - as nonpermanent as their views are.

Honestly, did you guys not understand the lessons from Brexit? Calling Leave voters racists or racist-aligned or xenophobic (while probably true to some extent) would not help at all - their anger and frustration, while misguided, is pretty valid --- that's also true for Sanders' voters (especially younger people, since I'm also at that age group) who voted for a candidate that really speaks to them on economic issues.

To me and others my age, it seems, voting strategically is something of a last resort. Most of us, seeing impossible chance, don't really care. What we want is that for our vote and speech to be heard and hearing someone voicing our concerns is really great. And handwaving Sanders as someone who 'oversteps his bounds' or some bull like that is.. not really the correct thing to say because fuck politics is the default for young people who is sick of how politics is played - not only in the U.S. but also abroad.

This quote from this thread also demonstrates the wrongheadedness that is booing Sanders for continuing his campaign :

Sure, the Democratic Party is the compromised, corrupt institution sucking from the corporate tit. We totally need to fix that. Like, after kicking Trump's ass.

Then I ask : when the fuck is the right fucking time to make the changes then? Do we need to shut the fuck up about how we think the current political system sucks? Even though maybe we don't really know how to change it or even what is it that we need to fix? I know that fully informed political decision making is supposedly a characteristic that all voters should have, but how about when we do know that lots of things are wrong, but we don't really have a plan to do it? What is wrong with supporting a candidate that voices that concern and don't dismiss it out of hand?
posted by tirta-yana at 5:13 PM on June 29, 2016 [15 favorites]


Make it happen. Please make it happen.

White Britons made up 81.9% of the UK population in 2011.

Non-Hispanic White Americans made up 63.7% of the US population in 2010.

If our (US) racial demographics looked like your (UK) numbers, Donald Trump would be ahead right now.

We (black and brown Americans) are about to save (white) Americans' collective ass.

I hope.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:18 PM on June 29, 2016 [65 favorites]


be gracious and yield to the winner! guide your voters to more productive activities (grassroot activism), etc!'.

Yes. The primaries are merely the first stage in a prolonged electoral process that results in the winner getting to be the President.

One of the people who has a really strong chance of getting elected President is Donald Fucking Trump.

It's time for Sanders to graciously yield to the winner of the primaries and guide his voters to more productive activities like preventing Trump from being our next President.

Sorry if his pwecious fee-fees are hurt by this, but he's an old man who has surely seen multiple Presidential elections in his day. He knew this was coming.
posted by Sara C. at 5:18 PM on June 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


Humanfront shared this in the last thread, but I think it's worth sharing again:

Ethicists discuss the morality of strategic voting .
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:24 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


We (black and brown Americans) are about to save (white) Americans' collective ass.

I hope.


Arizona is in play. Hispanics are coming through.
posted by Talez at 5:26 PM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's nauseating : 'don't get uppity,

Nobody is calling Sanders or his supporters "uppity," at least not in here.

I think Sanders is being kind of a dick, and I think a small-but-vocal minority of his supporters are also kind of being dicks, but saying someone is being a dick is a long god damn way from saying they're "uppity."

"Uppity"-- in addition to being super loaded with racial connotations that seem kind of weird to apply to a rich and powerful old white man--has a "know your place" thing going on, and I give no shits what Sanders' "place" is, and whether or not he "knows" it.

I would just like him to stop being a dick.
posted by dersins at 5:35 PM on June 29, 2016 [35 favorites]


Do you really think that Sanders campaign not gracefully bowing out and instead pushes and pushes for change is the deciding factor or even a big factor in Trump being or not being president, though? The voters that vote for Sanders are not going to vote for Trump : some tiny, tiny minority will do so, no doubt; but the majority likely already knows that no matter what they say in social media (Like "Well I'll vote for trump. The dems are corrupt as hell and I'd rather burn everything to the ground" or some strawman statements like that) they'll be better voting for Hillary Clinton than the alternative.

I don't believe that the dichotomy is meaningful. I believe that we can both support Sanders' campaign for change and support Hillary Clinton in the presidential elections.

@Joey Michaels : In a 3rd party creation scenario, the rationale for voting for a 3rd party or pushing for a change in the party system is to make changes - if everyone is a rational utilitarian, no change would be made because everyone strategically votes and thus no-one would bother making a (present-constrained) irrational choice of voting for a 3rd party or whatever. But I think if we manage to take a longer view, the fact that there are tiny minorities who vote for a 3rd party regardless of the consequences actually emboldens others who might share the same views but are too scared/strategic to not vote for a 3rd party. Year-to-year, presumably, the number of voters who will vote for them will increase; snowballing. People used to not touch LGBTQ issues with a ten-foot pole : most politicians are afraid of the topic. When the overton window was moved by the activists, so do LGBTQ-positive politicians - previously reluctant to show blatant support for LGBTQ issues and now emboldened by public support - appear.
posted by tirta-yana at 5:35 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Do you really think that Sanders campaign not gracefully bowing out and instead pushes and pushes for change is the deciding factor or even a big factor in Trump being or not being president, though?

Yeah, I think it could be. I don't want to sound really pissy about Sanders, but right now my best guess about his strategy for the Dem convention is to stage some protests and have his supporters be booing at parts of the pro-Clinton speeches. That may not sway many people, but the visuals will appear in pro-Trump commercials and will hurt Clinton, without accomplishing anything, imo.
posted by puddledork at 5:40 PM on June 29, 2016 [24 favorites]


Fair enough w/r/t to the uppity part @dersins, and some Sanders supporters do know that he can be an asshole in some ways and kind of vindictive. True. But the issue on the table is secretary hamilton's plan to assume state debts whether or not a chance for a candidate like that could appear again on the democratic nominee platter or not. If people could make peace with Hillary Clinton's hawkish tendencies and compromise with that part of her even if they are themselves pacifists due to her projected political positives outweighing her negatives, then I believe that Sanders supporters, at least, deserve that same amount of... understanding.
posted by tirta-yana at 5:41 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


What many Clinton supporters find frustrating is the feeling that if the roles were reversed there would be far louder calls for Clinton to endorse the winner of the primary by Sanders' supporters than what we hear from the Clinton side.

Sanders is well within his right to behave as he is now, but IMO he is squandering goodwill and missing opportunities to advance his agenda.
posted by haiku warrior at 5:42 PM on June 29, 2016 [15 favorites]


Then I ask : when the fuck is the right fucking time to make the changes then? Do we need to shut the fuck up about how we think the current political system sucks? Even though maybe we don't really know how to change it or even what is it that we need to fix?

I can tell you when it's not the right time to hold your breath and pout like a toddler having a temper tantrum: when there's even the slimmest possibility of someone like Donald Fucking Trump being elected to be POTUS.

Nobody is arguing with you about whether the current political system sucks. I think (having read every comment in every political thread here over the last several years) that pretty much we all agree that the current political system is a mess and needs to be fixed. We are TRYING to accomplish a lot: overturn Citizens United, stop the constant assault on women's rights and issues, make sure that even poor people are able to see a doctor, keep some of our citizens from shooting up the rest of us, making sure that every citizen is able to even cast a damn vote and also on that list is making our political system less corrupt and more equitable for everyone.

If you (not you personally, but a global you) don't know how to effect change or how to even define the problem, then try listening to the people who may be older than you or may have priorities that don't match exactly to yours because we will work with you to do both of those things. But you have to act like an adult who understands compromise and not like a child who doesn't want to wear blue shorts to daycare today.
posted by hollygoheavy at 5:43 PM on June 29, 2016 [29 favorites]


Ok, so you would like to see the Democratic party and the US as a whole take a more progressive direction. Agreed so far, I totally would like to see that too. In the US as it is right now, like it or not, the Democratic party represents the more progressive part of the US electorate. I agree that Democrats are really not that progressive on a global scale, however they're currently getting their asses handed to them in Senate and Congress elections all over the country, in large part because the country as a whole is even less progressive (plus likely some gerrymandering). If you would like to see the country take a progressive direction, try to get more Democrats elected in local and state elections.

When their supporters turn out reliably in these elections, like Republican (and Tea Party) supporters do, Democrats will have the room to move to the left. Currently, they're getting squeezed in races with much more right-wing opponents - how do you expect them to pivot to the left? That's simply not possible given their electoral reality. When Sanders supporters insist on using a purity test to determine which Democrat politicians are worthy of their support, they damage the Democratic coalition from within and allow Republicans to romp home. There's a reason so many Republicans are running unopposed. There is no way you're going to get meaningful economic change in this country without wresting control of the Congress and Senate from the Republicans. Turning out every four years to try to elect the most progressive possible person in the Democratic primary (and hopefully to the US Presidency) is simply not enough.
posted by peacheater at 5:46 PM on June 29, 2016 [25 favorites]


Devonian just said:

I'm living through Brexit. I strongly STRONGLY advise against complacency in the face of right-wing demagogery.


This thread then proceeded to resume the Clinton/Sanders argument.

Get it together people.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:47 PM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


Get it together people.

But I want my social democratic revolution with single payer healthcare and nordic state style welfare NOW!
posted by Talez at 5:48 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


So do I, Talez. So do I.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:51 PM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I believe that we can both support Sanders' campaign for change and support Hillary Clinton in the presidential elections.

I totally agree, which is why Sanders needs to stop running for president and just run for changing things.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:52 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


*facepalm*
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:53 PM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


Some of the people here has said that the notion of Sanders continuing his campaign is detrimental to the Democratic party as a whole (from a loooooong time ago and the remarks were repeated in every election thread) - that's pretty bullshit, though. If anything, if Sanders did give up his campaign early in his trail, we wouldn't see people - lots of young people - vote

Early on, sure. He absolutely should have stuck it out. It is no longer "early" in the primary season. It's not even early in our godforsaken endless hell march towards the general. Now is the time for him to graciously support the presumptive nominee while continuing to build infrastructure and support for his progressive goals, instead of lingering at the margins ruining all the good work he actually has done in his campaign.

I'm not mad at Bernie Sanders, I'm disappointed, because all I'm seeing from him is version 500 of the same old stump speech. The progressive left deserves better. It's great that he makes people feel heard, I mean that, but that's the starting point, not the end point. Throughout the entire course of his campaign, I have never felt confident that he has an end point beyond some nebulous revolution. As someone who has a really lot at stake in this election, that's not enough for me.

All that said, Bernie v. Hillary is besides the point. I think Bernie has missed his window for substantive influence at this point, partly due to world events and partly due to his own action/inaction. It's more important to focus on how to combat whatever noxious thing the ongoing Republican garbage fire spews forth next. For example, I'm deeply concerned about what's starting to seem like inevitable violence at the RNC convention, and what any violence there will enable elsewhere in the country.
posted by yasaman at 5:55 PM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


Until and unless Sanders endorses Clinton it is absolutely inevitable that Sanders-vs-Clinton debates happen. That's actually one of the stronger arguments why he should do it; for as long as he doesn't the energy that should be directed at Trump is divided.

This is not a Metafilter problem. It's a natural consequence of the choices made by the people running for the office.
posted by Justinian at 5:55 PM on June 29, 2016 [24 favorites]


Earlier today I posted a link on Facebook to that Guardian piece urging Clinton to pick Warren as VP.

A friend (whom I've known online for years), a Libertarian-leaning Republican who has been vocally #NeverTrump and considering voting for Sanders since he lives in SC, commented that he'd "have to reconsider #NeverTrump" if Warren were on the ticket.

This is a smart, thoughtful, PhD-having gay man, who could choke down a Hillary presidency over Trump, but maybe not if Warren were added to the mix.

It's amazing how differently we see the world. I would be curious to inhabit his mind for a day, to try to understand how this even works.
posted by Superplin at 6:02 PM on June 29, 2016


Uh, yeah gay men do not get an automatic feminist card unfortunately. nb I am a gay man who tries to be a feminist
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:07 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


People used to not touch LGBTQ issues with a ten-foot pole : most politicians are afraid of the topic. When the overton window was moved by the activists, so do LGBTQ-positive politicians - previously reluctant to show blatant support for LGBTQ issues and now emboldened by public support - appear.

When we were voting for President in 2008, we voted in somebody who didn't publicly support marriage equality. He evolved to that position while he was president because of what was happening state by state.

Had John McCain (who also didn't support marriage equality) won the 2008 election, would marriage equality have advanced as quickly as it did under President Obama no matter how hard we activists pushed?

Having a President who is potentially sympathetic to one's positions increases the chances that one's activism will have an impact significantly. Having a president diametrically opposed to one's position similarly reduces the impact of one's activism.

We spend so much time in these discussions fetishizing the role of the president. While this is an important role (and its important that the person in that role is not Donald Trump), there are many more facets to our government that we progressives tend to ignore. Why don't we do better electing candidates to state houses and senates? Why aren't there more progressive governors? The fact that the senate and house are Republican right now is a huge stumbling block for us.

I've come around to recognizing that demanding ideological purity means watching the things you want drifting further and further out of your reach.

Anyhow, the lesson from Obama and marriage equality (to my way of thinking) is "vote for good enough, then push and push for better."
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:16 PM on June 29, 2016 [55 favorites]


My main thought on the "our political system is broken, when is it ever the right time to make changes" idea is that we first have to decide how exactly the system is broken and what needs fixing.

Is it extra-governmental structural stuff like how political parties work, attempting to establish a Westminster system, giving more space to third parties, etc? Is it radical changes to the procedures of government, like getting rid of the electoral college? Is it voting technology and polling laws?

Is it the actual meat of government? More funding for infrastructure, better schools, more protections for labor, specific approaches to foreign policy?

And once you establish what you think is broken and how it should change, how do you get the whole country on board? We are a massively divided country where politics is concerned.

So, yeah, it's just not as simple as "burn it down, we need massive change and we need it right now and I don't care if there's a pre-existing system we need to also deal with in the meantime"

(On the other hand, would it be so hard to declare Election Day a national holiday, or at least hold all elections on weekends?)
posted by Sara C. at 6:17 PM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


Also, Obama on Trump's nativism.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:22 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


And the problem is usually that while you can get a lot of people to agree on an idea like "the political system is broken", getting enough to agree on the solution is tough. I mean, both Sanders and Trump push the "system is broken" argument, after all. Or look at the ACA, I remember seeing polls about the "popularity" of the ACA, but people who didn't like it spanned both the "government shouldn't be involved in healthcare" side and the "there should be single payer" side.

The Democrats (or even just like, people in this thread) are not united on the solutions. The country as a whole isn't even close to being on the same page about solutions. I suspect a majority would agree with the "politics is broken" sentiment.

I don't think that actually accomplishes or means anything, however.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:22 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


A giant meteor hitting the Earth actually does pretty well against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in a new PPP poll results released exclusively on The Rachel Maddow Show just now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:26 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Giant Meteor 2016.
posted by Justinian at 6:29 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


The killer app of the Trump campaign: Trump supporters don't care what he says. Ideas and logic have no part in his party-leadng campaign.

If you're going all in after George W., that may be the only way to do it.

And how do you defend against or attack - nothing?
posted by petebest at 6:29 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Gee, Trump is openly doing something openly illegal. It must be a weekday.
And the most important narrative about Trump should be (IMHO) not that he's a bigot or a fascist or even a bad manager (all of which are true) but that he's America's Biggest CROOK who wants to be President so he can stick his hand in the Federal Cookie Jar and pull out enough Billion $$$ to achieve his life-long goal of being the Richest Man in America, not the President of America; that's just a means to an end. When he started talking about Building a Wall, he explicitly said his own companies could contract for it - that whole issue to him is less about "keeping them out" than "making ME money". (Also as President, he believes he'd be shielded from prosecution for all the crimes he's recently committed ... he has to know that if he loses, there's a high likelihood he'll share a cell with Bernie Madoff). I just think that's the Best Narrative to use against him because it is so true, it'll drive him nuts.

And also note his early statements that "I was never a politician; I OWNED politicians". That's pure Tammany Hall. He also gave contributions to the Clintons in his old pre-Republican days... if he wants to prove his claims about Hillary's dishonesty, all he has to do is reveal the 'quid pro quos' she gave HIM.

For me, two factoids tend to explain the mindset of Bernie Sanders:
(1) until this campaign, he was proudly Not A Democrat, ensuring he would not be all that close with any serious 'insiders' in the party, not even those who agree with him more than Clinton or Obama, and the belief that he could come in from literally-left-field and change the Party in one election cycle was near-delusional... that he did as well as he did is incredible but still...
(2) he 'lost badly' with 43% of the popular vote... compared to Trump, who won 60+% of the delegates with 44% of the popular vote and there's no way Bernie HASN'T done that math (yes, the difference between having one opponent and a dozen, but it's still so frustrating when it happens to you).

Also, the clock is ticking down now for Bernie Sanders to respond to Trump's Big Lie about him and Clinton. If he doesn't make it 100% clear in 100 words or less that Trump is the one he HATES, then he will essentially prove to way too many people (including some BernieBros) that this is one thing Trump actually got right.
Trump and Sanders
Sitting in a tree...

We've totally got to overhaul our party... just...later... after we get to see them win this one next time.
The one thing that will open up the way to overhauling the party is a BIG win, Presidential and Congressional, with a minimum of elected 'DINOs' and no reversal in the next mid-terms. It would simply demonstrate that The Big Money and The Compromises are totally unnecessary and give the less fearless members of the party a lot less to fear.

Pretty damn telling that you've got facism on one side and a woman on the other and there's a question of how some people are going to vote.
In some aspects, there's the question of "why does it have to be THAT woman?" And yes, I have qualms with the fact that she is STILL married to my LEAST favorite major Democratic Party figure of my adult life (he was #2 until Lieberman quit the party), and you can't really separate her from Her Husband's "Third Way" politics that put the party where it is today. That said, the status of women in American Politics is still so sadly awful that she is the only woman who ever really has had a CHANCE to win the Presidency. And without as terrible an opponent as Trump, she would most likely be the underdog to Mr. Generic Republican (one of the surveys showed how much better Ryan or Kasich would do and it was scary). But if you substituted Elizabeth Warren or any other 'top-tier woman Democrat', she would be even weaker. Sadly, a fact. Remember, she went into the 2008 campaign as the Democrats' front-runner and lost to a first-term Senator with what bigotry-apologists would call "a pigment problem". (Personal confession: when I first heard about Barack Obama, I was massively impressed and thought he COULD be America's First Non-White President... except for his name, which I felt would've turned a lot of "I'm not VERY racist" Americans against him. Not the only time I was wrong - when we were having an Economic Emergency in 2008, I seriously suspected Bush and Cheney would try to use it as an excuse to cancel the election and extend their rule... maybe, if Cheney weren't looking forward to retirement so much.)

One more thing... Obama's anti-Trump 'rant' came surprisingly close to what I suggested the message should be above... Trump is not a "populist" and not even a "nativist", he's just a Con Man, "paying the roles on TV". But his defense of trade agreements at the end was rather tentative... as if he realized it is a bad time to come to a full defense of Globalization.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:36 PM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people.
Night Watch, Terry Pratchett
posted by landis at 6:45 PM on June 29, 2016 [29 favorites]


The killer app of the Trump campaign: Trump supporters don't care what he says. Ideas and logic have no part in his party-leadng campaign.

I enjoyed that Eggers article, but it’s a pretty light take on Trump; a lot of people are at that rally, but he has no idea why or what’s really motivating them. The one thing he can say is that Trump lost their attention when he began ranting off-topic, but that’s honestly fairly damning. It’s without a doubt true that there are die-hard Trump supporters out there who support him whatever he says. The same is true -to lesser degrees- for Sanders and Clinton, who have their own die-hard bases. The same was true for Rob Ford: I remember a reporter mentioning in an obit that he spoke to a man who didn’t think that he had smoked crack but also didn’t care if Ford was lying about having done so - after all, if someone accused the man of smoking crack, he’d lie about it too.

Trump die hards, while noisy, aren’t numerous. You don’t convince them, and you don’t try to convince them. You convince everyone else.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:47 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


And how do you defend against or attack - nothing?

You have to realize that, for many on the hard-right side of the spectrum, this election is not about ideology or policy or legislation directly. It is about tribalism. It's like a sports rivalry -- whatever their guy does is right because their guy is doing it and whatever the other guy does is wrong because they're slimy sacks of Satan spawn.

There are people who can be reached about Trump and fundamentalist conservatism in general -- and they're being reached if the polls are any indication. The rest will require, as alcoholics would say, a Moment of Clarity before they even consider reconsidering.
posted by delfin at 7:01 PM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


Uh, yeah gay men do not get an automatic feminist card unfortunately. nb I am a gay man who tries to be a feminist

Oh, I know--I was just listing traits of his that do not, in my mind, correlate to someone who would even remotely consider voting for Trump, even if a literal dumpster fire were running on the opposite ticket. I find it baffling.
posted by Superplin at 7:04 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump is running the Seinfeld of campaigns in some ways. It's a campaign about nothing and the only real consistency is mean-spiritedness.
posted by snofoam at 7:04 PM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


(Oh, and I don't think he's being sexist--although, maybe?--but see it more as a reflection of his views on financial markets and regulations.)
posted by Superplin at 7:05 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Would-be future leaders of the Republican Party are staying away from the Convention in droves. Nobody wants to be there.
posted by yesster at 7:31 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


The enemy is in disarray, Don't bother with them. Energise your base.

Democracy isn't about truth or facts, it's about numbers.

It's what won Brexit for the Leavers.

How many elections have been lost by a few percent, when those who didn't bother could have changed the result if they'd only turned out?

Mine was, and by God it hurts.

How many of those potential voters will respond to the call, if you make it with passion and conviction? They're not staying at home because they're torn by policy disagreements. But they haven't responded to the other lot, so they're open to you. Reach them. Every last one.

Don't sweat the details. You're good guys. You can make it work (and when you win, you'd better: facts and truth and responsibility MUST matter to you). Trust yourselves. Make it simple, make it powerful. Make it resonate.

But get the vote out, otherwise it's all just walls of text on Metafilter.
posted by Devonian at 7:35 PM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


Even Ted Nugent has declined to appear at the convention. When you lose Ted Nugent, you're past scraping the bottom of the barrel.
posted by peeedro at 7:36 PM on June 29, 2016 [20 favorites]


Until and unless Sanders endorses Clinton it is absolutely inevitable that Sanders-vs-Clinton debates happen

are you kidding me, it's gonna keep happening for all 8 years of her presidency.
posted by poffin boffin at 7:45 PM on June 29, 2016 [19 favorites]


It's not going to be Donald Trump. He's gone above and beyond to torpedo his own candidacy, including firing the guy who got him there. There's going to be a convention floor revolt, and it will be Paul Ryan. He has continually proven himself to be incapable of saying "No" to a position he knows he is not qualified for and has no desire to hold.

Can you imagine that first debate?

"Unlike Speaker Ryan, I actually had to win elections against a very well qualified opponent..."

Camera closeup. Bernie, seated in the front row, scowls, then winks, then waves, the crowd goes nertz as he gives Hillary the double-thumbs-up-pointing-at-you.

Ryan blinks and does his "Awww, man!" expression - this is way worse than debating "Corvette" Joe!
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:59 PM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


I think Sanders fucked this up in almost every way by not saying "we are a part of the Democratic Party, and this is where we think the party and the country should be moving". Instead he tried to Trump the Dems. Instead of playing smart and using the momentum to actually change the party he bet it all on one spin and wasted all the excitement and passion.

At this point it seems it really wasn't about the ideas and the movement, it was only all only important if it was him doing it. Apparently no one else is capable.
posted by bongo_x at 8:27 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


For those that want more Marxists in office: this is what real, doctrinaire Marxism looks like. Women will have unlimited rights over their bodes *after* the Revolution, comrade!

So, two things.

First, let's not equate Sanders with Marxism or socialism. From my perspective, Sanders is effectively as much of a socialist as Clinton is.

Second, that's not what doctrinaire Marxism looks like.
posted by Dalby at 8:31 PM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]



At this point it seems it really wasn't about the ideas and the movement, it was only all only important if it was him doing it. Apparently no one else is capable.


Yes, and yet Elizabeth Warren has been coming out gangbusters for HRC and everyone is eating it up, especially HRC.
posted by zutalors! at 8:31 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's not going to be Donald Trump. He's gone above and beyond to torpedo his own candidacy, including firing the guy who got him there. There's going to be a convention floor revolt, and it will be Paul Ryan.

It's going to be Donald Trump. He fired the guy who got him here and replaced him with a guy who has him running a marginally more polished campaign. There won't be a convention floor revolt; Dump Trump lacks the votes.

Paul Ryan is a tool, though.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:34 PM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


Would-be future leaders of the Republican Party are staying away from the Convention in droves. Nobody wants to be there.

So, kind of like the Brazil Olympics, except the bloodsucking parasites will be wearing neckties.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:36 PM on June 29, 2016 [15 favorites]


It is a month away, and NO big-name (or middle-name) Republican has pledged to speak at the RNC. So many seem to have other places to be.
posted by yesster at 8:43 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just more speaking time for The Donald.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:50 PM on June 29, 2016


Trump's Rumored B-List Convention Guests: We Weren't Asked to Appear:
At least two of the quasi-celebrities Donald Trump was rumored to have invited to appear at the Republican National Convention [Mikes Ditka and Tyson] have shrugged off reports that they'll attend.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:59 PM on June 29, 2016


Sorry if it seems like I'm doing drive-by's here.

The political strategy for Democrats is to hold the Republican's feet to the fire. Ask them, seriously, if they're willing to endorse their standard-bearer.

I'm no fan of the 2-party system and first past the post. But this is what we have to live with for now.

"What about Trump?" should be the first thing anybody asks about a "R" candidate.

Because he's what they've chosen.

And they're all running away from him.
posted by yesster at 9:01 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just want to go on record in encouraging corb to start a "Live! From Cleveland! Starring Corb!" thread once the convention hits the fan.

I think that would be pretty much the definition of making something All About Me. But don't worry, I swear I will be posting to Metafilter until my phone runs out of power or the thread gets a billion comments and I can't make it work anymore. (For those of you interested in this sort of thing, I got my plane tickets tonight, so am now definitely, 1000%, going)

Someone upthread asked what the deal is with pledges, and you're right, it's totally a thing. When I signed up as part of the Cruz team, they made anyone wanting to run as a delegate or take a leadership position sign secret loyalty pledges. I think it's so that if people switch or do other than the campaign asks, they can Publicly Expose Them As Disloyal.

Me, I give zero fucks, but I understand that for those people who are intending to run as a Republican, this is the kind of "Gotcha!" that grassroots activists live by. "In 2016 you signed a loyalty pledge, but then went back on it! How can we believe you won't go back on your promise to cut taxes?!" type stuff.
posted by corb at 9:02 PM on June 29, 2016 [32 favorites]


I would love to see the graph that shows how use of the phrase "dumpster fire" has spiked online and in the press since Trump began his run.
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:27 PM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Here's a start.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:33 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]




Who here is attending the democratic convention? We can have people on the scene at both.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:20 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


You can almost see the correlation if you use the right search terms. ("Trump" scores so high that "Dumpster fire" fades into the noise.)
posted by mmoncur at 10:27 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Chamber of Commerce has been engaged in a twitterstorm of running away from Trump.

Chamber of Commerce has never not supported the Republican candidate.
posted by yesster at 10:27 PM on June 29, 2016


Apparently one of the foreigners Donald Trump, Jr. hit up for campaign contributions was Natalie McGarry, Member of Parliament for Glasgow East. She tweeted screen caps of his email and her glorious shut-down response.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:01 PM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


...By the time Trump launched his campaign, the conservative movement had already destroyed the intellectual immune system that is necessary to resist grifters. A telling example can be found in the famous “Never Trump” issue of National Review from February. Amid all the editorials and articles warning of the dangers of Trump was a full-page ad for something called “The Patriot Power Generator 1500.” The ad begins: FORMER CIA OFFICIAL WARNS; “ISIS TERRORISTS WANT TO CRIPPLE AMERICA’S ELECTRIC GRID!” Further down is a series of alarming sub-headlines designed to sell the generator: “IT May Have Already Begun,” “You Know We’re Targeted,” “Weather Is the Other Enemy.”

Here is the paradox of Never Trump in a nutshell: Could the people who have been conditioned to think they need to buy the Patriot Power Generator in order to fight off an ISIS attack on America’s power grid really be expected to see through Donald Trump ? Conservative publications like National Review have spent a generation cultivating an audience of gulls. Now they’re shocked that a far more talented hustler has stolen them away.
Conservatives Have Groomed the Perfect Suckers for Trump’s Epic Scam
posted by y2karl at 11:04 PM on June 29, 2016 [38 favorites]


Trumpster Fire?
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:05 PM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


Conservatives Have Groomed the Perfect Suckers for Trump’s Epic Scam

This has been my analysis from the beginning. The Republicans cobbled together this machine, like a Mad Max mobile of turbosupercharged bullshit propaganda, and were like "well the Democrats aren't going to want this thing, it's made of racism and idiocy" so they left the keys in the ignition: didn't even bother to curb the most fevered excesses of the roiling cauldron they'd stirred up or leave any basic sanity checks in place because they wanted it ready to go at any time, in any direction.

The Birtherism phase was Trump checking to see if the door was unlocked, and when he found it was open he just got in and drove off.
posted by XMLicious at 3:03 AM on June 30, 2016 [42 favorites]


Nobody is saying Bernie should not push for change ... but many are disappointed in the way he is going about that push. Instead of working as an ally and a collaborator, he is doing so as an opponent and confrontationalist. His language is highly dismissive of and disrespectful to millions of voters, few of whom can be characterized as wealthy donors, plutocrats or special interests... particularly since so many are women and people of color who do not feel his revolution sufficiently addresses their concerns. It is also massively disrespectful to good democratic politicians who have labored diligently over years to suppport liberal and progressive causes to say they are not a party concerned with working people. It's become readily apparent why he did not get support from any of his peers.

Instead of moving his people to healing and positive change, he is fostering cynicism and mistrust. That's not constructive leadership.

On a more positive note - it was so awesome to see Obama get a standing ovation and a chant of "four more years" after his speech at the House of Commons yesterday. Haven't heard the whole speech yet, will have to defer until later today but here it is: Read and watch President Barack Obama's speech to Parliament.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:49 AM on June 30, 2016 [25 favorites]


Of course that's what people with a security clearance say. Cops tend to think a certain way, too; doesn't make it right, or even endurable for those not obsessed by fantasies of total control. [...] Similarly for people with a security clearance, who tend to wind up with a security clearance because they've bought into the vital importance of security = secret information that if the little people only knew it would make them fall into line like they should.

I know this is kind of a derail, but something like 4 million people hold security clearances, and I'd wager that some of that multitude would take umbrage with this characterization.
posted by Hal Mumkin at 5:21 AM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Ari Melber and Alexandra Jaffe: After Saying He Forgave Loans to Campaign, Trump Won't Release Proof
Last week, campaign spokesperson Hope Hicks said Trump was submitting formal paperwork forgiving the loan on Thursday, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Reached by NBC this week, she said the paperwork "will be filed with the next regularly scheduled FEC report," and declined to provide any documentation.

The delay could matter, because until Trump formally forgives the loans, he maintains the legal option to use new donations to reimburse himself. (He can do so until August, under federal law.)

In his most recent FEC filing, which posted June 20, Trump treated all his spending on the campaign as loans.

An FEC staff member tells NBC News there is no new filing changing Trump's loans. The FEC's candidate tracking page, which posts filings, does not show new paperwork from Trump changing his loans.

Even the remote possibility that Trump could tap new donations to pay himself fed skepticism among GOP donors, who wanted assurances that money intended for the election would not end up in Trump's own pockets.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:10 AM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]




That is singlehandedly the single Slate-iest article that Slate has ever published.
posted by rorgy at 6:30 AM on June 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Max Rosenthal: When Donald Was "Principal for a Day" and Confronted by a Fifth-Grader
[T]he school's chess team was scraping together money to go to the national championship. It still needed several thousand dollars at the time of Trump's visit, according the New York Daily News. But Trump focused on something else. He held a drawing in which 15 lucky students could win coupons for Nike sneakers—but there was something of a catch. The shoes had to be picked up at the Niketown store at Trump Tower. "He said we were going to have to go on a bus to get them," Eugenio Tavares Jr., a P.S. 70 student, told the Daily News.

The Nike lottery caused "frenzied excitement" among the students, the New York Times reported, but one kid questioned Trump about it. "Why did you offer us sneakers if you could give us scholarships?" asked Andres Rodriguez, a fifth-grader whose father had died and whose mother couldn't work because of a bad leg, according to the Times.

"I asked because school is more important than sneakers, but he didn't really answer," Rodriguez told the Daily News.

Trump's generosity didn't end with the 15 pairs of sneakers. He decided he could hand out additional sneaker coupons to disappointed kids who didn't win the drawing, and he distributed what the Times called "beautiful, psychedelic Trump Tower hats for every child." As he departed the school, he donated a fake $1 million at the bake sale raising money for the chess team.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:32 AM on June 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


Read Obama's speech and loved it. The USA and the rest of the world are going to miss him.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:39 AM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


> I know this is kind of a derail, but something like 4 million people hold security clearances, and I'd wager that some of that multitude would take umbrage with this characterization.

No, of course you're right and I was overreacting, but as an anarchist I tend to do that when confronted with what I consider statist bullshit. "I have a security clearance, so I can say with confidence that X [and you can't contradict me, you uncleared sucker]" is not going to bring out my best, most rational side.
posted by languagehat at 6:58 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]




This changes everything. I'm selling everything I own and starting a religion.
posted by y2karl at 7:21 AM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


So I'm just a humble volunteer at the Philly convention but I'll be able to report on random people muttering as they sign my clipboard or whatever
posted by angrycat at 7:28 AM on June 30, 2016 [17 favorites]


Trump’s Campaign Wishes It Were a Garbage Fire. Garbage Fires Get the Job Done.

I'm going to disagree, on the basis that the Trump Campaign is not about winning the Presidency, but about revitalizing the Trump brand. Waste-to-energy.
posted by nubs at 7:55 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wish people would stop calling Trump a garbage- and/or dumpster fire.

He is quite evidently the bloated, orange-haired, itty-bitty-handsed living embodiment of the Great Waterbury Tire Fire of 1981, referred to at the time by the paper of record as a "noxious mass" whose stench caused "tears, headaches, raw throats and vomiting and, if the cloud cover is low...can affect people miles away."

That anyone could harbor the merest suspicion that Trump might not be the literal, actual incarnation of this event is utterly baffling to me.
posted by dersins at 8:16 AM on June 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


Trump's supporters don't care what he says.

Fine, they're a tiny fragment of the population. However, his feckless actions are driving away every conceivable undecided voter and discouraging turnout among even diehard Republican loyalists. This election is shaping up rather nicely. (No complacency, etc.)
posted by msalt at 8:24 AM on June 30, 2016


dersins: I read that aloud to my partner and he said, "that has shades of Chuck Tingle." I'm fairly certain that is a compliment btw.
posted by R343L at 8:26 AM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


But were it truly Tingle-esque, surely there would be a not-insubstantially larger quotient of assfucking.
posted by dersins at 8:31 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Did you think it got weird in 2012 at the McCain/Palin convention when Clint Eastwood talked to a chair? Wait until Ted Nugent reads a love poem to an Uzi.

Yes, I know that Clint Eastwood talked to a chair in 2012, but the idea of Paul Ryan following whatever desperate down on their luck celeb that Trump can pull in (Chachi?) or a Palin or Gingrich type with absolutely no shame is just too funny. I mean the Speaker of the House would have to make an appearance, right?
posted by readery at 8:38 AM on June 30, 2016


[T]he school's chess team was scraping together money to go to the national championship. It still needed several thousand dollars at the time of Trump's visit, according the New York Daily News. But Trump focused on something else. He held a drawing in which 15 lucky students could win coupons for Nike sneakers—but there was something of a catch. The shoes had to be picked up at the Niketown store at Trump Tower.

Everything about this man is just so... shabby.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:46 AM on June 30, 2016 [44 favorites]


Second, that's not what doctrinaire Marxism looks like.

It would be more correct to say that this is what the 60's/70's New Left looks like. "Women and Minorities can get in line behind everyone else while we focus on economic issues" was the classic message of the New Left, and why a lot of women left in favor of Women's Liberation.

Despite the fact that many men in the New Left were Marxists or Maoists, I'm not sure that impulse actually comes from there. Gender equality was actually a major tenet of early socialism, and The Russian and Chinese revolutions did a lot to improve women's rights in those countries. (Maybe not permanently, but at least early on.)
posted by Sara C. at 9:04 AM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Sadly, we won't be seeing Ted's Uzi serenade this year:

Washington Post: Singer Ted Nugent, a Trump fan, is skipping the convention despite numerous invitations to appear “due to our intensive concert touring schedule”
posted by fitnr at 9:06 AM on June 30, 2016


The raw star power and charisma of Clint Eastwood talking to a chair is going to look like the height of decorum compared to whatever two-bit know-nothings they get to speak this year.
posted by Sara C. at 9:18 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


What if it's just three days of Trump?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:19 AM on June 30, 2016


OK fine two-bit know-nothing singular, then.
posted by Sara C. at 9:22 AM on June 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


What if it's just three days of Trump?

Got a picture in my head of how that would turn out, well before it was over.
posted by mordax at 9:23 AM on June 30, 2016




three days of Trump?

the little-known, even nastier sequel to Salò
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:29 AM on June 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


What if it's just three days of Trump?

Yes! In a variety of cheap disguises, fake mustaches, afro wigs, etc.

"Hello, Cleveland! My name is Ronald Tump, successful rocket scientist and wealthy small business owner, and I want to talk to you about the guy—classy guy—who's going to make America great again—me! Er, I mean... Donald Trump!"
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:32 AM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


Half-baked theory: The real reason that so many politicians hate Trump is that he promised every single one of them a big donation and then gave them a coupon for sneakers.
posted by clawsoon at 9:33 AM on June 30, 2016 [32 favorites]


Trump 2016 -Coupons for Some! Colorful Hats For All!
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:38 AM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


As he departed the school, he donated a fake $1 million at the bake sale raising money for the chess team.

Wait, hold up, whut? Like, whut? Does this mean what I think it means and if so does this mean that Trump is the cruelest human being to ever walk this planet?
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:44 AM on June 30, 2016 [20 favorites]


> Yes! In a variety of cheap disguises, fake mustaches, afro wigs, etc.

I think sometime recording artist and television personality Franklin Delano Bluth might be available to speak, as well.
posted by gilrain at 9:45 AM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


"Many current GOP leaders remain committed to going. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) will attend as the convention’s official chairman, and all of his lieutenants are scheduled to be there, including House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who is a Trump delegate."
Kevin McCarthy!
posted by octobersurprise at 9:46 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]




Apparently true: In a grand finale, Mr. Trump stopped at a bake sale being held by the school’s championship chess team, which was short on money to get to a national competition. Mr. Trump pulled out a $1 million bill and dropped it in the basket. Like all $1 million bills, it was a fake. Mr. Trump apparently kept a stash of them handy as hilarious gags. He also gave the team $200 in real money.

The sum of his two-hour visit was: coupons for 15 pairs of sneakers for 300 kids, an apparent joke about Trump Tower being in the “inner city,” a suggestion that a boy who asked a smart question must have been put up to it, a fake $1 million bill, and $200.


Nyt
posted by snofoam at 9:51 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Gross.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:53 AM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


One million dollar bills are possibly hilarious (for a given value of hilarious) if you are not actually a millionaire/probably-not-a-billionaire-but-say-you-are. But this is like me keeping a stash of fake twenties in my wallet and giving them to homeless people along with, like, a nickle.

This fucking guy.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:55 AM on June 30, 2016 [17 favorites]


This gif of Bill O'Reilley and Trump doing the wave has made my day.
posted by peeedro at 9:56 AM on June 30, 2016 [23 favorites]


Those kids should be grateful, actually. They were inoculated against Trumpism at a very early age.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:57 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Christie being vetted for Trump VP

enjoy, for a moment, the thought of a VP debate where Warren is just all "Did he tell you to say that? Are you under duress? Chris: are you okay? Do you need us to call someone for you? Did he hurt you? Chris, did he hurt you?" the whole time
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:01 AM on June 30, 2016 [51 favorites]


enjoy, for a moment, the thought of a VP debate where Warren is just all "Did he tell you to say that? Are you under duress? Chris: are you okay? Do you need us to call someone for you? Did he hurt you? Chris, did he hurt you?" the whole time

"Chris how does it feel to be sent on an errand meant for an intern? Is this the man you really hitched your wagon to?"
posted by Talez at 10:02 AM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


The story about Trump and the kids getting Nike sneakers? I'm sure he had some scam wherein Nike had to give him those coupons. He was supposed to be principal for a day, showed up for two hours, talked up his properties and gave $200.00. I bet he claimed much more as charity on his taxes which will never be seen (and for this time period, the matter is closed anyway). Fake million dollar bill. What an asshole.

Chump change should from this point forward be called 'Trump Change'.
posted by readery at 10:09 AM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


"Why did you offer us sneakers if you could give us scholarships?" asked Andres Rodriquez, a fifth-grader. With all his empty-headed foolishness summed up in one sentence from an 11-year-old, Trump did not let down his admirers. Who told Andres to ask the question, Trump demanded to know.
So even 20 years ago, Trump was already attacking the press for asking a perfectly reasonable question, even when the press is an 11-year-old kid.
posted by zachlipton at 10:11 AM on June 30, 2016 [34 favorites]


Yes! In a variety of cheap disguises, fake mustaches, afro wigs, etc.

Matt Lubchansky at The Nib: “The Right Hand of Clod”
posted by Going To Maine at 10:18 AM on June 30, 2016




What if it's just three days of Trump?

...okay, the very legitimate concerns about violence at this convention aren't enough to worry about? Seriously, we're already concerned for corb as it is.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:25 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Chris Christie's Lawyers Hid One of His Personal Email Accounts from the Feds

I look forward to all the right-wing chuckleheads salivating over the indictment that will surely be coming any day now
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:33 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]






I think this poor man tried a "please stop yelling at me" shirt first but it wasn't enough.
posted by delfin at 10:41 AM on June 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


That wave gif is the best thing ever.
posted by drezdn at 10:41 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


From the cover photo of the New Republic article y2karl linked to above, I see the Trump campaign has brought back the "Silent Majority" concept yet again.

So fine, let's unpack that. You'll recall the basic idea that conservatives have used to explain away every electoral defeat in the last 20 years or so is that GOP candidate X lost because he wasn't conservative enough. It wasn't that conservative values failed in the marketplace of ideas. How could that happen? No, it was that the GOP lacked the courage to give voters a real conservative choice. You're familiar with this idea, yes?

For this to be the case, there has to be a huge number of conservative voters, a "majority," who don't show up to vote - a "silent majority" if you will - because they are disappointed in the "moderate" candidates the GOP keeps nominating. When a true conservative - and I guess that now means Donald Trump - finally gets a chance to run, this huge bloc of hidden voters will supposedly rise up and carry him to victory, a real landslide that doesn't even depend on gerrymandering or sleazy tricks or policies designed to keep the other side from voting.

So my question is, what the fuck are all these people thinking? For this argument to make any sense, all these voters had to decide to stay home and let a black Muslim from Kenya, a man whose stated goal is to disarm America in preparation for a takeover by ISIS (hey, I just report, you decide) actually become President of the United States (twice!) because Mitt Romney wasn't quite conservative enough for them.

How many people do you really think there are out there who would make that calculation? Millions? Or more like two dozen? Trust me, when someone you think is a mouth-foaming maniac is being run for President by a major party, you don't just stay home and go, "well, the other guy is a little wobbly on monetary policy." You hold your nose and you vote for the other guy and hope to fuck he wins so the mouth-foaming maniac doesn't. That's been the story of my entire adult life.

So let's just say I'm dubious and leave it at that. Though I guess it's a little too late for that now, isn't it?
posted by Naberius at 10:47 AM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


enjoy, for a moment, the thought of a VP debate where Warren is just all "Did he tell you to say that? Are you under duress? Chris: are you okay? Do you need us to call someone for you? Did he hurt you? Chris, did he hurt you?" the whole time

Gonna need to have some of those cult deprogramming guys on standby I think
posted by nubs at 10:48 AM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ari Melber, Marti Hause, and Brad Gold: RNC Rules Fight Begins With Plan to Lock In Donald Trump
Anti-Trump forces have talked up rules that could let delegates vote against Trump, regardless of the primary results. But the new rule would stop any and all of those efforts with a silver bullet — freezing the 2012 rules so that no alternatives go into effect this year.

The proposal states "any amendments" to the party rules will not "take effect" until after this year's convention ends.

If the proposal passes, it guarantees that if amendments designed to stop Trump, such as a "conscience clause" that would function as a delegate escape hatch, are also passed, those would only go into effect at "the 2020 National Convention."
posted by zombieflanders at 10:49 AM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Singer Ted Nugent, a Trump fan, is skipping the convention despite numerous invitations to appear “due to our intensive concert touring schedule”

I mean, state fair season only rolls around once a year.
posted by palindromic at 10:52 AM on June 30, 2016 [25 favorites]


Naberius: When a true conservative - and I guess that now means Donald Trump

I am assured by National Review that Trump is not a True Conservative. In fact, he might as well be Clinton. (And that's why he'll lose, I guess.)

There's another branch of the Republican Party which says that they're destined to lose unless they capture the (socially conservative therefore winnable) Hispanic vote. That's why Marco Rubio was the Great Establishment Hope this year. We all know how that turned out.
posted by clawsoon at 10:53 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


man if I was going to be attending that convention I'd be keeping my eyes on the exits at all times and ready to run like hell if I heard anything that sounded like the opening notes to "the rains of castamere"
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:53 AM on June 30, 2016 [20 favorites]


What could they be vetting Christie for? I mean what could they find that's worse than what we already know about him?

And does his campaign really need another loud asshole from the New York Metro Area? It's not like he has a hope of carrying either New York or New Jersey.
posted by octothorpe at 10:57 AM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


And does his campaign really need another loud asshole from the New York Metro Area?

Wait, are you telling me that one of the most appealing qualities for conservatives isn't "New York values"? Next you'll be telling some sort of hogwash like they don't like Washington insiders or ivory-tower intellectuals.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:02 AM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think there's only a slim chance Trump's VP comes from the world of politics. Most sensible politicians recognize his campaign as a sort of necrotizing malignancy, tainting everyone who spends too much time in its presence. But folks looking to get on the right-wing media gravy train? Now those are people who would have some interest.

It still wouldn't be surprise me if he picked one of his kids. Could he truly bear having to share valuable billboard/sticker/sign space with some lesser mud name?
posted by palindromic at 11:03 AM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


It seems like an anti-NeverTrump proposal at the rules committee is a bit redundant -- if it has the votes to pass, then none of the Trump-blocking proposals would succeed anyway.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:04 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


TRUMP/SPAWN 2016
posted by Existential Dread at 11:05 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Most sensible politicians recognize his campaign as a sort of necrotizing malignancy, tainting everyone who spends too much time in its presence.

Trump is political greyscale
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:05 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


necrotizing malignancy

Perfect phrasing.
posted by Sophie1 at 11:05 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump is political greyscale

Can we exile him to the Sorrows yet?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:09 AM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]



It seems like an anti-NeverTrump proposal at the rules committee is a bit redundant -- if it has the votes to pass, then none of the Trump-blocking proposals would succeed anyway.


This is not entirely true, depending on how the votes are looking. Keep in mind the Rules Committee is there for a week - time to schmooze, build alliances, etc. This would kill it right at the start.
posted by corb at 11:12 AM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think there's only a slim chance Trump's VP comes from the world of politics.

I wonder what Ian MacKenzie is doing these days?
posted by happyroach at 11:22 AM on June 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


Singer Ted Nugent ... is skipping the convention despite numerous invitations to appear “due to our intensive concert touring schedule”

Yes, unfortunately, the Nuge will be in Baton Rouge on the 18th and in Jacksonville and Melbourne, Florida on the 20th and 21st. And I guess he's gotta recover on the 19th. The good seats in Jax are 50 bucks a pop so get'em while they last!
posted by octobersurprise at 11:23 AM on June 30, 2016


Trumpwhere i have never travelled,gladly beyond
any experience,your hands have their mendacity:
in your most flail gesture are things which oppress me,
or which i cannot touch because they are nasty

your slightest look easily will oppress me
though i had opened my long fingers,
you close always petal by petal myself as Winter gropes
(touching clumsily,mercilessly)her first rose

or if your wish be to deport me,i and
my love will leave very unjustly,suddenly,
as when the heat of this union imagines
fallout carelessly everywhere descending;

nothing which we are to perceive in this world equals
the power of your intense vapidity:whose texture
compels me with the banality of your evil,
rendering death and destruction with each speeching

(i do not like what it is about you that closes
and opens;only something in me understands
the tone of your skin is deeper than cheetos)
nobody,not even the Ryan,has such small hands
posted by Rumple at 11:25 AM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


"I'd blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left ."

That video is freaking terrifying.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:40 AM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


Still, it's a bit of a shame that the Nuge can't play Cleveland because there's a perfect set list in his catalog: start with "Free-for-All," then continue with all the hits like "Dog Eat Dog," "Out of Control," "Weekend Warriors," and "Stormtroopin'" and conclude by saluting begging the voters of America with "Need You Bad."
posted by octobersurprise at 11:41 AM on June 30, 2016


Caitlyn Jenner: Donald Trump Is a Champion for Women and LGBT People

BYE.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:55 AM on June 30, 2016 [16 favorites]


Josh Marshall: The Desperate and the Fail: Inside Trump's June Fundraising Blitz
They're clearly desperate to raise money fast. But not just because they need a lot of money to compete against Clinton in the fall. Look at the calendar. The terrible May FEC report came out just ten days ago. It was only after that report that Trump's campaign seemed to kick into high fundraising gear or perhaps better to say fundraising mania. The key is that the June FEC report is baked as of today. And then everything is frozen in place until that report is released in late July.

Late July ... what's that? Right, during the Republican convention. If the June report is anything like as awful as the May report it's catastrophic. And that catastrophe will land right during the convention, the worst possible time imaginable. Put that all together and it means Trump had to raise a huge amount of money in about a week. Even if July and August are amazing fundraising months that wouldn't necessarily matter because right now he needs to convince Republicans that his campaign isn't a joke. So he's got until midnight tonight to raise as much money as possible. If the number ain't good, it's a PR time bomb set to go off during the GOP convention.

Put this all together and you start to get a sense of why Trump has gone from fundraising indifference into a kind of manic fundraising blizzard in a matter of days. It also likely gives us a sense of why he's sending his emails to parliamentarians in Iceland and Finland and Australia. No, not because he's that desperate that he wants their moeny but because they're in a such a panicked rush they're throwing everything at the wall they can.

At first, we thought he'd gotten the foreign politician emails from a crooked or stupid list broker. Having researched it a bit more, that seems less and less likely. It seems more like these were lists simply floating around the Trump Organization, tied to some earlier business venture, and someone in the campaign just decided to toss them in the hopper too. Admittedly, this seems like a preposterous theory. But all the conceivable explanations are equally preposterous. And yet one of them must be true since it definitely did happen.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:56 AM on June 30, 2016 [18 favorites]


And, of course, the entire thing undermines Trump's claim that he's Unbelievably Rich and Can't Be Bought. If he really had $10 billion, surely none of this would be necessary.
posted by stolyarova at 11:58 AM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Caitlyn Jenner: Donald Trump Is a Champion for Women and LGBT People

I always suspected that Wheaties would rot your brain.
LITTLE CHOCOLATE DONUTS 4 LIFE!
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:00 PM on June 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


Admittedly, this seems like a preposterous theory. But all the conceivable explanations are equally preposterous. And yet one of them must be true since it definitely did happen.

Someone needs to trademark that statement or otherwise find a way to camp on it. Because as far as I can tell, it equally describes pretty much everything about the Trump campaign from beginning to its lurching, staggering end in a sealed bunker beneath the Trump Tower.
posted by Naberius at 12:12 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


"So he's got until midnight tonight to raise as much money as possible."
It's hard out there for a pimp.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:12 PM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


"So he's got until midnight tonight to raise as much money as possible."

I smell a teenage fart comedy directed by the White Castle guys featuring reality TV washout Donald "J." Trump and the kid who played McLovin in two years time
posted by Existential Dread at 12:15 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


And why do things like this never seem to happen to Crooked Hillary? Is she paying these guys off? I bet that's what it is.

She's such a crook.
posted by Naberius at 12:17 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


In other news, Naked Man Jumps From Ledge In Times Square, Calls Out For Donald Trump. Reince Priebus is said to be in stable condition.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:18 PM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


seems oddly familiar, doesn't it? I guess we know what the combover is hiding
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:21 PM on June 30, 2016


Screaming nude man begins vetting process, report sources close to the Trump campaign
posted by theodolite at 12:25 PM on June 30, 2016 [25 favorites]


With Boris Johnson giving up his candidacy to be the UK's PM, I wonder if he'd be interested in a slightly more junior position on the Trump ticket. I'm pretty sure he's eligible to serve as VP even if he has actually renounced his U.S. citizenship. It would be irresponsible not to speculate about the possibility, at least.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:29 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump: 'Why am I not doing better in the polls?'
“Well, you know, I really feel it, Mike. I go to Ohio, we were there two days ago, and Pennsylvania and near Pittsburgh and we — I was in West Virginia, the crowds are massive. And you know, I walked out of one, and I said, ‘I don’t see how I’m not leading,'" Trump said, invoking the size of his crowds.

"We have thousands of people standing outside trying to get in, and they’re great people and they have such spirit for the country and love for the country, and I’m saying, you know, ‘Why am I not doing better in the polls?’ And I’ve noticed the polls are coming up," Trump said. "But you know, you have to understand, your show, no, but many shows it’s just a constant hit from mainstream media, no matter what you do, it’s always a negative.”
Trump apparently thinks polls are wrong because his crowds are big, once again showing his political ignorance. I hope he stays ignorant right up until the day of the GE.


I wonder if he'd be interested in a slightly more junior position on the Trump ticket

Trump/Johnson-- hairstylist's dream or nightmare?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:36 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump has already tried to tell us about his Johnson once this election season, and once was enough.
posted by stolyarova at 12:38 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Trump apparently thinks polls are wrong because his crowds are big

And they're not nearly as big as he thinks they are. In the Eggers article linked above, Trump tells the crowd at a Sacramento hangar that there are 11,000 people there. The actual capacity of the hangar was 2,500, and that day it was less than half full.
posted by zakur at 12:56 PM on June 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


Really, though, what's an order of magnitude between friends?
posted by tonycpsu at 12:59 PM on June 30, 2016 [14 favorites]


Looks like voter suppression laws are working as intended in Wisconsin — 85% of people turned away under the new law are black, latino or native american.

The article linked to above compares Wisconsin and Minnesota which are culturally, demographically and historically very similar, but have most recently been ruled by a Republican and Democratic governor & legislature respectively.

"Whereas Wisconsin elected Walker and a GOP legislature in 2010, Minnesota narrowly elected Mark Dayton, and two years later a Democratic legislature. Minnesota raised taxes on the wealthy, invested in public education, expanded health care, and boosted unions, while Wisconsin did the opposite. Now Minnesota is winning the border war, with faster job growth, higher wages, and lower unemployment.

Nowhere is this difference starker than in the states’ approaches to voting. In contrast to Wisconsin, Minnesota defeated a high-profile voter-ID ballot initiative in 2012; recently passed legislation switching from a caucus system to a presidential primary, which is more inclusive; and is considering new reforms, such as restoring voting rights to 47,000 people on probation or parole. “Wisconsin is heading toward Alabama and Mississippi status,” says Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, “while Minnesota is leading the nation on expanding voting rights.”

 The divide illustrates how the United States is fast becoming a two-tiered democracy, a country where it’s harder to vote in Republican-controlled states and easier to vote in Democratic ones. There are some notable exceptions—New York, a blue state, ranked 47th in the Pew Charitable Trust’s 2012 Elections Performance Index, while North Dakota, a red state, ranked No. 1—but the trend is unmistakable."
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:05 PM on June 30, 2016 [18 favorites]


And with Trumps crowds, how many are just there for the crazy factor? Donald Trump and the nut house crew are gathering near by, it's awfully tempting to go just to witness. I was stuck on the el as the Chicago rally went south and it was tempting to get out and walk around. I wouldn't count any more than say 50% as hard core supporters, I bet many are going for the lols.

His potential voters are people who watch a lot of TV, many have never taken part in the process before. I wonder how many of them will inconvenience themselves enough to either register themselves to vote or make sure their registration is up to date, and actually vote. That's not as much fun as yelling about foreigners.
posted by readery at 1:13 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump: 'Why am I not doing better in the polls?'

BECAUSE YOU'RE A SENTIENT ANAL ABSCESS DONNY
posted by poffin boffin at 1:14 PM on June 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


If they've got enough time to tell me they hope I'm killed by terrorists, they've got enough time to vote. (Sadly). I wouldn't count on these being low energy voters.
posted by corb at 1:15 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


His potential voters are people who watch a lot of TV, many have never taken part in the process before. I wonder how many of them will inconvenience themselves enough to either register themselves to vote or make sure their registration is up to date, and actually vote. That's not as much fun as yelling about foreigners.

According to polling data this is not true -- his base in the primaries wasn't composed of first-time voters nearly as much as it was long-time registered Republicans who rarely vote in primary elections but have voted GOP in general elections.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:18 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


(So, on the one hand, Trump supporters do vote. On the other hand, they voted for Romney and McCain, so they're not kingmakers.)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:21 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


And with Trumps crowds, how many are just there for the crazy factor?

Exactly. Also some are protesters, some are there to see Trump in person so they have a story to tell their friends, some are there because their husband or friend was going, etc. This is where Trump is showing his lack of politicking-- crowds do not equal votes. Crowds mean interest which is a start but then you have to seal the deal and GOTV. I think at this point Trump is more of a train wreck than a viable candidate.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:23 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Boris Johnson ... I wonder if he'd be interested in a slightly more junior position on the Trump ticket. I'm pretty sure he's eligible to serve as VP even if he has actually renounced his U.S. citizenship.

According to his Wikipedia page, Boris still has his dual citizenship. But, Article II and the 12th Amendment combine to dash his hopes - there's a 14-year residency requirement to become president or vice-president. If only he'd moved to back to the states in 2002!
posted by fitnr at 1:27 PM on June 30, 2016


I just finished reading the Ioffe piece about Stephen Miller that was linked in the previous election thread. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to sleep tonight.
posted by bardophile at 1:30 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yeah, Trump is scary enough, but Miller will be eligible to run for President in five years. He could be running in 2024 or 2028.
posted by stolyarova at 1:31 PM on June 30, 2016


From that Stephen Miller piece: “Everything that is wrong with this country today, the people who are opposed to Donald Trump are responsible for!”

Also, they told me you guys look like dorks!

But seriously, creepy creepy shit.
posted by Existential Dread at 1:43 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I picked a bad year to read The Water Knife. These days I'm like, *yeah I can totally see states closing their borders and posting bodies as warnings to climate refugees*
posted by angrycat at 2:14 PM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


also, yeah, that Stephen Miller sounds like Sauron a few decades before it became that fiery eye thing.
posted by angrycat at 2:21 PM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


But you know, you have to understand, your show, no, but many shows it’s just a constant hit from mainstream media, no matter what you do, it’s always a negative.

Is this taken out of context, or is Trump actually thinking of his campaign as if it's a television show?
posted by Sara C. at 2:22 PM on June 30, 2016




Sara C.: Decoding Trump-speak is always a challenge, but I think the intended meaning is: "Our poll numbers are only bad because the nasty media is biased against us. But not you guys, you're cool."
posted by teraflop at 2:28 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


"But you know, you have to understand, your show, no, but many shows it’s just a constant hit from mainstream media, no matter what you do, it’s always a negative."

The context of the quote is Trump is on a radio show, and he's addressing the host.

But yes, he thinks of his campaign like a TV show. Specifically, a reality TV show.
posted by fitnr at 2:31 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


That's how I read it, as well, but the term "show" made me think that maybe Trump doesn't understand the difference between polling numbers and Neilsen numbers.

Your show can stay on the air despite bad Neilsen ratings, because ultimately it's about advertisers and networks and complex business decisions that may not directly relate to your show.

But polling numbers correspond fairly reliably to how people will vote. And if people don't vote for you, you definitely won't be President.
posted by Sara C. at 2:34 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


pbo, woooooooooooooow. I know he was joking, but in what universe would Mexico ever attack the United States? He's getting his boogeymen jumbled.
posted by stolyarova at 2:34 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


ahhhhhh, the "your show" as a reference to the show he is appearing on during this interview makes more sense.
posted by Sara C. at 2:35 PM on June 30, 2016


so this happened

I finally figured it out -- Trump is running for Mr. President from Death Race 2000, except he's not campaigning against the French -- the treacherous French, who have crippled our once-great economy and wrecked our telephone system.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:41 PM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I just finished reading the Ioffe piece about Stephen Miller ...

Admittedly, I know nothing about Stephen Miller beyond what I read in that piece, but there's something in there that pings my "self-loathing closet-case" gaydar so hard. I don't what his kink is but I'll bet it's freaky.
posted by octobersurprise at 2:52 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


99% sure he's into being walked on by someone in high heels while he wears a gimp mask.
posted by stolyarova at 2:53 PM on June 30, 2016


so this happened

This is a dumb joke. It’s Mitt Romney saying that the trees are the right height. Worse, because he’s joking about Mexico and the international chaos he’s causing, but that’s all it is. On the other hand, Donald Trump eavesdropped on employee conversations at Mar-a-Lago. That’s a thing he has actually done.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:53 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


"heebie jabbies"
posted by Countess Elena at 3:00 PM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's a joke (I'm pretty sure), but coming from the guy who was more than happy to use the Orlando shooting to drop some implications about Obama and ISIS, I think this is the kind of joke he'd be perfectly happy for some of his supporters to take semi-seriously, like, sure, he's not really saying that particular plane is a Mexican warplane, but feel free to take away the impression that Mexico is a dangerous enemy that might want to attack us. It is so gross, and so shitty.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:01 PM on June 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Yeah obviously it's a joke, but it's the kind of thing that for most politicians would be a gaffe, and yet here are commentators on MSNBC saying he was totes "normal" today.
posted by zutalors! at 3:02 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


He flagrantly violated the law by soliciting foreign investments to his presidential campaign.

The RNC should use that as the basis for running away from Trump. This is significant enough to make his candidacy invalid.
posted by yesster at 3:06 PM on June 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


I formally invoke reintroducing the "surely this..." meme at Metafilter.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:19 PM on June 30, 2016 [14 favorites]


I would think that any party would have a kind of morals clause, allowing (not requiring) it to reject a nominee who had on a preponderance of the evidence committed an act adversely reflecting on his fitness for the office of etc. etc.
posted by Countess Elena at 3:20 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


it'd be like Reagan doing, "We commence bombing the USSR in five minutes" believing the mike is on instead of off.

wow I just used Reagan as some sort of standard of class
posted by angrycat at 3:21 PM on June 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


Remember when everyone was outraged that Mitt Romney abused his dog?
posted by Sara C. at 3:27 PM on June 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


Or Paul Ryan's fake marathon time?
posted by peeedro at 3:31 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Ryan fake washed a clean dish at a soup kitchen for a photo op
posted by zutalors! at 3:33 PM on June 30, 2016 [19 favorites]


trump woulda fired that dog after getting it down offa the car
posted by murphy slaw at 3:34 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Rick Perry forgot the third of the three things he was totally gonna do in a debate
posted by zutalors! at 3:36 PM on June 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


Obama said 57 states instead of 47
posted by theodolite at 3:37 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sarah Palin totally reads magazines, Katie, her favorites are whatever is put in front of her.
posted by zutalors! at 3:39 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


All of them, Katie.
posted by drezdn at 3:41 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


I formally invoke reintroducing the "surely this..." meme at Metafilter.

That would be great news for John McCain.
posted by nom de poop at 3:42 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Kerry was unelectable because he was married to the weird ketchup lady.
posted by stolyarova at 3:46 PM on June 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Don't forget his windsurfing.
posted by Sara C. at 3:47 PM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Howard Dean screamed Beyoonnnnnceeeee! at a Taylor Swift concert
posted by Existential Dread at 3:47 PM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Ah the salad days of mild gaffes and incompetences.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:48 PM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yeah, remember when Ted Cruz ate a booger on camera
posted by Existential Dread at 3:50 PM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Remember when Newt Gingrich was going to build a moon base?
posted by stolyarova at 3:52 PM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


[David] Barton, who has already made clear that he will be voting for Trump despite the fact that he ran a super PAC supporting Ted Cruz, explained that since Christians were very active in the Republican primaries, they must conclude that Trump's victory was part of God's plans.
"One thing I know for sure is that in the race of primaries, we had a lot really good God guys in there," Barton said. "And we had a huge turnout of professing Christians and evangelicals and others, so there is nothing to complain about that we didn't get a voice, we didn't get a candidate. We had great candidates to choose from and this is who the people chose, and this is who the people chose with a really high turnout of evangelicals. So I kind of look back and say, 'Hmmm, I wonder where God's fingerprint is in this?' because this is not necessarily a failure of the church."

"This may not be our preferred candidate, but that doesn't mean it may not be God's candidate to do something that we don't see," he said. "We may look back in a few years and say, 'Wow, he really did some things that none of us expected.' So I am fully open to the possibility that because we did everything as Christians that we could, we can't complain about our turnout, we can't complain about our quality of candidates, and this is what the people chose; I'm a whole lot more open to the fact that God may have something going here that is much bigger than what we think or see."
Hmmm What is God up to? Maybe preparing for End Times? Or maybe God is just a giant jokester who sent Cheeto Jesus to test his believers. "Would you vote for an immoral narcissist with no previous experience as long as he runs as a Republican? Let's find out!"
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:59 PM on June 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


Remember when Trump ate a live baby on-stage at the GOP convention?

*sees date stamp of previous comment*

Oh, I mean... remember when Dan Quayle misspelled potato? Heh. That was quite the gaffe!

*pushes button on wristwatch, disintegrates into thin air*
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:04 PM on June 30, 2016 [22 favorites]


Trump is the very picture of Evangelicals' idea of The Antichrist -- I mean even down to if you get your idea of The Antichrist from Left Behind -- and it disappoints me greatly that none of them seem to be seeing that.

(I gather that Trump hasn't precisely captured the Evangelical vote, but if these people were in any way honest they should be RUNNING to almost any other candidate and doing everything in their power to make sure Trump isn't elected.)
posted by Sara C. at 4:05 PM on June 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


A meh moment in Trumpland: Trump rejects 'nasty' anti-Israel comment at town hall until you get to the end which has this gem:
“And you think Hillary Clinton would ever do a news conference on this, totally unvetted?" Trump asked the crowd gathered outside the shuttered Osram Sylvania factory. "And by the way, speaking of unvetted, we’re going to take care of our vets. Just remember that.”
And speaking of unvetted I have to remember to take the dog in for her shots next Tuesday.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:05 PM on June 30, 2016 [20 favorites]


well it's not like god has a history of raising up terrible evil rulers to make a point or anything, I mean if there was anything like that in the bible I'm sure it'd be raising all kinds of red flags for evangelicals
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:06 PM on June 30, 2016 [19 favorites]


"This may not be our preferred candidate, but that doesn't mean it may not be God's candidate ..."
If Trump doesn't insist on anointing his own forehead with Trump Oil™ at the start of every speech, then he's missing a trick.
posted by octobersurprise at 4:12 PM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's the idea of God as grand puppet master that gets to me. Like humans have no freewill. People didn't vote for Trump over Cruz because of reasons...no it had to be God's plan. I'm no longer a Christian but this goes against everything I was taught. If God has all of this worked out to his liking then I don't know how anyone could worship him because that means he has planned famine, genocide, murder, cancer, and every other horrible thing on Earth. Thanks, God!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:12 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Nah, he didn't plan it, he just knew it was going to happen since the beginning of time and didn't do anything to stop it.
posted by XMLicious at 4:18 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote.
We’re not uneducated, uninformed, unemployed or low-income zealots. We’re affluent, well-educated, gainfully employed and successfully retired. Some of us even own our own business, or did before we retired, creating not only our own job but also employment for others. While we’re fiscally conservative, we’re not tea partyers. And on certain social issues, many of us even have some leftward leanings.
For many of us, Trump has only one redeeming quality: He isn’t Hillary Clinton. He doesn’t want to turn the United States into a politically correct, free-milk-and-cookies, European-style social democracy where every kid (and adult, too) gets a trophy just for showing up.
posted by Monochrome at 4:20 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, Trump is scary enough, but Miller will be eligible to run for President in five years. He could be running in 2024 or 2028.

Just remember Miller. And also know that, as long as he keeps his hands reasonably clean, everyone on the right that's rending garments and pulling hair about Trump right now will be be lining up to kiss his ring. Kasich and Graham and Sasse. Kristol and Brooks and Will. Everyone. It won't matter that he'll be asking for exactly the same thing Trump is, it will matter that he says it in a way that doesn't creep out. And because both the media and electorate have short memories, he stands a very good chance of getting away with it.

So remember who he is and what he's saying, because a lot of people won't.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:21 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote.

Wow, I've seldom seen someone spend so much time trying to claim intelligence in the first paragraph, only to prove themselves an utter moron in the second.

"I don't like free milk and cookies so I'll set the country on fire!"
posted by tavella at 4:25 PM on June 30, 2016 [36 favorites]


Of course people have free will. How else could they decide to go against God's Will as laid out in this handy series of texts that could never possibly be mistranslated or misinterpreted, thus earning a one-way trip to That Place Where The Guy With The Horns And Pitchfork Conducts His Business?
posted by delfin at 4:25 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote.

I read that essay. It’s a massive, substance-less troll, and will make you angry without even feeling like the effort had a point.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:26 PM on June 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote.

tl;dr "Trump might be a terrible, unqualified presidential candidate, but I can't pass up the opportunity to stick my thumb in the eye of those damn millennials and their participation trophies WHARRGARBL"
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:27 PM on June 30, 2016 [30 favorites]


Trump is the very picture of Evangelicals' idea of The Antichrist

A lot of Evangelicals are pumped for the Apocalypse, so that may be a feature rather than a bug.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:28 PM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


Just remember Miller. And also know that, as long as he keeps his hands reasonably clean, everyone on the right that's rending garments and pulling hair about Trump right now will be be lining up to kiss his ring. Kasich and Graham and Sasse. Kristol and Brooks and Will. Everyone. It won't matter that he'll be asking for exactly the same thing Trump is, it will matter that he says it in a way that doesn't creep out. And because both the media and electorate have short memories, he stands a very good chance of getting away with it.

Alternately, having tied his career to the worst possible presidential candidate in history, after the election he will be obliterated from the party without a trace. (One hopes.)
posted by Going To Maine at 4:29 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


For many of us, Trump has only one redeeming quality: He isn’t Hillary Clinton. He doesn’t want to turn the United States into a politically correct, free-milk-and-cookies, European-style social democracy where every kid (and adult, too) gets a trophy just for showing up.

I continue to be amazed at how Hillary Clinton is simultaneously perceived as a socialist antichrist and a capitalist antichrist, depending on who you talk to.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 4:32 PM on June 30, 2016 [46 favorites]


Basically that guy's argument is that he realizes that Trump is a literal fascist, but he's still going to vote for him, because PC is run amok on college campuses? Dude, maybe you should just admit that you're cool with fascism.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:37 PM on June 30, 2016 [33 favorites]


He doesn’t want to turn the United States into a politically correct, free-milk-and-cookies, European-style social democracy where every kid (and adult, too) gets a trophy just for showing up.

What particularly frustrates me about this line is that this country sounds great! I love milk and cookies! I love trophies! What, exactly, do you hate about this? It’s such a nothing essay that takes understanding of its code as a given.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:40 PM on June 30, 2016 [14 favorites]


I don't think it's possible to overestimate how much of Trump's appeal is lol libs epic troll u mad
posted by theodolite at 4:41 PM on June 30, 2016 [31 favorites]




Going to Maine, it's a dogwhistle for I GOT MINE SO FUCK YOU
posted by Sara C. at 4:44 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


"One thing I know for sure is that in the race of primaries, we had a lot really good God guys in there," Barton said.

This was true, but not in the way he thinks. I know I said "good God" a LOT during the GOP primary campaign.
posted by infinitewindow at 4:48 PM on June 30, 2016 [16 favorites]


That man just plain has issues with everyone born after 1975. His column is the 2016 version of Lee J. Cobb's shouting breakdown in 12 Angry Men.
posted by Countess Elena at 4:58 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Biden: I’ve talked with Bernie Sanders, and he’s going to endorse Hillary Clinton
Joe Biden: I want you to eat, I want you to rest well and a month from now this socialist big shot’s gonna give you what you want.

Hillary Clinton: Too late. The convention starts in three weeks.

Joe Biden: I’m gonna make him an offer he won’t refuse. Now just go outside and enjoy yourself. Forget all this nonsense. Listen, I want you to leave it all to me.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:59 PM on June 30, 2016 [23 favorites]


Maybe God's message was "vote democrat?"
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:02 PM on June 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


Alternately, having tied his career to the worst possible presidential candidate in history, after the election he will be obliterated from the party without a trace

Yeah, that result is easily 50/50 in Miller's case. Maybe 60/40, if you ask me. (Alternately, he's the first Presidential candidate to run on the Anti-Reptiloid/Pro-Gimp ticket.)

I don't think it's possible to overestimate how much of Trump's appeal is lol libs epic troll u mad

Honestly, I don't think it's possible to overestimate the appeal of "lol u mad" behind modern politics everywhere.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:04 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]




Sanders just told Chris Hayes: "I hope it happens." in regard to endorsing Clinton.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:23 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders just told Chris Hayes: "I hope it happens." in regard to endorsing Clinton.

Jesus. I'm so over him, I'm sorry.
posted by Salieri at 5:30 PM on June 30, 2016 [24 favorites]


I think Bernie Sanders just invented the future subjunctive passive voice.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:30 PM on June 30, 2016 [63 favorites]


Chris Hayes is killing it this season.
posted by zutalors! at 5:34 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Bobby, are you going to brush your teeth tonight?"

"I hope it happens mom."
posted by zachlipton at 5:35 PM on June 30, 2016 [23 favorites]


Sanders just told Chris Hayes: "I hope it happens." in regard to endorsing Clinton.

I, too, hope that Sanders is visited by the Endorsement Fairy.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:41 PM on June 30, 2016 [22 favorites]


Trump is leading with white man and is likely to get the white male vote, just like Romney and McCain did. That blows my mind for some reason.

Oddly, the latest polls show Trump with a bit more Hispanic support than Romney or McCain. The polls I looked at didn't break that down by gender, I would love to know how Trump polls with Hispanic males.
posted by cell divide at 5:43 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Joe Biden: I’m gonna make him an offer he won’t refuse.

Two days later, Sanders finds the head of a statue of FDR in his bed.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:45 PM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


Isn't Biden the guy who says things and then they happen?

"I'm fine with same sex marriage. We'll endorse."
"I'm psyched for a female nominee. we'll endorse."
"Sanders will endorse Clinton"

he's usually not wrong, just early.
posted by zutalors! at 5:51 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Two days later, Sanders finds the head of a statue of FDR in his bed.

No, I think it'd be the steering-wheel of a 1983 Trans Am. That's when you know Joe means business.

(I dug Joe in 1988 and I wish he'd gotten another shot at the Big Chair.)
posted by octobersurprise at 6:00 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Two days later, Sanders finds the head of a statue of FDR in his bed.

Hillary as the Godfather rings perhaps truer than you'd want.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:04 PM on June 30, 2016


Hillary as the Godfather rings perhaps truer than you'd want.

If Vince Foster killed himself today there'd be photoshopped memes of that scene at the end with Mike and Tessio.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:06 PM on June 30, 2016



Hillary as the Godfather rings perhaps truer than you'd want.


Hmm, funny, doesn't ring true to me at all! She just seems like a very dedicated lifelong public servant to me.
posted by zutalors! at 6:08 PM on June 30, 2016 [32 favorites]


We’re not uneducated, uninformed, unemployed or low-income zealots. We’re affluent, well-educated, gainfully employed and successfully retired. Some of us even own our own business, or did before we retired, creating not only our own job but also employment for others. While we’re fiscally conservative, we’re not tea partyers. And on certain social issues, many of us even have some leftward leanings sexist as all get out.

No point in beating around the bush.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:12 PM on June 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


Hillary as the Godfather rings perhaps truer than you'd want.

If you've been listening to 25 years of right-wing lies about her and started thinking "well, there must be something"...
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:16 PM on June 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


Biden: I’ve talked with Bernie Sanders, and he’s going to endorse Hillary Clinton

Biden: "The night of the endorsement, you may feel a slight sting. That's pride fucking with you. Fuck pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps."
posted by happyroach at 6:28 PM on June 30, 2016 [19 favorites]


YOU'RE A SENTIENT ANAL ABSCESS DONNY

Oh come now. Sentient?
posted by um at 6:29 PM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Oy.

Members of this new silent majority, many of us front-wave baby boomers, value hard work and love the United States the way it was. We long for a bygone era when you didn’t need “safe spaces” on college campuses to shelter students from the atrocity of dissenting opinions, lest their sensibilities be offended. We have the reckless notion that college is the one place where sensibilities are supposed to be challenged and debated. Silly us.

No, you long for a bygone era when college campuses WERE unsafe because the National Guard might stop by to shoot a few of you, or the FBI might wage campaigns against Subversive Youth, or the Governor of California (some asshole named Ronnie something or other, luckily nothing ever became of him) might rage about Student Radicals and Filthy Speech Advocates and Sex Perverts and send in cops to break heads and shoot people in the name of Reclaiming Moral Order from Communist Sympathizers.

You have nostalgia for an age that you never experienced because it never existed. May your asshole swell shut for a month.
posted by delfin at 6:36 PM on June 30, 2016 [30 favorites]


European-style social democracy where every kid (and adult, too) gets a trophy just for showing up.

-Doesn't want to give someone a trophy for just showing up
-Values hard work.

Decides to vote for Trump. Someone that's not qualified at all to be president, who was helped through life by his rich dad, and who's "billions" are probably just a mirage. And he doesn't even like Trump. SO, basically he's voting for Trump because he fucking shows up on his ballot.

BRILLIANT reasoning!
posted by FJT at 6:39 PM on June 30, 2016 [22 favorites]


"One thing I know for sure is that in the race of primaries, we had a lot really good God guys in there," Barton said.

Really Good God Guys is a great band name just there for taking, folks.
posted by msalt at 6:43 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Wait, wait, just wait a second. Trump now thinks the Mexicans are going to use AIRPLANES to come over here and cause trouble?

Okay, okay, let's see. How would they do that? I'm going to assume the most capable airplanes Mexico has are the ones in its Air Force. According to some quick Internet research, the Mexican Air Force doesn't have an awful lot of combat aircraft, and most of the ones they do have are propeller driven. Swiss Pilatus PC-7s and PC-9s mainly, and some Beechcraft Texans. All of these are intended as trainers, but they're listed separately from the trainers, so I guess the Mexicans have converted some of them to a light attack role.

But the most capable aircraft in the Mexican Air Force would be the Northrop F-5, a supersonic multi-role jet fighter made in the U.S. and sold around the world. The Mexicans have six of them. The flight ceiling of the F-5 turns out to be a fairly impressive 51,800 feet which means...

That's going to have to be one serious motherfucker of a wall.
posted by Naberius at 6:46 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]



She just seems like a very dedicated lifelong public servant to me.

Especially the public on Wall Street, yes.


Yes, real people work on Wall Street! People who need healthcare, women's rights, equal pay, children's rights, LGBT rights, reproductive services, etc. Those needs expand to all the other streets in New York City, the state, and the whole country.
posted by zutalors! at 6:49 PM on June 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


msalt: Really Good God Guys is a great band name just there for taking, folks.

Christian Dad-rock band.
posted by Superplin at 6:49 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Members of this new silent majority, many of us front-wave baby boomers, value hard work and love the United States the way it was

Tell it to Huntley-Brinkley. This is the political equivalent of "the music just isn't real these days, you know, man?"

I was actually dining with some friends last weekend and while we were getting loose and talking about getting old, I articulated my own philosophy. "I'm determined not to let the little bastards future shock me."
posted by octobersurprise at 6:55 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Looking nostalgically at the days when college campuses were safe for serial rapists... well, more safe.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:56 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Wait, wait, just wait a second. Trump now thinks the Mexicans are going to use AIRPLANES to come over here and cause trouble?

We're gonna need a bigger wall.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:45 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Man, his kickbacks from construction contracts just keep piling up.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:52 PM on June 30, 2016


We're gonna need a bigger wall.

Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but it almost sounds like setup for what he'd say if he were to win and fail to build the wall. "We were gonna build a wall, but they'd just fly over it. Let me interest you in this other anti-Mexican project instead."
posted by mordax at 7:55 PM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I articulated my own philosophy. "I'm determined not to let the little bastards future shock me."

I interviewed a guy with a face tattoo, and not one of the artistic, engaging ones. He really knew his shit, so we won't hire him, as the Jamaican we also interviewed explained how he was fixing shit as he fixed it during the "ride-along" part of the interview. It wasn't that Face-Tattoo had a Face-Tattoo. It's that immigrant dude was a stone cold killer in our little corner of tech, and we're really bummed as we won't have another slot until the fall, and there is no way Face-Tattoo will be unemployed that long.

I myself have a salt-and-pepper Van Dyke '90s facial hair thing going on, and it's very thick and luxurious and wavy now that I am a 40-something and not a sparsely chin-fuzzed twenty-something, and it creeps out the full-beard-or-go-home hipsters. I stroke the beard to a sharp little point and curl the mustache ends sometimes when I'm feeling villainous.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:58 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


In other news, Dreamworks Animation is premiering the movie "Trolls" the weekend before the election... and the Trolls in this one are the good guys. It's the last Dreamworks movie to be released by Fox (Rupert Murdoch) before the cartoon studio is formally acquired by Universal, a division of Comcast (whose other division, NBC, aired Trump's Apprentice show). The plot is all about the happy, lovable Trolls being attacked by Big Bad Outsiders. Coincidence? I think not. Basically, the Right Wing Media Conspiracy is going to try to teach us to love Trolls, right before we get to vote for one.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:26 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Shart imititates life, I suppose.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:30 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Members of this new silent majority, many of us front-wave baby boomers, value hard work and love the United States the way it was. We long for a bygone era when you didn’t need “safe spaces” on college campuses to shelter students from the atrocity of dissenting opinions, lest their sensibilities be offended. We have the reckless notion that college is the one place where sensibilities are supposed to be challenged and debated.

I honestly can't figure out if this is supposed to be a satire of the thought process behind supporting Trump, or whether it is a weird bit of honesty from a person who authentically thinks this way.

I mean, yes, the Democrats are the progressive (well, progressiveish) party. And coddling in college is one of the typical stereotypes attached to "bleeding-heart" liberals. But how does Hillary Clinton end up being a metonym for that particular constellation of liberal values? It's not her thing, not her issue. It's a seemingly irrelevant get-off-my-lawn rant attached to a non-sequitur "And that's why I'm voting for Donald Trump".
posted by jackbishop at 9:15 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]




I propose that "And that's why I'm voting for Donald Trump" be the new punchline to The Aristocrats.
posted by murphy slaw at 9:25 PM on June 30, 2016 [28 favorites]


We were gonna build a wall, but they'd just fly over it. Let me interest you in this other anti-Mexican project instead.
Michael Braun, the former chief of operations for the D.E.A., told me a story about the construction of a high-tech fence along a stretch of border in Arizona. “They erect this fence,” he said, “only to go out there a few days later and discover that these guys have a catapult, and they’re flinging hundred-pound bales of marijuana over to the other side.” He paused and looked at me for a second. “A catapult,” he repeated. “We’ve got the best fence money can buy, and they counter us with a 2,500-year-old technology.”
posted by kirkaracha at 9:32 PM on June 30, 2016 [29 favorites]


Fences aren't exactly new technology.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:42 PM on June 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


“We’ve got the best fence money can buy, and they counter us with a 2,500-year-old technology.”

Oh, I remember that story, but since it's a thing that actually happened, I imagine Trump wouldn't know. Therefore: airplanes.
posted by mordax at 9:53 PM on June 30, 2016


What particularly frustrates me about this line is that this country sounds great! I love milk and cookies! I love trophies! What, exactly, do you hate about this?

No drug glands. No orgies. Pretty shit vision of the future if you ask me.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:54 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bernie has cut Hillary's lead in California to 399K, but there are only 350K ballots left to count. So at this point he may pick off a few more delegates, but he's not going to win.

What I'm not understanding, though, is this meme about Bernie not winning because of voter fraud in California. As in, I've tried to understand the argument, but I can't get a straight one that makes any sense.
posted by dw at 10:01 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump is the antithesis of a Mind, in any case.
posted by stolyarova at 10:02 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


What I'm not understanding, though, is this meme about Bernie not winning because of voter fraud in California. As in, I've tried to understand the argument, but I can't get a straight one that makes any sense.

Don't bother. Ignore it. It doesn't even slightly matter. The very loud but very very few who are still beating this particular conspiracy drum are the kind of nutjobs who were never going to vote rationally in the general anyway, and can pretty safely be discounted.
posted by dersins at 10:09 PM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


msalt-------> Really Good God Guys is a great band name just there for taking, folks.
superplin---> Christian Dad-rock band.

Naw, I'm think super decadent drugged-out hipsters, preferably 75% or more female.
posted by msalt at 11:00 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


But how does Hillary Clinton end up being a metonym for that particular constellation of liberal values?

Because if you vote for a girl, political correctness wins.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:57 PM on June 30, 2016 [14 favorites]


What you're not factoring in, dw, is how badly people want Sanders to win. That's worth another 400,000 votes right there, see?

I watched one of the videos from folks claiming it proved Clinton had stolen the primary. It is JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS SHEEPLE level stuff and I don't think there is any chance of convincing the people who believe it of much of anything.
posted by Justinian at 1:02 AM on July 1, 2016


The big "argument" I keep seeing on twitter is that Bernie Sanders had so many more people at his rallies, which is similar to what Trump says about his poll numbers. Which is, of course, faulty reasoning.
posted by drezdn at 4:09 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm guessing that a lot of Sanders supporters are too young to have been involved in a losing campaign before and hadn't really considered the possibility.
posted by octothorpe at 4:58 AM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Anecdata here but I've got a few (read: 2) friends that are in the Bernie conspiracy group that are 28 and 32 respectivly. So take that as you will.
posted by Twain Device at 5:03 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]




I interviewed a guy with a face tattoo, and not one of the artistic, engaging ones. He really knew his shit, so we won't hire him, as the Jamaican we also interviewed explained how he was fixing shit as he fixed it during the "ride-along" part of the interview. It wasn't that Face-Tattoo had a Face-Tattoo. It's that immigrant dude was a stone cold killer in our little corner of tech, and we're really bummed as we won't have another slot until the fall, and there is no way Face-Tattoo will be unemployed that long.

I don't know what any of these words mean. Is this a tech job? What?
posted by zutalors! at 5:12 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Justinian, yes, it's true, there's a conspiracy-minded fringe of Bernie supporters. You can find them if you look. I can find you Hilary supporters too who swore up and up and down that Bernie has ties to right-wing militias and was trying to get to recruit white supremists and neo-Nazis to infiltrate the Democratic Party. I also don't think nut-balls like that are remotely the bulk of Hilary supporters.

Most Bernie supporters started out with the assumption that it was almost impossible for him to win the nomination. We supported him anyway, with the assumption that we'd probably be voting for Clinton in November. The campaign was important as a way to build a movement within the Democratic Party to support socially liberal and social democratic values. And a way to remind the Democratic Party establishment that we're here.

That's were we still are. We did better in the primaries than most of us were expecting. We made some mistakes, too. Hopefully we can learn from them. We're still voting for Clinton in the fall. I hope the movement we've built (minus the fringe) can be a positive force in the future and help get progressive candidates elected.

Remember, we're about 40% or so of the Democratic primary electorate. Back during the primaries, over 70% of Sanders supporters said they'd be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination. A similar percentage of Clinton supporters said the same thing about a potential Sanders win. 80% of Sanders supporters plan on voting for Clinton this fall. (And I know, anecdotally, from volunteering for the campaign, that a lot of people who canvassed for Sanders this spring plan doing the same for Clinton's GOTV effort in the general this fall.)
posted by nangar at 5:12 AM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


"And by the way, speaking of unvetted, we’re going to take care of our vets. Just remember that.”

Hi, folks, I'm Swamp Thing.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:23 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Nangar, I think most of us know that's true, but the shouty Bernie folks have had a real impact on social media, while the shouty Hillary conspiracy nuts I haven't heard a peep from. Part of that is gender, part is who's been winning all along, but it's always been true that those who talk loudest get a bigger say in setting the agenda. That has always sucked, and it continues to suck. (See, loudest GOP candidate.)
posted by rikschell at 5:26 AM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I just wish that Bernie supporters would stop doing shit like sending marauding bands of white dudes to take over the minority caucuses at the Nebraska Democratic State Convention. It caused a lot of consternation among Latino Democrats, whose longtime leader the mostly-white Bernie supporters temporarily succeeded in ousting, and that's really a group whom one would hope not to alienate. Nebraska splits its presidential delegates by congressional district, and there is one swing district. It went to Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012 and elected a Democratic congressman in 2014. It could go either way in this election. And the swing district has a significant Latino population. High Latino turnout could make a difference in a close race, and it's stupid, as well as morally wrong, to disrespect those voters and to claim that you know how to conduct their affairs better than they do.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:31 AM on July 1, 2016 [33 favorites]


I TOLD YOU

> explaining his worry that it would make him seem egocentric

Ha, this is the textbook Trump move: Make up sad, sad bullshit for no real personal gain other than to try to make yourself look both important and humble. I have visions of the end of this man's life in a nursing home, surrounded by patronizing nurses and orderlies who reassure him of how important he is to make feeding times easier.

On the bright side, it is reassuring how many Americans are tired of Hillary's lies.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:31 AM on July 1, 2016


Nursing home Trump: "You know I was the real President. Hillary was just ceremonial. She knew she wasn't smart enough, so she always asked me to make the real decisions. Behind the scenes, though, and I kept it discreet because I'm the most discreet guy there is. She mostly planned White House dinners. I killed all the leaders of ISIS in a secret raid. Couldn't talk about that, either."
posted by clawsoon at 5:51 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


David Fahrenthold: Donald Trump used money donated for charity to buy himself a Tim Tebow-signed football helmet
Four years ago, at a charity fundraiser in Palm Beach, Donald Trump got into a bidding war at the evening's live auction. The items up for sale: A Denver Broncos helmet, autographed by then-star quarterback Tim Tebow, and a Tebow jersey.

Trump won, eventually, with a bid of $12,000. Afterward, he posed with the helmet. His purchase made gossip-column news: a flourish of generosity, by a mogul with money to burn. "The Donald giveth, and The Donald payeth," wrote the Palm Beach Daily News. "Blessed be the name of The Donald."

But Trump didn't actually pay with his own money.

Instead, the Susan G. Komen organization -- the breast-cancer nonprofit that hosted the party -- got a $12,000 payment from another nonprofit , the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

Trump himself sent no money (In fact, a Komen spokesperson said, Trump has never given a personal gift of cash to the Komen organization). He paid the bill with money from a charity he founded in 1987, but which is largely stocked with other people's money. Trump is the foundation's president. But, at the time of the auction, Trump had given none of his own money to the foundation for three years running.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:17 AM on July 1, 2016 [22 favorites]


Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry
The Justice Department had been moving toward such an arrangement for months — officials said in April that it was being considered — but a private meeting between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton this week set off a political furor and made the decision all but inevitable.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:24 AM on July 1, 2016


"Government official says s/he will continue to follow normal bureaucratic procedure" is the epitome of a non-story.
posted by dersins at 6:29 AM on July 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch was incredibly stupid. Regardless of the substance or non-substance of their interaction, it looks bad, and he of all people should know that. I often get the impression that, at subconsciously, Bill doesn't want Hillary to become President.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:34 AM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I hate to say this, because I have deep respect for Lynch, but it was just as stupid on her part.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:39 AM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I don't understand why Bill hasn't yet been put on unofficial house arrest yet by either the campaign or Hillary herself. It's like he's physically incapable of doing or saying dangerously stupid shit. Four years ago, I didn't imagine I would be dreading the possibility that he's been given a prime speaking spot (or any at all) at the convention, but that's where I am by now. And Lynch is the goddamn Attorney General. She should have had him physically barred from coming within 50 yards of her plane, not welcomed him in.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:39 AM on July 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


David Fahrenthold: Donald Trump used money donated for charity to buy himself a Tim Tebow-signed football helmet

Tim Tebow? Is the man lacking all decency?
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 6:43 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


haiku warrior: Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch was incredibly stupid.

I was, like, what's wrong with, and then I was, like, oh, wait...
posted by clawsoon at 6:43 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I hate to say this, because I have deep respect for Lynch, but it was just as stupid on her part.

I think she made the right call in a bad situation that left her without any good options. From the NYTimes:
Ms. Lynch said that the meeting with Mr. Clinton was unplanned, largely social and did not touch on the email investigation. She suggested that he walked uninvited from his plane to her government plane, both of which were parked on a tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.

“He did come over and say hello, and speak to my husband and myself, and talk about his grandchildren and his travels and things like that,” Ms. Lynch said at a news conference in Los Angeles on Wednesday, where she was promoting community policing. “That was the extent of that. And no discussions were held into any cases or things like that.”
'Lynch refuses to meet with Clinton' wouldn't look great, either; then people would be speculating over what he was trying to do. If she let him on the plane, but didn't meet with him, people would be speculating that she did meet with him. I don't see a good outcome from any alternative that would wholly preclude the appearance of impropriety, or, alternatively, a snub of the Clintons and the implication that impropriety would have been attempted. It was a lose/lose situation.

Meeting with him and then effectively recusing herself from the situation -- by deferring to the FBI's judgement -- ensures, to herself, that there was no untoward behavior (since she had the meeting); and it prevents it from influencing the outcome of the FBI investigation, to the public, to those concerned about the appearance of it. Not ideal, but not her fault.

Clinton, though? All the blame. He should never have initiated that meeting; there was no reason for it to happen and every reason for it not to, and he's as well acquainted with the benefits of avoiding the appearance of wrongdoing as anyone (if anything, you know, moreso.)
posted by cjelli at 6:53 AM on July 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


(Not to say that it wouldn't have been better for Lynch to err on not meeting with Clinton, since that would remove any actual opportunity for undue influence or other impropriety, but I'm reluctant to put any blame on her for how she resolved a problem that Bill Clinton created.)
posted by cjelli at 7:00 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ha, this is the textbook Trump move: Make up sad, sad bullshit for no real personal gain other than to try to make yourself look both important and humble. I have visions of the end of this man's life in a nursing home, surrounded by patronizing nurses and orderlies who reassure him of how important he is to make feeding times easier.

On the bright side, it is reassuring how many Americans are tired of Hillary's lies.


Ooooooh and you were this close to a favorite.

From the Trump: I Was Asked To Speak On All Three Convention Nights link posted above:
Back-to-back-to-back speeches are not the only convention idea Trump claims to have shunned. He shut down plans to have him arrive in Cleveland by train, arguing that it’s been done before, and he decided against delivering his convention-closing speech at a larger, outdoor stadium over concerns that it would cost too much. He did tell the Times that he was tempted by the outdoor stadium though, because it would have afforded him the chance to arrive via helicopter. (Unveiling the convention stage earlier this week, Republican National Convention CEO Jeff Larson confirmed that Trump’s acceptance speech will happen inside Cleveland’s Quicken Loans Arena.)
Trump: I could hold my acceptance speech in a giant arena. Tens of thousands will come. The Greatest Sports Winners of ALL Time will be there. And Me, I'll be the Greatest of the Greats. The Winningest of the winners.

Sports Greats: Nope

Sports Has Beens: Nope

Sports Not Too Well Known Guys: Nope

Trump: I could fly in by helicopter. It will be the Greatest Entrance in the History of All Political Events Ever

Bank Balance: Nope
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:04 AM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


“I don’t want people to think I’m grandstanding, which I’m not,” he said. “But it would get high ratings.”

*eyeroll*
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 7:09 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hillary Clinton: A note on The Toast
This is not a joke. Hillary’s team had talked to me a few weeks back about doing something, but I didn’t want to do, like, a “If Hillary Were Your President” type thing, and then they got in touch on Wednesday and said she wanted to write something HERSELF (it seems her people show her Two Monks or what-have-you on long campaign days) and I said only if it was funny and they said “she was thinking more heartfelt?” and here we are. – Nicole
posted by zombieflanders at 7:10 AM on July 1, 2016 [42 favorites]


A note on The Toast on the day of its closing.

Holy shit.
posted by rewil at 7:12 AM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Clinton, though? All the blame. He should never have initiated that meeting;

Excepting GWB, is there another two-term President who can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like Bill can? I can't think of one right now.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:12 AM on July 1, 2016


Speak your opinion more fervently in your classes if you’re a student, or at meetings in your workplace. Proudly take credit for your ideas. Have confidence in the value of your contributions. And if the space you’re in doesn’t have room for your voice, don’t be afraid to carve out a space of your own.

Wow. Well done. Put it on a campaign shirt.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:15 AM on July 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


Excepting GWB, is there another two-term President who can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like Bill can?

Nixon.
posted by Etrigan at 7:18 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


ArbitraryandCapricious, unfortunately, I have to agree with you.

Perhaps Lynch knows where the FBI inquiry is going and that there would be no need to go against any FBI recommendations. (AG Holder opted for bringing misdemeanor charges for Gen. Petraeus rather than felony charges recommended by the the FBI.) So she saw no harm in meeting with Clinton. One can only hope.

Regardless, Lynch has the integrity of the Office of the Attorney General to consider, and she made a big mistake.
posted by haiku warrior at 7:18 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


To bring the two bits of recent news together in my head, I'm imagining Hillary reading "If John Cho Were Your Boyfriend" and alternately laughing and sighing .
posted by zombieflanders at 7:20 AM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


He did tell the Times that he was tempted by the outdoor stadium though, because it would have afforded him the chance to arrive via helicopter.

You can't be Elizabeth Windsor, Donny. You don't have the range.
posted by Etrigan at 7:20 AM on July 1, 2016


That signature had my eyes misty, perpetual bedhead that I am.

Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady, senator, and Secretary of State, and is currently running for President. She thinks your hair looks great exactly as it is.

posted by stolyarova at 7:22 AM on July 1, 2016 [33 favorites]


Hillary Clinton: A note on The Toast


Nicole Cliffe in the comments
: Asking if Hillary wanted to receive her fifty dollar freelancing payment via check or PayPal was one of the best moments of my life.
posted by dersins at 7:22 AM on July 1, 2016 [30 favorites]


This means we can refer to The Whelk and Hillary as basically co-workers, right?
posted by rewil at 7:24 AM on July 1, 2016 [28 favorites]


The Toast article is somewhere you should read the comments.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:25 AM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Toast article is somewhere you should read the comments.

Indeed. My other favorite:

I HAVE NEVER BEEN PANDERED TO SO EFFECTIVELY BEFORE
posted by dersins at 7:27 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


When I arrived in the Senate in 2001, I was one of just 13 women, and I remember how thankful I was for my female colleagues on both sides of the aisle. My friend Barbara Mikulski famously started a tradition of dinner parties for all the women of the Senate. Over a glass of wine — okay, maybe three — we’d give each other support, advice, and highly relevant tips to navigate being in such an extreme minority.
Tomorrow's WaPo opeds will surely include HILLARY LOSES MORMON, MUSLIM VOTE
posted by phearlez at 7:30 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I HAVE NEVER BEEN PANDERED TO SO EFFECTIVELY BEFORE

I've seen this attitude before and it puzzles me. The panderer (campaign staffer writing the article, in this case) sees their target as a rube, easily moved by cheap and vacuous signaling. One should be upset, not pleased, to be so disrespected.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 7:42 AM on July 1, 2016


That's really firmly in "everything Clinton does is proof of her perfidy" territory there
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:45 AM on July 1, 2016 [44 favorites]


Please internets don't make being a Toast Truther into a thing somehow.
posted by rewil at 7:49 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


why on Earth would it be hard to believe Hillary Clinton wrote that for the Toast? So many of her public facing campaign staff is Toastie demographic, and her celebrity surrogates (Poehler, Dunham etc) are big on side projects that empower women.

Like what
posted by zutalors! at 7:50 AM on July 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


The Toast article is somewhere you should read the comments.

It's pretty much this
posted by zutalors! at 7:52 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


You know, I know some Hillary campaign staffers, and they're pretty awesome people with whom I enjoy hanging out and whom I am proud to know. I think it's a good thing that Hillary hires people who know how to speak effectively to people with me, but then, I don't agree with some other candidates that people like me are non-entities whose votes and voices don't matter. So even if it was written by a staffer who was trying to appeal to me, I don't see that as a problem.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:59 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I would see it as a problem given that they are explicitly saying she wrote it, and then in the comments they explain that they are not sure if she wrote the bio part though.

But like, politicians write their own op eds etc all the time. There is no reason to just assume the staffer definitely wrote it. Why, Hillary Clinton can't write or something? The experience of being one of an extreme minority of women Senators is something she is somehow unable to articulate?
posted by zutalors! at 8:05 AM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


And if the space you’re in doesn’t have room for your voice, don’t be afraid to carve out a space of your own.

Paraphrasing Shirley Chisholm, who said, "If they don't give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair."


This is on a post-it at my desk.
posted by Sophie1 at 8:18 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Where's the video proof, guys?! When Sanders thanked the great redditors who led to his primary victory, he used a video. What is Clinton trying to hide?
posted by defenestration at 8:19 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Dude "just asks questions" about women expressing their feelings about how other women talk to them, film at 11.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:22 AM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


If it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic.
posted by defenestration at 8:24 AM on July 1, 2016


Sorry I didn't make it clear, I wasn't referring to you.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:26 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


POE'S LAW OVERLOAD: DEPLOY HAMBURGERS
posted by murphy slaw at 8:30 AM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]




save alive nothing that breatheth: "I've seen this attitude before and it puzzles me."

I assumed that that comment was at least 50% tongue-in-cheek.

In any case, I'm not usually a weepy kind of person but I legit teared up reading that this morning. And again on my drive to work thinking about it. And maybe again at my desk rereading it. Some of it was because it's The Toast's last day. Some of it was thinking of Nicole and Mallory and all of them and how they would have reacted to getting a note from the Clinton campaign and then from Clinton herself. Some of it was Clinton's message itself and then thinking about how different the world is that the Toasties (and I guess all of us, but mainly them) are living in now than the world that Clinton grew up in (I've been trying to read more about her early biography). So, even though I'm not a woman or even an American citizen eligible to vote, you can also consider me effectively pandered to.
posted by mhum at 8:37 AM on July 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Who politicians pander to when they're running for office often tells you a lot about who they're going to try to keep satisfied with actual policies once they're in office. Many of the crappy things legislators and presidents have done, they did to throw a bone to crappy people. So when they instead throw a bone to nice people I call it a good sign.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:41 AM on July 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


It's the idea of God as grand puppet master that gets to me. Like humans have no freewill.

Can't fight Predestination: literally, metaphorically, or rhetorically.
posted by absalom at 8:42 AM on July 1, 2016


Members of this new silent majority, many of us front-wave baby boomers, value hard work and love the United States the way it was. We long for a bygone era when you didn’t need “safe spaces” on college campuses to shelter students from the atrocity of dissenting opinions, lest their sensibilities be offended. We have the reckless notion that college is the one place where sensibilities are supposed to be challenged and debated. Silly us.

So I'm going to do everything I can to make the world a shittier place in the few years I have remaining so you can spend the rest of your natural lives cleaning up the mess I left behind. Ha ha!!! Fuck you, young'uns!
posted by the painkiller at 8:48 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've seen this attitude before and it puzzles me. The panderer (campaign staffer writing the article, in this case) sees their target as a rube, easily moved by cheap and vacuous signaling. One should be upset, not pleased, to be so disrespected.

I've encountered this attitude, too, and I am also puzzled by it. Because beneath the cry of superficiality as a way of signaling hard-nosed cynicism lies an obvious dismay at not being pandered to enough. "How dare you not give me what I really wanted!" might as well be the name of this electoral season.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:51 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


> If it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic.

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I wasn't referring to you.


Aww...c'mon guys, group hug!
posted by happyroach at 8:53 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bernie has cut Hillary's lead in California to 399K, but there are only 350K ballots left to count. So at this point he may pick off a few more delegates, but he's not going to win.

He was never going to win. Hillary took CA by a landslide. There would have to be voter fraud on an inconceivable scale for the California primary to have been "stolen". A scale that is just not possible for human beings to carry out, or to pass off as legitimate to the CA Secretary of State's office.

My taking having voted in CA and watching some of the conspiracy theories play out among friends here is that it's mainly a problem of people who are bad at math and don't know how politics works. For example you went to a Sanders rally and there were a lot of people there. And you don't know anyone in your social circle who is (admitting to) supporting Hillary. And then you went to vote and maybe there was some minor irregularity with your ballot (you were asked to surrender your mail-in ballot to vote in person, for example), and, therefore, STOLEN ELECTION OBVIOUSLY.

California has this new cool thing where you can actually go online to find out if your ballot was counted. Since so many Bernie supporters don't understand that calling an election isn't the same thing as counting all the votes and certifying it, a lot of my Bernie supporting friends cited the fact that they checked online ON ELECTION DAY and their votes hadn't been counted as evidence of voter fraud on a massive scale.

Head, please feel free to say hello to Desk whenever you're ready...
posted by Sara C. at 9:02 AM on July 1, 2016 [23 favorites]


The word "pander" to me has a connotation of disingenuousness on the part of the speaker. To say this is pandering is to say that not only does Clinton not believe what is written here (whether actually written by a staffer or not) but that the implied attitude towards policy as it relates to the place of women in society is also false.

I don't think either implication is fair with this piece. Also I teared up as well.
posted by R343L at 9:02 AM on July 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


We have the reckless notion that college is the one place where sensibilities are supposed to be challenged and debated.
This did make me wonder what happened to people who challenged sensibilities by, say, being visibly queer or being a woman who wanted to major in physics or being a black student who wanted to attend a flagship public university in the South. What he's not saying is that this is not about challenging sensibilities. It's about whose sensibilities are thought to matter. He just doesn't quite have the courage to say that he supports Trump because he wants a return to the days when straight white men could assume that their sensibilities would dominate.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:02 AM on July 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


He was never going to win. Hillary took CA by a landslide.

Not only that, even if he won, it wouldn't have mattered since CA he would still only have gotten a proportional number of the total delegates.
posted by octothorpe at 9:05 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The word "pander" to me has a connotation of disingenuousness on the part of the speaker. To say this is pandering is to say that not only does Clinton not believe what is written here (whether actually written by a staffer or not) but that the implied attitude towards policy as it relates to the place of women in society is also false.


To me it doesn't have to be false, just laid on much thicker than the speaker believes the situation actually warrants. The classic example is a candidate telling a group of supporters that they're going to address that group's signature issue "on day one." Even assuming that they actually agree on that issue and plan to do something about it, the idea that it's actually their absolute first priority once in office is transparently ludicrous.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:08 AM on July 1, 2016


He was never going to win. Hillary took CA by a landslide. There would have to be voter fraud on an inconceivable scale for the California primary to have been "stolen". A scale that is just not possible for human beings to carry out, or to pass off as legitimate to the CA Secretary of State's office.

Perhaps the fantasy is that if they just keep ranting about it enough, at the Convention Hillary is going to pull a Sideshow Bob and whip out a bunch of notebooks labeled "Hillary's Fraud Log vol. X."

The point is only I could have executed such a masterpiece of electoral fraud and I have the records to prove it! Just look at these!
posted by Existential Dread at 9:09 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


California and the Email server stuff just highlight the fact that among a certain group of individuals there is no acceptance of the fact that Hillary will quite likely be the next President of the USA. There is just endless hoping that some scandal or another will finally wrench back the covers on some global conspiracy being run by the Clintons since the 80s or something.

And there is a whole ecosystem dedicated to fanning the flames of doubt and increasingly the line is blurring between right wing conspiracy nuts and left wing conspiracy nuts.

Personally my advice is to do what 95% of the world does and just ignore them.
posted by vuron at 9:15 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Host: We are asking about the tone of the campaign, not only the people who go to rallies and campaign events, but between the candidates themselves. Let's go to Mary in Birmingham, Michigan. Republican line. Go ahead.

Caller: Thank you. Actually, I think his tone was dead on correct in response to Mrs.Clinton, who actually she did not yesterday in her speech, she was supposed to lay out her foreign policy. She said nothing about foreign policy. All she did was shoot arrows at him. At least he has said what he plans to do. He has laid it out. You know every time I hear him speak I am so grateful that he is running. I am disgusted with the way that the police did not protect people, but we are just going to hear him speak. That is what our forefathers put together, freedom of speech, number one. They were taking that away from the people that were going to hear him, and to be pelted with garage and have their car lights kicked out, but the police were doing nothing. But they were burning American flags.

Host: Mary is talking about the rally in San Jose, California. This is Redding, California. Donald Trump just finished up his comments. Those comments from Hillary Clinton yesterday in San Diego are available at our website C-SPAN.org. Democrats line. Peggy in Decatur, Georgia.

Caller: I think someone should cut out his tongue. I think they should cut out his tongue and stick it up his ass.

Host: The tone of the campaign, Jeremy. What do you think of it?

Caller: Prophecy is coming to pass. You can bet on it. Every word in the bible is coming to pass soon. Do not forget this. This is happening right now.

Host: Norman, Santa Barbara, California, on the independent line -- on the democrats line. go ahead ...


Previous link not actually worth watching, just something that made me laugh so is provided as proof of existance ... here is a fun one that is, 13 mins of The Senate at its Senatiest. The bill is called "Act to Reauthorize and Amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act and Other Purposes", but is dealing with GMO labeling (Sen. Pat Roberts amendment (voluntary but with national standards sort of compromise)) that is titled "Defund Planned Parenthood act of 2015". Sausage!

(spoiler, it passed 68 / 29 or there abouts). I don't think the House will be able to reintroduce the original language under the title and another bill to amend the title will be sent to the House as well, so when it emerges all the pieces might align.
posted by phoque at 9:18 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The classic example is a candidate telling a group of supporters that they're going to address that group's signature issue "on day one."

This is a thing that actually happens with the POTUS, though. One of the things that made me feel like we got what we voted for with Obama is that, in his first week in office, he overturned the Mexico City Policy.

Because there are so many executive orders and executive branch approaches to policy that the President is responsible for, there really ARE a lot of issues voters care about that end up being addressed on day one, or close to it.

So, like, I guess "President immediately reverses previous President's executive order that was doing a thing you hate" is pandering, if government running in a democratic manner in general constitutes pandering?

I don't really love the idea that if a politician says anything good, or WORSE! actually does anything good (especially with haste!), therefore it's all a ploy to lure in a bunch of stupid rubes. If you feel that way, why don't we just have an absolute monarchy?
posted by Sara C. at 9:20 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I just wish that Bernie supporters would stop doing shit like sending marauding bands of white dudes to take over the minority caucuses at the Nebraska Democratic State Convention. It caused a lot of consternation among Latino Democrats, whose longtime leader the mostly-white Bernie supporters temporarily succeeded in ousting, and that's really a group whom one would hope not to alienate. Nebraska splits its presidential delegates by congressional district, and there is one swing district. It went to Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012 and elected a Democratic congressman in 2014. It could go either way in this election. And the swing district has a significant Latino population. High Latino turnout could make a difference in a close race, and it's stupid, as well as morally wrong, to disrespect those voters and to claim that you know how to conduct their affairs better than they do.

This story is really worth a read, because it is so exactly emblematic of the problem I have with a lot of young, fired-up Sanders supporters - they have so much disdain for 'the political machine' that they have no interest in actually understanding it before they rip it down and try to build something new. That is so incredibly irresponsible and frankly dangerous.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:21 AM on July 1, 2016 [29 favorites]


also racist
posted by Sara C. at 9:23 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Not only that, even if he won, it wouldn't have mattered since CA he would still only have gotten a proportional number of the total delegates.

The idea was that if Bernie won California by an appreciable margin it would indicate a groundswell of support and that it provided legitimacy to go into a contested convention and that superdelegates would recognize the situation on the ground and start to flip.

But that mandate never materialized and we went into presumptive nominee mode.
posted by Talez at 9:24 AM on July 1, 2016


This is a thing that actually happens with the POTUS, though. One of the things that made me feel like we got what we voted for with Obama is that, in his first week in office, he overturned the Mexico City Policy.

Yeah, but even that was Day Three (Jan. 23, 2009, and may that be the last date on its tombstone). The specific language of a first-day policy agenda, as opposed to first-week or "as soon as I can responsibly get something out the door" is an oft-invoked campaign promise that is always overpromising.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:27 AM on July 1, 2016


(To emphasize, I'm not doubting that the candidates really want to do those things, it's the idea that it's so important to them that they will forsake all other responsibilities and ceremony to do them as soon as they're sworn in that strikes me as pandering)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:29 AM on July 1, 2016


Yeah, but even that was Day Three (Jan. 23, 2009, and may that be the last date on its tombstone). The specific language of a first-day policy agenda, as opposed to first-week or "as soon as I can responsibly get something out the door" is an oft-invoked campaign promise that is always overpromising.

I don't think anyone thinks that first day is literally the first day unless they're being intellectually dishonest or deliberately obtuse. The first day is the freaking inauguration and the second is recovering from the hangover so I don't think anyone is expecting the president to sit there signing executive orders while U2 are playing.

It's an emphatic euphemism like "in a second" doesn't mean in literally one second. Unless someone is that kind of literal jackass who says "it's been a second" one second later.
posted by Talez at 9:31 AM on July 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


What particularly frustrates me about this line is that this country sounds great! I love milk and cookies! I love trophies! What, exactly, do you hate about this? It’s such a nothing essay that takes understanding of its code as a given.

I got your milk and cookies for the kids right here. Or here, if you liked that and want to see what's going on.

And coddling in college is one of the typical stereotypes attached to "bleeding-heart" liberals. But how does Hillary Clinton end up being a metonym for that particular constellation of liberal values? It's not her thing, not her issue. It's a seemingly irrelevant get-off-my-lawn rant attached to a non-sequitur "And that's why I'm voting for Donald Trump".

Okay, look. I am basically the target audience for this article, so I can kind of explain how that works: it's because that attitude is right now attached to the idea of 'SJW' stuff, and Hillary Clinton uses a lot of what pings as SJW language. Like, I am reasonably amenable to the idea that a Hillary Clinton presidency will involve modeling less 'competitive spirit' and more 'cooperation and tolerance'.

But here's the thing. It doesn't matter when the opposite is literally fascism. Like I am ready and fist pumping for all the 'get off my lawn millenials' rants and STILL DOES NOT JUSTIFY FASCISM. Like, I'm sympathetic to the problem, but FASCISM IS NOT THE SOLUTION. If you are thinking of fascism as a reasonable solution to this problem, YOU MAY BE AN ASSHOLE.
posted by corb at 9:34 AM on July 1, 2016 [29 favorites]




Guys, I think something might be wrong, I am getting where I agree with corb on more and more things. Not sure if that's because I'm becoming a conservative or if the existential threat of Trump to the Republican Party (not to mention the US) has gotten us all to the point where we are going 'ehh we can get back to arguing like cats and dogs later but first we gotta join forces to stop the crazy asshole who has hijacked democracy".
posted by vuron at 9:44 AM on July 1, 2016 [22 favorites]


I have never previously agreed with corb on a single issue in a political thread, but I have to admit the fact that someone as diametrically opposed to me on most issues as she is sees Trump as a bridge too far (and has made a priority of stopping him) has been a welcome note of encouragement in what has otherwise been an extremely disheartening political season.
posted by murphy slaw at 9:52 AM on July 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


Guys, I think something might be wrong, I am getting where I agree with corb on more and more things. Not sure if that's because I'm becoming a conservative or if the existential threat of Trump to the Republican Party (not to mention the US) has gotten us all to the point where we are going 'ehh we can get back to arguing like cats and dogs later but first we gotta join forces to stop the crazy asshole who has hijacked democracy".

If any of you ever get to know more about corb, and I do encourage it, you should know that the closest description of corb I can give is what Republicans fantasize as the ideal citizen that would make their plans actually work. And it's the one reason why I can accept that corb is both a good person and hold her beliefs. She doesn't seem to hold those beliefs because she wants to further some evil Republican agenda, she seems to hold those beliefs because she's undergoing the exact actions among her community, putting in the hard work that would make those beliefs actually work and turn them into something better for society as a whole.
posted by Talez at 9:54 AM on July 1, 2016 [31 favorites]


Guys I am trying really hard not to just break into Hamilton here but you are MAKING IT HARD.

would you say we have fought on like seventy-five different fronts DAMMIT I TRIED
posted by corb at 10:08 AM on July 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


In seriousness, though - I think the real answer is that Trump is just a horrible existential threat to us all, of the sort that I did not think we would see in our lifetimes. And we have to join together to stop it, because all of our differences - while important, I'm not saying they're trivial at all on a normal day - melt beyond this.

I truly believe that if the monster were coming from your party somehow, that a lot of you guys would be fighting as hard as you could to stop it too. Because that's just what you do. You can't not do it. Fundamentally as an American, I feel like somewhere down deep you're obligated to fight against something like this.
posted by corb at 10:15 AM on July 1, 2016 [41 favorites]


The anger about the 'trophies for showing up' thing always irks me. It's like, do they think the kids organized that? Who put the event together and bought the trophies? The parents, duh. Get mad at your own damn selves for handing out trophies, older folks!
posted by palindromic at 10:19 AM on July 1, 2016 [29 favorites]


Also, kids' sports are so vastly, stratospherically more competitive than they were when I was a kid, let alone when my parents were kids. Everyone may get a trophy, but you'd better be going to before-school swim practice as well as after-school swim practice and spending hundreds of dollars on special swim suits, or else you're not going to shave that tenth of a second off of your time and swim fast enough to make the special select traveling team for 12-year-olds. It's insane. I am really not seeing a lack of competition in the world of youth sports these days.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:32 AM on July 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


I just don't get the complaint against participation trophies. It just feels like a backdoor for people to criticize each other for parenting wrong. And those same people are probably the same ones that criticize tiger parenting. So parents can't win.
posted by FJT at 10:43 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I truly believe that if the monster were coming from your party somehow, that a lot of you guys would be fighting as hard as you could to stop it too.

Now I find myself wondering who our monster would be. Not that I think the Democrats are intrinsically immune to a know-nothing authoritarian populist with a cult of personality, but I don't think there's anyone over on on our side who comes even close to presenting that kind of threat. You'd need, I dunno, the lovechild of Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher with Stalin's DNA spliced in, or something.
posted by jackbishop at 10:43 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Part of what makes Trump uniquely awful is the explicit racism which is a hard thing to foreground as a Democratic candidate in 2016. Not to say the party doesn't have problems with sub rosa racism but that's why it's so hard to come up with an analogous candidate in a flip-the-script scenario, I think
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:52 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I doubt it would be somebody we think of currently as "on our side," any more than the GOP would have considered Trump to be really one of them four years ago. Jenny McCarthy would be a good starting point, though -- the anti-vax craziness feels like the most fertile ground for an analogous leftist horrorshow.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:55 AM on July 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Part of what makes Trump uniquely awful is the explicit racism which is a hard thing to foreground as a Democratic candidate in 2016. Not to say the party doesn't have problems with sub rosa racism but that's why it's so hard to come up with an analogous candidate in a flip-the-script scenario, I think

Trump could have easily run as a Democratic candidate as much as a Republican. Hell, up until 2009 Trump was a cog in the Democratic party. People aren't averse to flipping the script as we found out with the Southern Strategy. What probably was the decision to hitch to the Republicans is that they don't have a superdelegate safety valve like Democrats. If Trump tried to run then superdelegates would all come out saying "fuck no" and that would be that.
posted by Talez at 10:56 AM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I feel like if John Edwards could have gotten to a Trump-ish place if he'd come along a little later and started in in politics differently. He certainly has the required narcissism, lack of principles, and craving for attention.
posted by Copronymus at 10:58 AM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


You guys are clearly forgetting Barack Hussein Obama, a Islamofascist who took all of our guns away and ushered in the Great Race War of 2009, and made us a vassal state of Kenya and the United Nations. Evil and unqualified, his celebrity magnetism and silver tongue allowed him to steal the Presidency twice.

Merely the latest in a long line of Democrat monsters posing existential threats to our freedoms.
posted by nom de poop at 10:59 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


When all is said and all is done
Corb has beliefs.
Trump has none.
When the Associated Press asked Trump to clarify how he would identify muslims, Trump emailed a statement in response. “You figure it out!” it said in part.
posted by persona at 11:04 AM on July 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


I think the real answer is that Trump is just a horrible existential threat to us all,

Wait until Election 2020.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:04 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Guys I am trying really hard not to just break into Hamilton here but you are MAKING IT HARD.

I have the honor to be your obedient servant,
D. Trump
posted by dw at 11:07 AM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


(It's quiet upthread.)
posted by dw at 11:07 AM on July 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


I just don't get the complaint against participation trophies.

I kind of do, but I also think they're like welfare cheats -- they exist, but nowhere near enough to pose the kind of threat to our nation's fabric that conservatives complain that they do. Plus, such complainers don't take into account the pressures of college admissions, which are increasingly perceived as key to survival in an America full of grade inflation and degree inflation. College admissions need extracurriculars, extracurriculars get crowded, kids need qualifications . . . it starts early. And the kids never built this world.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:07 AM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Now I find myself wondering who our monster would be. Not that I think the Democrats are intrinsically immune to a know-nothing authoritarian populist with a cult of personality, but I don't think there's anyone over on on our side who comes even close to presenting that kind of threat. You'd need, I dunno, the lovechild of Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher with Stalin's DNA spliced in, or something.

But would anyone on the right have really expected Trump to rise up? Sure, William F. Buckley mentioned him as an example of a substanceless horrorshow, but that was a pretty general case, especially since Trump has also danced around on the left. I would assume that the populist candidate wouldn’t really be someone we expect either. Kanye is my go-to example - not a partisan figure, exactly, but certainly accomplished, a POC, and very willing to say overtly controversial-but-popular things. (“George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”) The key difference is that Trump’s accomplishments are largely a sham while Kanye has done some legitimately amazing things - but I’d still want him a million miles from the white house.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:09 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Stassa Edwards: Trump Campaign Hires 'Gender Gap' Expert Kellyanne Conway, Who Touts 'Femininity, Not Feminism'
To get a sense of Conway’s perspective on gender and the “gender gap,” take the speech (video above) she gave to the Conservative Women’s Network in 2011, an event co-sponsored by the very conservative Clare Boothe Luce Foundation and Heritage Foundation. In the speech, Conway bemoans feminism as “gloom and doom,” and argues that “femininity is replacing feminism as a leading attribute for American women.” She then continues with some familiar talking points for conservative women, namely that hating men (“the revulsion towards men in your life”) is “part and parcel of the feminist movement.” She also shares some helpful fashion tips like, “If women want to be taken seriously in the workforce, looking feminine is a good place to start.”

Conway has a long history advising male candidates on how to appeal to women and, given her client roster, it’s hard to tell if she’s very bad at her job or was hired by some of the most irredeemably sexist men in politics. Her resume includes work for Newt Gingrich and Indiana Governor Mike Pence, as well as President of Keep the Promise, a single candidate PAC that supported Ted Cruz. According to its website, the PAC sought to “restore America’s standing in the world as a shining city on a hill.”

Perhaps her most famous client was Todd Akin, the 2012 Missouri Senate candidate whose legacy is the phrase “legitimate rape.” According to Politico, in 2013, Conway was paid by House Republicans for doling out the following advice:
Conway said rape is a “four-letter word,” and Republicans simply need to stop talking about it in their races for office.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:16 AM on July 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


> Conway has a long history advising male candidates on how to appeal to women and, given her client roster, it’s hard to tell if she’s very bad at her job or was hired by some of the most irredeemably sexist men in politics.

Okay, that's legitimately funny. Her client list is really a who's who of sexist misogynistic assholes, though - Newt, Todd Akin, and now Trump. With a resume like that...
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:21 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump and Palin are in Denver today. In the recent thread about local journalism, someone recommended the Denverite so I've been following their coverage.

I both want and don't want to know what exactly was going on here: "[Palin] made a distasteful gesture as she thanked Colorado Republicans for putting up with what they have to put up with 'inside the tent' and said she’s glad the tent is getting bigger."
posted by rewil at 11:25 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I feel like the Democratic Trump would be Oprah. Brain Trust composed of Indigo children, Dr. Oz as Surgeon General, unleashing shipping containers of bees on unsuspecting crowds, etc.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:28 AM on July 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Remember those members of foreign governments being hit up for donations to the Trump campaign? Now they are being hit up by a Trump Super PAC
posted by nubs at 11:29 AM on July 1, 2016


I don't get the problem with participation trophies either. Participating, as in committing to something and sticking it out through a full season and going when you don't feel like it and telling your mom it's your week to bring the juice boxes and doughnut holes for snack is actually an achievement for young kids. I don't care in the slightest if there's a physical trophy to represent that or not, but acknowledging and celebrating that achievement regardless of how much the team stank (and I played on some damn stanky soccer teams as a kid) is an appropriate thing to do.

How does this worldview actually work? Do they think that if a toddler is praised for using the potty he'll grow up to expect a marching band every time he takes a dump when he's 30? Do they think that if parents put a preschooler's scribbles on the fridge, he'll wind up ruined for life when his high school art teacher critiques his work?
posted by zachlipton at 11:30 AM on July 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Conway said rape is a “four-letter word,” and Republicans simply need to stop talking about it in their races for office.

And there we have the Republican plan to address rape: banish it from the English language. If only rapists could so easily be convinced.
posted by zachlipton at 11:32 AM on July 1, 2016


Wow, Kellyanne Conway seems to have made a career out of charging incredibly high fees to tell powerful men what they want to hear. Sounds like a growth industry!
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:32 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


It's often called the oldest profession.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:34 AM on July 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


I don't get the problem with participation trophies either. Participating, as in committing to something and sticking it out through a full season and going when you don't feel like it and telling your mom it's your week to bring the juice boxes and doughnut holes for snack is actually an achievement for young kids.

Trophies are for extraordinary achievement, not showing up. That bar is extremely low. More broadly, conservatives lean toward rewards for individual achievement (vs. egalitarian even distribution regardless of success or work level). History has plenty of evidence favoring the conservative side of that equation. You see this in other issues like teacher evaluations. I get that politics is a big problem in these evaluations, but it's not crazy to say that the best teachers should be rewarded, and/or the worst should be less rewarded or fired.

How does this worldview actually work? Do they think that if a toddler is praised for using the potty he'll grow up to expect a marching band every time he takes a dump when he's 30?

That's pretty much the stereotype of Millenials. Lots of business articles have been written along those lines.
posted by msalt at 11:36 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


You see this in other issues like teacher evaluations. I get that politics is a big problem in these evaluations, but it's not crazy to say that the best teachers should be rewarded, and/or the worst should be less rewarded or fired.

Define "best" and "worst" in a manner that can be assessed in a consistent manner.

Show your work.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:40 AM on July 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


How does this worldview actually work? Do they think that if a toddler is praised for using the potty he'll grow up to expect a marching band every time he takes a dump when he's 30?
Also, in the old days, didn't you used to get a gold watch when you'd been at your company for 20 years? Or at least a raise? I feel like we actually did, as a society, once reward some grownups for showing up, and that's part of the whole thing that we're supposed to feel nostalgic about.

(I got a star-shaped doohicky when I had been at my current job for five years. I wasn't sure what to do with it. It's on a shelf in my office. It's a participation trophy for grownups!)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:45 AM on July 1, 2016 [23 favorites]


I'm in education and I just don't see this kind of entitlement in the students I work with. I've spoken to my colleagues at other schools locally and our experience is that the current generation of kids seems to be leaning now towards a kind of existential panic that they're going to go to college, emerge in debt and never find a job that will allow them to pay the debt off. Furthermore because going to college is a demand of their parents, they see no easy to avoid this.

To whit, not only don't they seem to expect to be rewarded, they fully expect to be demolished.

I always read these "millennial expect rewards" articles in the same way I read "how dare these new hires expect to be paid for their work they're so lucky to just have a job" articles.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:45 AM on July 1, 2016 [44 favorites]


rewil: "[Palin] made a distasteful gesture as she thanked Colorado Republicans for putting up with what they have to put up with 'inside the tent' and said she’s glad the tent is getting bigger."

I want sooooo much to know what the "distasteful gesture" was, especially since she was in the midst of thanking people. I'm guessing she mimed a growing erection as she was talking about the tent getting bigger, maybe? But can you imagine if she did the jack-off motion? Or shot them the double birds or a hearty vaffanculo? Or even that thing where you're miming something going into your mouth and pushing your tongue against the inside of your cheek to make it look like the imaginary thing going into your mouth is pressing against your cheek? It probably wasn't any of those but at this point in the campaign season, anything's possible.
posted by mhum at 11:46 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


(Obviously YMMV for interactions with "kids these days")
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:46 AM on July 1, 2016


As a kid I got plenty of cheap Party City ribbons for showing up to a thing at school. And I always threw them right in the trash, because children are not idiots and they know perfectly well that participation trophies are meaningless.

Also, frankly a lot of those articles are barely-coded "damn kids these days expect not to be exploited, how dare they fail to know their place! Why, some of them even complain when they're bullied and harassed at work, the weenies!"
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:49 AM on July 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


Also, frankly a lot of those articles are barely-coded "damn kids these days expect not to be exploited, how dare they fail to know their place! Why, some of them even complain when they're bullied and harassed at work, the weenies!"

The Economist just did a piece on millennials not buying diamonds that frankly read as "why aren't millennials getting suckered by the con that suckered us?"
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:55 AM on July 1, 2016 [21 favorites]


The best response to the diamonds article on Twitter was a person who commented with "I work at a grocery store"
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:59 AM on July 1, 2016 [28 favorites]


That's pretty much the stereotype of Millenials. Lots of business articles have been written along those lines.

Yes, and nonsense about "snake people expect their boss to wipe their ass for them" when Millennials actually want good jobs is the sort of thing I come to MeFi to avoid.
posted by zachlipton at 12:04 PM on July 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


> You'd need, I dunno, the lovechild of Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher with Stalin's DNA spliced in, or something.

Damn, I can feel my anarchism melting away.... BRING IT ON, I WANT TO VOTE FOR IT!!
posted by languagehat at 12:10 PM on July 1, 2016




Lynch Admits Meeting With Bill Clinton 'Cast A Shadow' Over Emails Probe

/r/SFP is flipping their shit over it.
posted by Talez at 12:13 PM on July 1, 2016


How does this worldview actually work? Do they think that if a toddler is praised for using the potty he'll grow up to expect a marching band every time he takes a dump when he's 30?

Speaking only for self - I think I found, at least, that growing up/coming of age in the 80s had a lot of cultural expectation of work and competition being front and center in our lives. I remember teachers saying that we had to work hard because if we didn't, the guy who worked harder than us would get the job and we wouldn't. I remember my dad constantly talking about work as the "rat race", how they were all fighting for the cheese. I remember very vividly the idea being present in my mind, that if I wasn't good enough, I would fail and suffer and die in poverty. That I would only get into college if I was the best of the best and fortunate enough to find a pot of money.

I do not think that these things are part of the zeitgeist for the generation who came behind me. I could be wrong - but I just don't see that sense of the necessity of struggle, that everything is going to be hard and hellish suffering and you might die anyway in failure for a tiny mistake. Which is darkly, morbidly, funny, almost, because I think if anything, those things apply more to them than to those of us who came into jobs in the nineties and early 00's. But they just don't have that attitude. They came into the plenty that either we or another generation provided for them - desperately, as measures of their success - and the idea that that our success, meager as it may be, was hard won does not really seem present in them. It's certainly not present in my daughter, a fact which drives me to despair on the regular.

When I put food on the table for my daughter, I expect her - every time, ridiculously - to be grateful that she's eating, because I saw people of my generation starving. Because I myself have starved. Even if it's rice and beans, I expect her to be grateful. I remember the gnawing feeling of hunger and I am grateful every time I can put a meal together. Even though this is not really a deep concern on a daily basis, I still feel it. And she's not grateful. And she's not in part because I've been very careful not to let her starve, and others of my generation have been really careful not to let their kids starve, and societally we've been careful not to let people starve. And that's even a good thing! But I look out on the society she's growing up into and think - but what will she do? How will she eat if she wants everything to be fancy and nice?

And so when you have this clash - this clash that I truly believe started with us, the hell that we have made out of the best of intentions - it's really tempting to try to find a Reason for it. Why are they so confident in success? Why don't they struggle with existential despair the way we do? Why are they willing to turn down jobs until they get the right one, when we suffered through shit jobs and felt lucky to do so?

And participation trophies are the easy target. Because they say 'everyone is valuable!' and that is not a lesson we grew up valuing or believing in. And the shit economy, in many ways, is reinforcing that for us - is telling us that we were right to fear collapse at a single wrong turn.
posted by corb at 12:14 PM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Why are they so confident in success? Why don't they struggle with existential despair the way we do? Why are they willing to turn down jobs until they get the right one, when we suffered through shit jobs and felt lucky to do so?

Have you...ever met a Millennial/young person? They are mostly laughing at dog memes to keep themselves from imploding with despair and hopelessness.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:21 PM on July 1, 2016 [43 favorites]


Jesus fucking christ, Bill! What were you thinking!?!?
posted by Sophie1 at 12:23 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The most fervent Sanders supporter in my Facebook feed posted something implying Hillary Clinton had someone murdered this week.

Nothing surprises me about Hillary Clinton

Turns out there's nothing you can accuse Hillary Clinton of ("she sent a Linked In request to Osama Bin Laden") that people won't believe.

(I do sometimes feel bad for the people making fools of themselves in Jimmy Kimmel's man on the street segments, but the footage wouldn't air unless they signed a waiver to allow it, so).
posted by pocketfullofrye at 12:24 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, and corb, I’ll just say: I grew up in a house where we had food, but it wasn’t fancy and it was always homemade (cheaper that way) and we could afford to get pizza maybe twice a year. And as a child, it probably seemed to my parents like I took that for granted, and expected to get things I wanted, because I was a child.

But looking back on my perspective from that time as an adult, I was painfully aware of my family’s financial struggles. I was acutely aware of how much poorer my family was compared to many of my more middle-class friends. It shaped my whole life. My parents probably couldn’t see it in my daily behavior, and I certainly didn’t talk about it, and I whined for treats and toys periodically, because I was a child that’s just where I was during that phase of my life. But the fact that children act like children during their years of childhood indicates very little about their future outlook on existence and what they are owed.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:25 PM on July 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


is the thought here that Lynch was the only thing standing between HRC and an indictment for violating Email Law? because give me a break.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:28 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trophies are for extraordinary achievement, not showing up. That bar is extremely low.

I get that people think this, but just restating it isn't an explanation.

I just read this great book by the guy that can be described as one of the world's leading experts on being REALLY good at something. One of the things that he stresses repeated is that early on in developing a skill, getting praised for doing something is a huge motivator to keep working to get better at it, even if you don't start off as well as others might. The idea that other people getting consideration in addition to just the lucky few that happen to get off to better starts is somehow a bad thing is genuinely weird to me.

On the other hand, I can see how if you're one of those people that succeeded from the get go it's easy to look at other people who weren't and say "well, I earned what I got, I'm not sharing". Especially if the advantages you had (like being an older\bigger\slightly faster developing kid in your age group in some sort of competition, or having parents that can teach you how do something better, or being able to get enough sleep at night) are largely invisible to you. And yeah, it can feel like people getting praised for doing things worse than you did can be detracting from what you did. It's like how people argue that privilege can't exist because they worked hard, so they deserve it. The thing is, privilege isn't saying you didn't work hard, it's saying that other people had more work to do.

Anyway, I actually get how you go from "trophies for everyone is bad" to "I'm going to vote for Trump." This idea that you (generic) earned everything and other people didn't is where a lot of Trump's rhetoric lives. I mean, just think of how many things bigots say that boil down to "My people built this country, and now this other group wants the same things we have. They didn't work hard like we did, why should they get it?".
posted by Gygesringtone at 12:36 PM on July 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


I mean, just think of how many things bigots say that boil down to "My people built this country, and now this other group wants the same things we have. They didn't work hard like we did, why should they get it?".

I think that's a big component to a lot of politics, group identity, that I just don't really understand. "My people" is a group of about a half dozen. My people were not big on group identity. I'm baffled that anyone thinks I have some relationship to them because we're both white guys, I don't know who the fuck you are buddy.
posted by bongo_x at 12:47 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


That's really interesting, corb, because I actually perceive that things are harder for kids now in a lot of ways than they were when I was a kid. (I think we're probably about the same age.) There are some big improvements. Specifically, I think kids are physically safer now. The US was a much more violent country when I was a kid. But I think today's kids are probably more likely to go hungry, because I came of age just before welfare reform, which has increased child poverty quite a bit in the US. It's a lot harder to get into college now than it was when I was applying. That's partly demographics: I was born at the depth of the Baby Bust, and kids now are part of the echo Baby Boom. College is more expensive in real terms. The economy was pretty shitty when I graduated from high school, but it rebounded, and it was fine when I graduated from college. I think that the factors that are causing problems for today's young job seekers are more structural and aren't going to be easily fixed.

I work with college students, and there are things about them that I find annoying. But I think a lot of those things are symptoms of economic insecurity, not of them being spoiled brats who got too many trophies.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:51 PM on July 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


I earned plenty of badges for participating as a child in the 60's-- in Girl Scouts you got a badge for every camp or sports day you showed up to. I'm pretty sure I also got certificates for participating in things like acting workshops and Glee club competitions. OK technically they weren't trophies, but they were recognition for just showing up. But I don't want to talk about that I want to talk about....

The Bands Booked For The GOP Convention!!!!
Separately, third-party groups have booked musicians to perform at venues throughout Cleveland during the July 18-21 convention: the quintessential 1960s-era surfer band The Beach Boys; 1970s-era rock band Journey; Bret Michaels, the frontman of the 1980s-era metal band Poison; 80s hitmaker Rick Springfield: country singer Martina McBride, who rose to stardom in the 1990s; country band Rascal Flatts, who formed in Ohio in 1999; and The Band Perry, a siblings trio known for country pop songs.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:52 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


the quintessential 1960s-era surfer band The Beach Boys

Another reason not to love Mike Love.

Also, don't the Beach Boys attract the wrong element? /jameswatt
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:58 PM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


the quintessential 1960s-era surfer band The Beach Boys

I bet it's the Mike Love and Bruce Johnston side because they're complete douchebags.
posted by Talez at 12:59 PM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Never fear, the good part of The Beach Boys have reformed and are making great music again.
posted by Talez at 1:00 PM on July 1, 2016


it doesn't sound like any of these bands are connected with the RNC or Trump, they just seem to be booked to play in Cleveland while the convention is going on.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:00 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


The anger about the 'trophies for showing up' thing always irks me. It's like, do they think the kids organized that? Who put the event together and bought the trophies? The parents, duh. Get mad at your own damn selves for handing out trophies, older folks!

My mom posts annoying memes about participation trophies etc. on Facebook all the time, and it INFURIATES ME because she went out of her way to send us to special snowflake private schools and sign us up for rec sports teams that gave out literal participation trophies. That she paid for and likely at times ordered and doled out on behalf of our various teams. Like, if you hate that shit so much, why did you spend literally decades of your life participating in it?

Also, do you really hate how your own children turned out so badly that you're going to share "ugh entitled millennials" memes on Facebook?

Not to mention that I'm 35 and am definitively part of the "participation trophy" generation. While I guess I'm borderline Millennial, this is not a recent thing or something we can catastrophize via nebulous THE SKY IS FALLING predictions. We've had 20+ years watching people who got participation trophies grow up and get into college and join the workforce and have children of our own. And yet the planet is still on its orbit.
posted by Sara C. at 1:01 PM on July 1, 2016 [22 favorites]


it doesn't sound like any of these bands are connected with the RNC or Trump, they just seem to be booked to play in Cleveland while the convention is going on.

Bruce Johnston is a country club Republican through and through and Mike Love literally sang "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." on stage for McCain.
posted by Talez at 1:01 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Like, if you hate that shit so much, why did you spend literally decades of your life participating in it?

there's nothing we hate so much as the mistakes we made ourselves.

not to say that signing kids up for esteem-boosting activities is a mistake, but parental self-recrimination is a weird stew.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:04 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


it doesn't sound like any of these bands are connected with the RNC or Trump, they just seem to be booked to play in Cleveland while the convention is going on.

Well that's something! There's some sort of nebulous "Rock Cleveland" welcome ceremony that I am equally dreading being an actual, RNC-chosen rock band, or possibly some sort of 'Because we're so excited about political speeches yeeeeeeah!' WHO KNOWS.
posted by corb at 1:04 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


there's nothing we hate so much as the mistakes we made ourselves.

By any conceivable metric (except maybe bank account or winning an actual Emmy) I am an incredibly successful adult with a fantastic life. It just seems weird that my mother is looking at the result of all those participation trophies and thinking she obviously raised me all wrong.
posted by Sara C. at 1:08 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump doubles down on support for war crimes
On Thursday night in New Hampshire, Trump reiterated his belief that America should hold itself to the same standard as a fascist death cult. Asked by local station NH1 to respond to Senator John McCain's claim that torture is "not the American way," Trump replied:

Well it’s not the American way to have heads chopped off and have people drowning in steel cages ... And so we can have our disagreements, but we’re going to have to get much tougher as a country. We’re going to have to be a lot sharper and we’re going to have to do things that are unthinkable almost.
I think Trump didn't grow up watching American movies the way I did. In WWII movies they always made a big point about how Americans weren't like the Germans. American soldiers were always the good guys and never did mean things. Sometimes a crazy-eyed Private who just saw his best friend being blown up would slap a German captive but he would be pulled aside by the Captain and told "Don't stoop to their level, son."

I really believed Melania when she said about her husband, "If you hit Donald he will punch back ten times harder." I think it is all bully swagger but I have no doubt he has made it his business to be as cruel and vindictive as possible because he has some idea this makes him Top Dog. Maybe he learned that in Military School.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:09 PM on July 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Josh Marshall at TPM, on the fundraising emails being received continuously (yeah, it's ongoing) by foreign legislators:

We know for a fact that [the Trump campaign] has and continues to spam members of Parliament in the UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland and Iceland and possibly others. So one of these completely preposterous set of facts has to be true. And here's where we get to coordination, which is a big no no. Given what I've said above, the existence of this list almost has to originate in Trump Derpland. A virtual certainty. So how did the same list end up in the hands of a Trump SuperPac?

Best hysterical detail: as of their last filing, the total budget of the "Crippled America PAC" was $40, total.
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:14 PM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


murphy slaw: ...a welcome note of encouragement in what has otherwise been an extremely disheartening political season.

I peruse a couple of conservative sites during Presidential election season (National Review and Hedgehog Report, mostly), and I've never seen "our candidate is a bad man" in previous elections. This year, though, it's a persistent refrain. It's not just "he's imperfect, but we have to support him," it's, "you people supporting Trump are supporting a bad man, and I cannot join you."
posted by clawsoon at 1:23 PM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


There's an MST3K short from the 50s, Junior Rodeo Daredevils or something like that, where the kids participate in a rodeo. What do they get in the end? "Prizes for winnin', and prizes for tryin'." Participation trophies are as old as humanity. Kids aren't any more coddled or any more entitled than kids of any other generation.
posted by dirigibleman at 1:26 PM on July 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


Election 2016: one of these completely preposterous set of facts has to be true
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:27 PM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump: Bill Clinton 'opened up a Pandora's box'
Bill Clinton "opened up a Pandora's box" when he met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch earlier this week on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport, Donald Trump said Friday [snip]"And as you know, Hillary is so guilty. She’s so guilty, I mean you can read ‘em off right here. And how that’s not being pursued properly and I think that he really — I think he really opened it up. He opened up a Pandora’s box, and it shows what’s going on, and it shows what’s happening with our laws and with our government," Trump continued. "But if you think that he just happened to be at the airport because nobody really — and he may have, honestly, he may have left and gone someplace, but it seems like he was talking about golf and grandchildren,"
OK I don't think he fully grasps the idea of a Pandora's box-- it is a weird analogy to use in this instance but what struck me was how he goes on to say
"I love my grandchildren so much. But if I talk about ‘em for more than nine or ten seconds, what are we? I love my grandchildren. I love that one, I love that one, I love, love, love that one," Trump said, mimicking pointing out individual grandchildren. "And look at the beautiful — I love these kids. After that, what are you going to say? Right? I love those kids. They’re the great — hey. I love my children. I love my children.”
Right there? That is proof he is not a Grandfather who loves his grandkids, rather he is a Narcissist who loves only what his grandkids can do for him. I know plenty of Grandparents who love their grandchildren and given a chance they will tell you anecdotes or wax lyrical about the latest achievement, etc. Narcissists on the other hand have no interest in kids as individuals but only in children as trophies or reflections. The only thing Trump can say about his grandkids is "I love that one and I really love that one." I feel sorry for those kids and for their parents. Growing up with a Narcissist is a terrible experience and damaging to the soul.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:27 PM on July 1, 2016 [33 favorites]


I do not think that these things are part of the zeitgeist for the generation who came behind me. I could be wrong - but I just don't see that sense of the necessity of struggle, that everything is going to be hard and hellish suffering and you might die anyway in failure for a tiny mistake. Which is darkly, morbidly, funny, almost, because I think if anything, those things apply more to them than to those of us who came into jobs in the nineties and early 00's. But they just don't have that attitude. They came into the plenty that either we or another generation provided for them - desperately, as measures of their success - and the idea that that our success, meager as it may be, was hard won does not really seem present in them. It's certainly not present in my daughter, a fact which drives me to despair on the regular.

I agree with this, and I feel like the message changed at some point, at least and especially for the middle class and above, from the "rat race" to something more like "yes, you absolutely need to work hard, but do that and you can get into a good college and get a decent job and you'll make it." It was "stay in school; get good grades" with a side order of "pursue your passions" and not "life is a bottomless pit of despair." And even then the low end of that threat was more like "or else you'll be working at McDonald's" and not "or you'll be sleeping in a refrigerator box on the street." And whether sending that message was a good idea or not is certainly debatable, but it's too late to go back on it now, and it seems unfair to blame millennials when we're the ones who were stupid enough to believe it, not the ones who spread it in the first place.

Because yes, people believed that message and acted accordingly. They got decent grades in high school, applied to a dozen colleges, took out several new cars worth of student loans, majored in something that seemed interesting, and find themselves at 25 still living in their parents' house with a massive amount of debt. And of course, when they ask why they seem to be getting a raw deal, they're told they're whiny entitled brats and don't deserve anything just for being born. And while that's a valid worldview too, it's not the one people were raised on, and that really only hits you when you're in tears comparing and contrasting the Sesame Street of your youth with the more crushing realism of Avenue Q.

And that's where the generational tension comes in. Because it becomes easy for young folks to start looking around and start resenting an older generation. An older generation who won't retire to make room for anybody else (yes, yes, I get it, your retirement accounts were completely shot to hell in the recession. And then we respond by asking what does the retirement account of the average 28-year-old look like, and the discussion goes nowhere); who younger workers pay an enormous amount in taxes to keep in house and health (yep, you earned that and are entitled to it too, I fully agree. Which is why I get more than a little ticked off every time a politician stands up and announces that younger workers can't have the same deal); who vote overwhelmingly for things like Brexit and tax cuts for the wealthy that young people don't want (yes, older voters have just as right to vote as anybody else, but the consequences are different for different people); who are so frequently a drag on the kinds of equality and civil rights that young people generally think should be a given (yes, not all boomers, I know); who seem to suck up all the wealth in western countries; who are suddenly concerned about massive government deficits we didn't run up in the first place.

And are all of those complaints fair? Not really. But to the extent there is some validity behind them, having the same older people responsible for the situation we're in spend most of their time calling millennials names instead of acknowledging the system they built, born as it was out of the dreams and optimism of the counterculture and the protests, and the ways in which it has not fulfilled its promises to their children and grandchildren is a rather big slap in the face.

And participation trophies are the easy target. Because they say 'everyone is valuable!' and that is not a lesson we grew up valuing or believing in. And the shit economy, in many ways, is reinforcing that for us - is telling us that we were right to fear collapse at a single wrong turn.

And I think this is where we get the two different worldviews. Because a lot of people were raised to believe that "everyone is valuable." Not in a ridiculous "everyone should be able to walk into any company and be made the CEO by lunchtime" sense, but in the sense that everyone has an inherent dignity and that, in one of the wealthiest countries on earth, people shouldn't starve or be left on the streets with untreated festering wounds. And yes, on the flipside, that everyone is able to contribute something to society as well. And that gets down to the weird feelings Americans have about charity, that the community should theoretically take care of each other, but that people should feel suitably bad about being helped, lest they look entitled.

So I'm not sure. Could attacking participation trophies really just be a more polite way of attacking allegedly lazy people on food stamps or Medicaid? Because at the end of the day, it does come back to a difference in what we believe people are entitled to.
posted by zachlipton at 1:28 PM on July 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


The specific language of a first-day policy agenda, as opposed to first-week or "as soon as I can responsibly get something out the door" is an oft-invoked campaign promise that is always overpromising.

You can doubt all you want, but I know, I know that on her very first day in office Clinton will completely fund the National Institute of The Toast. Just as she promised.

She did promise, right? Right? Hello?
posted by happyroach at 1:28 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Two things that have always amazed me about this anti-participation trophy rant people are on:

1. Many of them are near my age. And we got participation trophies (and ribbons) in the late 70s/early 80s. Or even participation ribbons. So if this is such a problem for kids, isn't it our generation that's the damaged one?

2. Many of them do these anti-participation rants while accepting whatever swag they get from the 5k they ran last weekend, including the t-shirt showing they participated. You know, an award for showing up and rambling through 5000 meters but probably finishing 2500th out of a 4000 person race.
posted by dw at 1:34 PM on July 1, 2016 [24 favorites]




The most fervent Sanders supporter in my Facebook feed
Am I the only one who is tired of hearing the latest from everyone else's BernieBro friends?
posted by soelo at 1:37 PM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm certainly tired of hearing from my BernieBro friends, which is why I unfollowed almost all of them.
posted by dersins at 1:39 PM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Varsity letters—being worn proudly on jackets, in the sepia constructed memories of when America was Great—are mere participation awards.

Also, some percentage of the function of most participation awards is so that you have something to prove to your parents you were actually At The Thing In Question, and didn't just sneak off to smoke cigarettes and throw rocks at the backs of buildings.

A lot of people are brought up to believe in the mercilessness of the world. It's interesting, though, how so many conservatives actually need it to exist. They worked 'so hard' to win the rat race; if the losers don't suffer, then what was it all for?
posted by nom de poop at 1:45 PM on July 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


Hillary Clinton is the victim of a 25-year campaign to impugn her character. Donald Trump is the beneficiary of a 40-year PR campaign on his behalf. (There is no greater example of someone who got all the trophies for just showing up than Child of the 50s Donald J. Trump, but that was also a benefit of daddy's money) In spite of that, Donald's negatives are still worse than Hillary's. As much as I admire corb's courage, I have to wish her no success in trying to wrest control of the GOP from the Trumpster Fire; recent polls show that if Kasich or Ryan were to replace him as nominee, Clinton would be at best running neck-and-neck. On the other hand, if Hillary were replaced by Generic Democrat Working the Same Platform, the lack of baggage would give him (if it's a him) a good shot at a 50-state sweep, and her (if it's a her) at least a more comfortable lead.

And I hate to tell some of you this, but if you're looking for "who would be the equivalent of Trump for the Democrats", in the last month, Bernie has turned himself into something WAY TOO close. But also remember, Kanye West has declared his intent to run in 2020. Now I consider Kant-ye to be highly overrated, but he has some identifiable talent at some things, so even he is not a perfect match.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:47 PM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Hey guys maybe when Trump says he likes waterboarding he means this but he's so confused and inarticulate he can't remember what it's called.
posted by stolyarova at 1:57 PM on July 1, 2016


Our Sovereign Father, Donald Trump
At the heart of liberal democracy lies a central paradox: to be a free individual, a free citizen, a constitutive part of the people, requires an act or process of subjection in order to be constituted as a subject. Subjection always resides, in some capacity, in the concept of sovereignty, yet it always seems repressed in the elision of democracy, popular sovereignty, and freedom. Why does Donald Trump seem to effectively embody this repressed sovereign authority now? If rational engagement with the Trump phenomenon yields little results, it might well be because his appeal lives in registers beyond the rational, beyond the conscious. It may just be that Trump figures himself as the primal father, “a violent and jealous father,” as Freud put it in Totem and Taboo, “who keeps all the females for himself and drives away his sons as they grow up.” Trump’s appeal to the populace lies not in rationality but in a desire to be subjected — a masochistic attachment to an arbitrary, narcissistic, sovereign father.
In defending his policies, as he did after Orlando, Trump likes to say, “We have no choice.” He’s wrong. - "Trump has invoked choicelessness to explain everything from why he will build a wall on the border with Mexico to why he talked about his anatomy during a Republican primary debate. The phrase is a dismissal of rational discussion and an intimation of the doom that awaits if Trump is not heeded. In his recent book, “Crippled America,” he said of his decision to run for the White House, “I had no choice. I see what’s happening to our country; it’s going to hell.”"
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:00 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't think he fully grasps the idea of a Pandora's box-- it is a weird analogy to use in this instance

Oh absolutely 100% chance he overheard someone using the phrase "Pandora's box" probably in re: Brexit and thought "ooh sounds scary will use it next time I talk about a Clinton".
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:08 PM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I realize Kanye has made some noise about running for president but it'd be cool to not draft him as the stand-in for Trump of the Left unless/until he starts advocating for torture, war crimes, and turning huge categories of his fellow Americans into second-class citizens
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:09 PM on July 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


DNC Platform Draft

Interesting language highlights for me:

We believe that Americans should earn at least $15 an hour and have the right to form or join a union
...
These are the standards Democrats believe must be applied to any future trade agreements. On
the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), there are a diversity of views in the party. Many Democrats
are on record stating that the agreement does not meet the standards set out in this platform;
other Democrats have expressed support for the agreement. But all Democrats believe that any
trade agreement must protect workers and the environment and not undermine access to
critically-needed prescription drugs.
....
LGBT kids continue to be bullied at school, a restaurant can refuse to serve a transgender person, and a same-sex couple is at risk of being evicted from their home. That is unacceptable and must change.

posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:10 PM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


“I had no choice. I see what’s happening to our country; it’s going to hell.”

tl;dr: "The woman made me do it."
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:16 PM on July 1, 2016


So in Interesting Facts From The RNC, we are being told that delegates who "refuse to support the nominee" after a nominee is selected will be decredentialed. I'm hoping for a win, of course, but also prepping in case we're all thrown out to Trump's Brownshirts early. THIS ELECTION YOU GUYS.
posted by corb at 2:44 PM on July 1, 2016 [30 favorites]


Is there anything required of a delegate after the nominee is selected? Or is this about not booing/protesting?
posted by soelo at 2:51 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


corb: So in Interesting Facts From The RNC, we are being told that delegates who "refuse to support the nominee" after a nominee is selected will be decredentialed.

Since you're all there together anyway, how about just, y'know, starting a new party right then and there?
posted by clawsoon at 2:56 PM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]




Is there anything required of a delegate after the nominee is selected? Or is this about not booing/protesting?

Little of column A, a little of column B. Remember, no one is bound on the VP vote. Delegates could in theory block votes until the convention ran out of time.
posted by corb at 3:21 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bring an extra battery pack and a charger for your phone and wear something cool and very comfortable (from state convention experience). It'll be hot, it'll be loud, and there will never be enough outlets.
posted by stolyarova at 3:23 PM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Delegates could in theory block votes until the convention ran out of time.

That would be ironic.
posted by clawsoon at 3:23 PM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Could attacking participation trophies really just be a more polite way of attacking allegedly lazy people on food stamps or Medicaid?

I think a lot of what we're seeing this election year is the discomfort of many white people and many men confronting the possibility that no, they didn't hit a triple, they were born on third.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 3:28 PM on July 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


In other OTHER hilarious RNC news, I just got some hate mail that starts "You ignorant fuckheads will be what destroys the repugnant party" and includes a reference to having "voted repugnant all my life" before moving on to the usual threats.

Yeah, buddy, if Trump is any example, I'm kind of sure you have!
posted by corb at 3:38 PM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Actually, I have to say - you know, I think I've been insulated from a lot of these Republicans, as have many others of my ilk, and that's why I thought the party was more civil and welcoming. Turns out a goodly number were just waiting for us to step outside the lines before telling us we would "have to go back." Even if we do defeat Trump, I think there is going to need to be a reckoning in the Republican Party. I don't know if I'll have the heart to lead it after this fight, but if it doesn't get done, I think a lot of us are going to quietly walk.
posted by corb at 3:43 PM on July 1, 2016 [27 favorites]


When I put food on the table for my daughter, I expect her - every time, ridiculously - to be grateful that she's eating, because I saw people of my generation starving. Because I myself have starved. Even if it's rice and beans, I expect her to be grateful. I remember the gnawing feeling of hunger and I am grateful every time I can put a meal together. Even though this is not really a deep concern on a daily basis, I still feel it. And she's not grateful. And she's not in part because I've been very careful not to let her starve, and others of my generation have been really careful not to let their kids starve, and societally we've been careful not to let people starve. And that's even a good thing! But I look out on the society she's growing up into and think - but what will she do? How will she eat if she wants everything to be fancy and nice?

I want to come back to this because I think it's significant. Someone who grew up with hunger and is now doing much better for themselves, gone on to have a family and kids and all the hopes and dreams for their future that come along with that, can seemingly take away two different lessons from that experience, or perhaps both at the same time:
  1. Let's work together as a society so people don't have to starve, whether or not they "deserve" help or whatever led them to the place they're in
  2. I struggled and that helped make me who I am, so people now are ungrateful if they don't starve
Maybe I'm mischaracterizing #2, because that's honestly not really my life, and I am, in a general sense, grateful for that. But it feels likes we hear variants of #2 a lot more than #1. Why is the inherent reaction to "people of my generation [were] starving" not "and now I want something better for the next generation, so we're going to try to organize better ways to make sure that doesn't happen anymore?" And it's not just hunger of course; we can ask the same questions about access to education or health care too. And the funny thing is that we see an awful lot of people espousing views like #2 who didn't necessarily struggle like that, many who were born with a number of advantages and/or simply got lucky.

To put it another way, you look at your daughter and are worried about how she will grow up in a society where fewer people will starve, how not being grateful for not starving will lead to a different outlook than yours or an inability to compete in a harsh and competitive world. I look at her (well, not her, because that's creepy, but generic her) and wonder what she'll and her generation be able to achieve together in a society where fewer people will be starving.
posted by zachlipton at 3:48 PM on July 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


2. I struggled and that helped make me who I am, so people now are ungrateful if they don't starve

I think there can be quite a bit of "people need a fire under them to survive, we are doing them a great disservice by letting them become reliant on support systems they won't always be able to count on" in #2, if we're going to give it the full good-faith treatment.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:52 PM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]




I think there can be quite a bit of "people need a fire under them to survive, we are doing them a great disservice by letting them become reliant on support systems they won't always be able to count on" in #2, if we're going to give it the full good-faith treatment.

That's probably a better way of putting it. I don't want to be overly strawmanish, but it's also not a perspective I've particularly wrapped my head around, so it's hard for me to succinctly paraphrase.
posted by zachlipton at 4:03 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


So, from the Millennial perspective, I have to say that not only did I not starve (and was not expected to demonstrate gratitude for that), my parents -- who are typical American-born Boomers -- did not starve. And I've never noticed in them the idea that they are supremely grateful for that.

My grandparents, who were all children during the Depression, did know deprivation, and possibly hunger at times. And you know what? They also don't understand the concept of disposable cups and plates. I don't want to call them irrelevant, because they're my grandparents and I love them, but their experience certainly doesn't represent the mainstream of modern America.

I'm not sure that "literally starved during childhood" can be assumed to be a basic experience of most Americans except for those entitled Millennials with their snapchats and their selfie sticks.
posted by Sara C. at 4:03 PM on July 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


Yeah, I'm with Sara C.: my parents didn't have particularly privileged Boomer childhoods, but I don't think they ever actually went hungry. My grandparents did, but one set of them were the kind of people who voted Democrat until the day they died because FDR, and the other set were Revolutionary Socialists. I realize that my Revolutionary Socialist grandparents were outliers to US political culture in many ways, but I would actually be a little surprised if there were a positive correlation in the US electorate between the experience of childhood hunger and voting Republican.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:29 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


You guys: Dolly Parton has endorsed Hillary. I was having a bad day, but now it is perfect.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:35 PM on July 1, 2016 [36 favorites]



it doesn't sound like any of these bands are connected with the RNC or Trump, they just seem to be booked to play in Cleveland while the convention is going on.


Eh, I suspect most if not all of these are connected to the RNC - a quick poke at some of the bands' websites shows a distinct lack of public shows July 19-21, even if they're on tour on surrounding dates. "Third-party groups" most likely means big corporations paying big bucks for the acts to perform for various groups of delegates.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:35 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sara C.: And you know what? They also don't understand the concept of disposable cups and plates.

I remember the first time I saw disposable wet wipes. I was only a kid, but I knew that they were a ridiculous, over-the-top luxury.

Where you grow up poor makes a difference, I think, for a bunch of reasons. Going on strike, holding a protest march, having a sit-in - all the machinery of collective action - doesn't work very well in rural areas (other than mining and factory towns). You just can't get enough people together in one place.

And self-reliance is a much more directly important life skill in rural areas. If you're starving, there's not going to be a soup kitchen within walking distance. If you've hurt yourself, you need to know how to get home on your own; there's no crowd to see you stumble and fall and call an ambulance for you.

It's not that farmers have never been collectivist or socialist - here in Canada we've had the CCF, the various United Farmers governments, and movements going back to at least the Children of Peace - but there are features of rural life, especially homesteading life, which reward habits of self-reliance in a way that city life rarely does.

The red state/blue state maps obscure an obvious fact about U.S. politics: Cities are red, rural areas are blue, and suburbs are purple.
posted by clawsoon at 5:17 PM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I just think it's weird to assume everyone should grow up poor, and to always have enough is a bad thing that people should feel ashamed of.
posted by Sara C. at 5:23 PM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Cities are red, rural areas are blue, and suburbs are purple.

Wait - I think you mean Cities are blue, rural areas are red, right?
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:24 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wait - I think you mean Cities are blue, rural areas are red, right?

Ah, yes. I was just automatically returning to the colour scheme that EVERYBODY ELSE HAS BEEN USING FOR TWO HUNDRED YEARS GODDAMMIT WHY DID YOU NEED TO CHANGE IT NOW?? Thanks for the correction.
posted by clawsoon at 5:31 PM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Liberals aren't reds, no matter what certain people would have you believe.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:40 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


They're red in Canada. :-P
posted by clawsoon at 5:48 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


They're red in Canada. :-P

In the US they used to alternate (Red was associated with communism, so the networks spread the pain) until the Bush/Gore election nailbiter cemented the color scheme in people's minds.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:25 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Was it really that recent? I have a horrible memory etched into my brain of my first election as a voter (absentee, from college): the entire US map was red, with just a Minnesota-shaped blotch of blue in the upper middle.
So, that was a long time ago. I wasn't in the US again for an election until 2004, though, so I guess I missed all the in-between vacillations.
posted by Superplin at 6:41 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


the entire US map was red, with just a Minnesota-shaped blotch of blue in the upper middle.

Ah, '84. Apparently Republican operatives thought they could challenge that but Reagan shut them down, conceding Mondale his home state.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:59 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Speaking of Red/Blue, Marvel's latest version of their Avengers teams (how many have they had so far, 15? 20?) will be a VERY patriotic post "Civil War II" alliance called the U.S.Avengers, and will feature... Red Hulk (wearing white and blue shorts). So Red is now totally American (when properly accented). It also includes a more serious Squirrel Girl in red instead of brown (what? you never heard of red squirrels?), some 'multi-ethnic' heroes, at least one from the future when 'multi-ethnic' is not an issue, and its leader will be Roberto deCosta, a Brazilian-born naturalized American mutant billionaire (NOT kidding). The author is British but openly anti-Brexit and promises his U.S.Avengers will coordinate their efforts with the President, whoever it is (the comic's first issue is a month before the election, so expect an Obama cameo... like Marvel has done before). Anyway, the Red Hulk is now All-American (no word on She-Hulk).
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:55 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Hopefully the December issue will not feature The Incredible Trump
posted by ian1977 at 8:00 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, from the Pesky Whipper-Snapper perspective, I have to say that not only did I not starve (and was not expected to demonstrate gratitude for that), my parents -- who are typical American-born Boomers -- did not starve. And I've never noticed in them the idea that they are supremely grateful for that.

My boomer-age mom did starve growing up, and she very explicitly wanted me to grow up knowing that there would always be food on the table. I did. I've always known that I had support, that I had (not wealthy, but infinitely generous) parents. I was born unbelievably lucky, as as a child I never really viscerally knew that there were any other options. And you know what? I have a terminal degree in a technical field and am still literally terrified of student loans and not being able to find a job. The pesky whipper-snappers I know aren't reckless or entitled, we're utterly terrified. So, corb, your daughter's lack of gratitude might worry you now, but remember that she lives in a social world of utterly terrified peers, and she isn't going to glide blissfully into ruin. We never said thanks for feeding us, but we're deeply, deeply grateful for the years of real childhood we had the privilege of experiencing before we had to grow up and deal with this shitshow.
posted by you're a kitty! at 8:03 PM on July 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


And you know what? They also don't understand the concept of disposable cups and plates.

Me neither.
posted by bongo_x at 9:32 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's pretty simple really. It's a plate or cup (or even a bowl!) that's made out of paper or plastic and when you're done you Wad it up and cram it in in a dolphins blow hole. No fuss no muss. Super convenient.
posted by ian1977 at 10:09 PM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


landfilling paper plates sequesters carbon, so it's green
posted by ryanrs at 10:37 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well what do you do with the dolphins?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:49 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


landfilling dolphins also sequesters carbon
posted by ryanrs at 10:55 PM on July 1, 2016 [33 favorites]


landfilling dolphins also sequesters carbon

For some reason this reminds me of the joke about why elephants have flat feet.
posted by bardophile at 12:09 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


This article is well worth a read, imo:

Hillary Clinton was the force behind a little-known breakthrough in transgender rights. So why doesn’t she talk about it?

But five years before the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and President Obama lit up the White House in the colors of the rainbow, Hillary Clinton and her staff at the State Department made a change that for thousands of people was exactly that—revolutionary. Clinton enacted a new rule making it easier for transgender people to register their identities on their passports. Sexual reassignment surgery was no longer necessary; all that was required was a doctor’s note. At the time, this was the most pro-transgender action by the federal government ever, and—coming a full six years before the Pentagon announced transgender troops could serve openly—it stands as one of the most progressive things Clinton has ever done. In a single stroke, she made the passport the best way—for some, the only way—for American citizens to prove they were who they were. For transgender people, it was—according to recent conversations I have had with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender experts and advocates—“huge,” “enormous,” “monumental.”

posted by madamjujujive at 5:00 AM on July 2, 2016 [46 favorites]


Mark Salter, the former chief of staff to Sen. John McCain, endorses Hillary for president. Go read it, it's a great take down of the orange one.
posted by octothorpe at 5:31 AM on July 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


madamjujujive: That's a great piece. It really captures the tightrope walk she is constantly doing.
posted by bardophile at 5:55 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


octothorpe- omg that article writer says Obama is 'the worst foreign policy president in his lifetime.' I guess he must be less than eight years old.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:04 AM on July 2, 2016 [22 favorites]


I guess I skimmed over the part about Obama. Sorry.
posted by octothorpe at 6:13 AM on July 2, 2016


If ever a "don't read the comments" rule applied, it's on that Politico piece about Clinton's passport rule. Oof.
posted by Superplin at 6:49 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Don't apologize -- the point isn't that John McCain's campaign chief of staff agrees with metafilter on foreign policy, it's that intelligent people across the political spectrum are united in the belief that Donald Trump is a walking disaster.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:51 AM on July 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


Salter's piece reminds me that back when the field was a bit wider, I had a sort of mental ranking of the candidates not on desirability, but on bare competence. Not on the question of "how satisfactory would I find this person in their policies and practices?" but on the much simpler and at least theoretically nonpartisan one of "how suitable is this person, in experience and ability, to discharge the duties of the supreme executive position in the US?" There seemed to be basically 4 strata in my mind:

* Completely on top of things: Clinton. No two ways about it, she's seen the ins and outs of Washington from a lot of angles and knows how to work it. Of all the objections that have ever been raised about her, pretty much nobody has ever claimed that she doesn't know what she's doing or lacks the will or expertise to do it.

* Gets it pretty well: Kasich, Johnson, and if you want to be charitable Sanders. The former two have shown their mettle as government executives on a smaller scale, and Bernie's been around a lot.

* Could muddle their way through: Rubio, Sanders if you don't actually trust his experience, and Cruz if you're very charitable. They're all conversant with how the system works, although Cruz never seems to have quite wrapped his head about how to work within it.

* Would not really function at all: probably Cruz, definitely Fiorina, Carson, and Trump. Fiorina at least seems to give a damn about how government works, although she doesn't seem to have built any coherent plan about what she would do as part of that system. Carson and Trump seem to have an indomitably willful ignorance about what the President actually does, beyond get to sit in the Big Chair.

What I see of this in Salter's piece is its focus on competence. Heaven knows there are a lot of issues on which Trump has said things to alienate a lot of Americans, but subtract the issues and policies out and you've still got a problem and a half in that he straight up does not meet basic qualifications for the job, and in ways that should be evident regardless of where one stands ideologically.
posted by jackbishop at 7:13 AM on July 2, 2016 [24 favorites]


In fact, that's a good thing - he's saying that you can hold the standard-issue Republican view of Obama and still recognise Trump as a dangerous narcissist against whom Hillary is unquestionably the lesser of two evils. If he'd gone the full Pauline conversion, it'd be far easier for his natural allies to dismiss his stance altogether.

It's what's needed.
posted by Devonian at 7:16 AM on July 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


Obama would fall on tier 3 before being elected, though (not even one full term as Senator, some state legislative experience), so I'm not sure how useful that scale really is.
posted by indubitable at 7:28 AM on July 2, 2016




Trump has a fascinating new anti-Hillary ad that is, no joke, a picture of Hillary against a background of dollar bills, accompanied by a star of David with the words "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!" on it. Twitter is going nuts.

I almost think he's deliberately trolling us.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:48 AM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think he's confusing dog whistle with the Wanamaker Organ.
posted by Devonian at 7:52 AM on July 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


No, it's a sheriff's star; why do you people always bring race into these things. /s
posted by octothorpe at 8:57 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Holy shit, the antisemitism in that ad is palpable.

Short of putting a happy merchant meme character shaking hands with Clinton I don't know how you could get more antisemitic.

I mean maybe putting trump in front of a swastika.
posted by vuron at 9:00 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]




Someone got word to Ivanka, who isn't checking Twitter today because it's Shabbat?

I actually think it's a really effective dog-whistle, in that it's going to be heard by antisemites and by people who are tuned in to antisemitism, but it might fly right over the heads of people who don't fall into either category. And those folks in the middle might think this is another case of the liberal media playing the whatever card again, so our outrage actually plays into Trump's hand.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:13 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Republican women organize to support Clinton
"We can put our differences aside to have a safer option that's better for the country as a whole," Milloy said. "The fear of Donald Trump is, to me, more than the fear of Hillary raising capital standards on banks."
posted by zakur at 9:14 AM on July 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


I do actually think it's possible that someone just used whatever star brush in Photoshop without putting a moment's thought into it. But even if you are generous and give them that, it's still astonishingly stupid for no one to have thought of or noticed the fact that it looks like a star of david. So even the best-case scenario here is pretty damn bad.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:21 AM on July 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


speaking of photoshop incompetence: "Good job ALMOST covering the points from the star, @realDonaldTrump!"
posted by twist my arm at 9:25 AM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


i mean i'd give a 0% chance to oblivious mistake, based on his past history, but even if you're going to be generous you'd have to dismiss the credibility of a candidate based just on the fact that a star of david is a literally terrible shape for a text bubble, practically speaking.
posted by you're a kitty! at 9:26 AM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]




Also I feel like my response to a smiling hillary in front of lots of money is like, hell yeah we're kicking your ass at fundraising
posted by you're a kitty! at 9:27 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Given that it's a campaign built on race hate and backed heavily by anti-semitic alt-righters, he gets no leeway on this whatsoever.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:28 AM on July 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


So even the best-case scenario here is pretty damn bad.

Exactly. Even if it's not "Hi, I'm deliberately employing some awful antisemitic tropes," it's "Hi, I'm running for the highest office in the land and I don't have a team that is even halfway competent at their jobs."

No wonder so many Republicans are jumping ship and being vocal about it. The ones who would be okay with the dog whistles have no stomach for rank incompetence.
posted by Salieri at 9:29 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


It might just have been obliviousness but if it was, is just shows how totally inept Trump's campaign is. There's wasn't anyone in charge with enough of a clue to know how that was going to be interpreted? Or is there no one in charge at all?
posted by octothorpe at 9:32 AM on July 2, 2016


Earlier we discussed a Reuters article about the racial attitudes of the supporters of various presidential candates. (Trump's were of course the worse.)

I was bothered by the fact that, even though the story mentions polling Sanders supporters, they posted no results from them, even in the infographic. Upset enough that I tracked down the email address for feedback and sent them a note.

Amazingly, Reuters not only responded with an apologetic email within two days, they issued a new story with the Sanders supporters' opinions. (Spoiler: least racist of all candidates.)
posted by msalt at 9:35 AM on July 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


how is this not a major headline

jesus.
posted by you're a kitty! at 9:36 AM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Because there's virtually no way to fair and balance it into acceptability?
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:45 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Remember when candidates had gaffes that news people would get upset about?
posted by octothorpe at 9:47 AM on July 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Buzzfeed and some other MSM have picked it up now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:51 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Surely this...
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:54 AM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Lets take the high road here for just a second. If it really was supposed to be a sheriff's badge then I'm not understanding the symbolism. Money background, Hillary Trump, "Most corrupt candidate ever!" inside a red "sheriff's star." That makes zero sense. Is the sheriff coming to arrest her? Is it a first place star for being most corrupt? Are sheriffs usually corrupt? I cannot make out the iconography unless it really is a star of David tied to money and corruption.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:15 AM on July 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Good God. I mean, Good. God. I’m willing to assume that sometimes an anti-semitic dog-whistle is you being just that mother-effin’ stupid, especially with that campaign. But for there to be no apology? No acknowledgement? NOTHING? I just, I can’t, I just, I can’t.

Holy Lord.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:24 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


There really is no playing it off.

It's a completely transparent dog whistle aimed at presenting "Shillary" as being completely corrupt because of course "Jews are in charge of Wall Street "

Or some similar dog whistle about Jews and corruption. But I guess it generates free publicity and Trump seems to think all publicity is good publicity.

That and some on the right will go "look at the SJWs go crazy with political correctness again".

If Trump is running for president he is doing a shit job but if he's aiming to legitimize hate speech he seems to be successful to a degree.

This is pretty much what happens when you apparently outsource your operation to alt-right The_Donald types.

The sheer incompetence at hiding their dog whistles is astounding.
posted by vuron at 10:26 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Joey Michaels: Surely this...

It's interesting that Trump's Judge Curiel comments turned out to be the actual, honest-to-goodness "this" in the campaign. That was the "he really is a racist and I can't support him" moment for many of the Republican writers/bloggers/commenters I've been reading.

I guess they dismissed his earlier comments about Mexicans and Muslims as mere class-ism, or mere culture-ism. They gave him the benefit of the doubt, since "we're not racist, we just think their culture is bad" has been seen as a legitimate argument in conservative circles for a long time.

But Judge Curiel can't be dismissed by conservatives for his lesser culture, or his lesser class, or his lesser religion. It's as if Trump wanted to make his racism as clear as possible by ruling out any possible good faith reasoning they might've cared to apply.
posted by clawsoon at 10:29 AM on July 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


On the other hand, has Trump got a visual design staff, or an intern with PowerPoint who if asked would say that Shoah was an anime character?

It's impossible without other information to decide whether this was a grotesque bit of demagoguery or sheer incompetence caused by a complete lack of grown-ups.
posted by Devonian at 10:30 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]




It's impossible without other information to decide whether this was a grotesque bit of demagoguery or sheer incompetence caused by a complete lack of grown-ups.

Yes, but incompetence at that level demands acknowledgement, not just deletion. A hundred times more so, given Trump’s past statements. We won’t get it, of course. But that lack should end his campaign. It won’t. But it should.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:41 AM on July 2, 2016


This is a cool article that will make you happy.

Mr. Love recalls getting an email after 1 a.m. after Mr. Obama saw a television report about students whose “bucket list” included meeting the president. Why had he not met them, the president asked Mr. Love.

“‘Someone decided it wasn’t a good idea,’ I said,” Mr. Love recalled. “He said, ‘Well, I’m the president and I think it’s a good idea.’”

posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:45 AM on July 2, 2016 [22 favorites]


No you don't get to pal around with the alternative right which is incredibly infused with antisemitism and then go lol didn't know what we were doing.

Benefit of the doubt is something I will give to people who are generally well meaning and who just might not understand the poo that they might have just stepped into.

Trump is not remotely worthwhile giving the benefit of the doubt to.
posted by vuron at 10:47 AM on July 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


No you don't get to pal around with the alternative right which is incredibly infused with antisemitism and then go lol didn't know what we were doing.

If Trump addresses this forthrightly at all, he will deny anti-Semitism, and he will completely believe himself. Look at his daughter and son-in-law, he will say!

Nobody and nothing exists to someone like Trump except insofar as they serve his purposes. He talked happily about how he wanted guys in yarmulkes to count his money, because, as he was taught to believe, they are the best at it. He accepted a Jewish son-in-law, because his family is rich and powerful, and that is what he wants: wealth and power. Now what he wants is to win this election, so he's using the anti-Semitism of the people who have flocked to his banner, because they appear to be the key to what he wants.

This is absolutely and entirely as dangerous as being a true believer. Gasoline doesn't care whether you're lighting matches around it for fun or for arson.
posted by Countess Elena at 10:54 AM on July 2, 2016 [25 favorites]


Maybe he'll tweet a picture of himself eating lox on a bagel with cream cheese, subtitled "I love the Jews! The best Jews make my bagels at the Trump Grill!"
posted by stolyarova at 10:58 AM on July 2, 2016 [25 favorites]


I almost think he's deliberately trolling us.

This is the position of perhaps 10% of the Republican Party right now. Because how could anyone seriously be that bad without trying?
posted by corb at 11:01 AM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Maybe he'll tweet a picture of himself eating lox on a bagel with cream cheese, subtitled "I love the Jews! The best Jews make my bagels at the Trump Grill!"

If it was Trump it'd be bacon for sure.
posted by Talez at 11:02 AM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


A ham and cheese bagel breakfast sandwich. With a glass of milk on the side.
posted by stolyarova at 11:05 AM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


For reasons a lot of people have gone into, it's not clear that Trump actually wants to be president. But there've got to be less destructive ways of surreptitiously sabotaging your own campaign.
posted by jackbishop at 11:06 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I have a horrible suspicion he's trying to chase a long tail into being a hero for the disaffected alt-right, such that they will buy whatever he sells and trust him, while he sits on a pile of minority-hating money and laughs.
posted by corb at 11:12 AM on July 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


"The Jews love me! I have Jew lawyer and a Jew accountant and a Jew son in law"

I expect the most tone deaf response seen since the 50s.
posted by vuron at 11:15 AM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yeah, of course Trump cannot say sorry, so it doesn't really matter what happened. Doubtless it'll be in a few post-election teardowns.

Can anyone point me at one aspect of the Trumpaign that's going well for him?
posted by Devonian at 11:20 AM on July 2, 2016


I don't think Trump wants to do the work of the Presidency. I just think he wants to win, to be the man who wins at winning and makes losers lose. It's possible he will weasel out of this election, as somebody mentioned, without compromising his winningness, but who can say?

The creepiest Trump ad I have personally seen was a simple Facebook picture of an ivory-pink newborn baby asleep on a rumpled American flag. It was a pixelated pic with a further pixelated Arial slogan atop it: VOTE TO SECURE MY FUTURE. TRUMP 2016.

The dogwhistle made my ears hurt. I continue to follow this person on Facebook, because she is kin to me. If I unfollow my relatives, or people who displease me, what is to prevent me from becoming that apocryphal NYC woman who said she didn't know how anyone could have voted for Nixon? (Of course I can't stop my Trump-loving relatives from dropping me. I'm mighty nice about it, but it seems I dropped one too many Snopes links for my esteemed cousin-german.)
posted by Countess Elena at 11:21 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Dang, I am firmly wedged between Hanlon's and Occam's razors on this one.

On the one hand, incompetence trumps (cough) malice.
On the other hand, the simplest explanation is malice.
posted by murphy slaw at 11:24 AM on July 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


Welp, someone told him it was offensive.

So he ditches the Star of David but adds an #Americafirst hashtag.

It's like he can't help himself, except it's almost certainly on purpose.
posted by dersins at 11:26 AM on July 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


The creepiest Trump ad I have personally seen was a simple Facebook picture of an ivory-pink newborn baby asleep on a rumpled American flag. It was a pixelated pic with a further pixelated Arial slogan atop it: VOTE TO SECURE MY FUTURE. TRUMP 2016.

Huh, usually that has 14 words.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:26 AM on July 2, 2016 [25 favorites]


Meanwhile, Hillary's interview with the FBI signals that the emails probe is nearly done.

Can anyone hep to these kinds of investigations estimate how long before they announce the decision? A week? Two weeks? A month?
posted by msalt at 11:29 AM on July 2, 2016


Yeah just like the cinco de mayo tweet. He knew. He knows. He's a troll.
posted by ian1977 at 11:30 AM on July 2, 2016


Huh, usually that has 14 words.

I had to use the googles to understand that reference.

And just when I thought I'd hit peak appalled. It's going to be a really fucking ugly four months.
posted by dersins at 11:30 AM on July 2, 2016 [17 favorites]


I am reminded of an episode of WKRP in Cincinnati called "Carlson for President." For reasons I can't recall, Mr. Carlson gets way ahead in an election and decides to throw the race by deliberately insulting voters. Unlike in reality, this succeeds in destroying his campaign.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:31 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just think he wants to win, to be the man who wins at winning and makes losers lose.

"We will have so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with the winning. Believe me, I agree, you'll never get bored with winning. We never get bored. We are going to turn this country around." - Donald Trump, noted crazy person, making a bold statement, then agreeing with his own statement, then contradicting it, all within two sentences
posted by zakur at 11:31 AM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump must be the worst orator ever to win the nomination of a major party in the U.S., right? I mean, he must be.
posted by murphy slaw at 11:35 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I dunno Murphy. I think he is the equivalent of oratory antimatter. He is like a Lewis Carrol character.
posted by ian1977 at 11:38 AM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


So he ditches the Star of David but adds an #Americafirst hashtag.

You can still see a few points of the star poking out from under the circle. I would call that a Photoshop fail, but something makes me think his campaign is using MS Paint.
posted by zakur at 11:41 AM on July 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I am reminded of an episode of WKRP in Cincinnati called "Carlson for President." For reasons I can't recall, Mr. Carlson gets way ahead in an election and decides to throw the race by deliberately insulting voters. Unlike in reality, this succeeds in destroying his campaign.

Yeah, this is more of a 'The Producers' situation
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:43 AM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Much of the time I dismiss Trump as laughable. But then stuff like this ad freaks me out and I start having anxiety attacks about the kind of America he is shaping for my little nieces and nephews.
posted by bardophile at 11:49 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I would call that a Photoshop fail, but something makes me think his campaign is using MS Paint.

I like to think that the Trump campaign built out a $500,000 Flame suite to keep their quality compositing work in-house.
posted by dersins at 11:52 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


oratory antimatter
This fits right in with my "Trump Is Secretly from Bizarro World" theory.

"Me unmake America worst again! No vote Me!"
posted by murphy slaw at 11:56 AM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


I would call that a Photoshop fail, but something makes me think his campaign is using MS Paint.

That is straight up PowerPoint. Beyond the casual anti-Semitism that is what most strikes me about this. The best they could come up with on staff was someone with meager PowerPoint skills and that's it.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:03 PM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


And purposefully left the star points in there. It's not a dog whistle it's a dog radio station.
posted by ian1977 at 12:06 PM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]




I finally found that meme. I have to say I did get the wording wrong (it doesn't say "secure") but I sure as hell pick up the message anyway.
posted by Countess Elena at 12:10 PM on July 2, 2016


Based upon current polling and the fact that Clinton is apparently turning states like Arizona and Georgia into battleground and there is even polling that suggests she's within striking distance of Trump in Mississippi and South Carolina I'm becoming less and less concerned with a Trump Presidency which was always a long shot even if he was able to run a competent campaign (he's not).

It's just that he's emboldening a pretty numerous percentage of Americans to engage in all sorts of extremely destructive discourse in an open manner. Yeah it's nice to know who you need to remove from your Facebook feed because they are a fucking loon but it's a whole other issue to work in a workplace where instead of hiding the hatred behind faux gentility there are people that feel like they are free to engage in all sorts of hate speech because Trump is pushing back against PC.

I'm starting to get people that I thought we reasonably liberal or at least pro-labor start to spout all sorts of crazy right wing talking points about political correctness. This is contributing to my fears that the right will continue to work to divide people based upon race/religion/sexuality/gender/etc as a way to keep us operating in tribal states rather than using collective solidarity to advance civil rights and equal justice on a broad variety of issues. I see it increasingly in regards to people on the left that think everything boils down to economic issues despite evidence of differential outcomes based upon a host of other factors. But if you try to talk along the lines of intersectionality even some people on the left will engage in silencing tactics or they will stand by idly when you get smeared with labels of "SJW" or "tumblrite".
posted by vuron at 12:30 PM on July 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


> Speaking of Red/Blue, Marvel's latest version of their Avengers teams...

> Hopefully the December issue will not feature The Incredible Trump

Well, M.O.D.A.A.K. is an existing character...
posted by Fiberoptic Zebroid and The Hypnagogic Jerks at 12:40 PM on July 2, 2016




Kasich is not going to the convention. Think about that. The republican governor of the state where the republican convention is being held, isn't invited.
posted by octothorpe at 1:25 PM on July 2, 2016 [19 favorites]


To be fair, when I went to the Bernie rally there were no chairs. We were promised free education, universal health care, but not a chair to be seen. After all the hours I waited in line, I think I might have switched to Trump if he was out on the sidewalk yelling "We've got chairs!"
posted by honestcoyote at 1:28 PM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's just that he's emboldening a pretty numerous percentage of Americans to engage in all sorts of extremely destructive discourse in an open manner. Yeah it's nice to know who you need to remove from your Facebook feed because they are a fucking loon but it's a whole other issue to work in a workplace where instead of hiding the hatred behind faux gentility there are people that feel like they are free to engage in all sorts of hate speech because Trump is pushing back against PC.

Trump is not some shocking new development. For some of us, the destructive discourse has been right out in the open all along. It's pretty disheartening that it takes this cartoonish level of bigotry to get everyone else to take their heads out of the sand.
posted by billyfleetwood at 1:32 PM on July 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


From Octothorpe's link:
It's highly unusual for the governor to skip a presidential nominating convention in his own state. But 2016 has been an unusual year. Kasich was one of the GOP candidates seeking the party's nomination. But Donald Trump is assured the title.

Kasich has declined to endorse Trump, whose statements on race, religion and immigration cut against the unifying message of Kasich's campaign. Trump has said he won't invite speakers who don't endorse him.
Boy Trump would make a great leader! I can see him now refusing to talk to the President of Mexico, uninviting the Prime Minister of Canada and telling the rest of the world leaders either they are for him or against him...and if they are against him...
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:34 PM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]




first report from the volunteers for the DNC front:
I got an email reminding me that my training shift is scheduled for tomorrow at 2 AM.
Then I got an email saying that the shift is actually scheduled for 2 PM.
This is the end of my report.
posted by angrycat at 1:57 PM on July 2, 2016 [33 favorites]


Born on this day in 1951, transgender activist Sylvia Rivera was an early leader in the LGBT equality movement.

I see by the comments that the hate patrol's not taking the holiday weekend off.
posted by dersins at 1:57 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


From the comments: Terror happening everyday and this is what's she's worried about.

ACK Terror Terror Terror. We cannot possibly be concerned about the lives of American citizens and the struggles they face. We have to be on Terror Alert at All Times.

Jesus. It must be so frightening to be them.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:06 PM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


But 2016 has been an unusual year.

You don't say.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:52 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


So I caught part of Hillary's 5-minute plus interview on MSNBC. Then they went back into whatever random programming they have on weekends. And right toward the tail end of their interview (this was about 15 minutes ago) they were saying that the news is that there will likely be no charges filed against Hillary, and that there was some timeline for the decision or something. I figured they were going to discuss it more in detail, but they didn't. I don't see the interview online yet, or that news (though CNN has it as breaking news right now)
posted by cashman at 2:59 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm going to feel an extreme level of schadenfreude when no charges are recommended. The "FBI Primary" is what the deadender anti-Clintonites have been hanging their hats on for several months.
posted by Justinian at 3:08 PM on July 2, 2016


If no charges are recommended, that will just be further proof of the conspiracy. Also, what do we know about Hillary Clinton's birth certificate? Maybe that's why she killed Vince Foster!
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:11 PM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I picture H.A. Goodman drinking alone in his basement apartment holding a framed picture of FBI Director James Comey in his hands, taking chugs of Thunderbird from the bottle and crying to himself. Why, Director Comey, why? You were our last hope!
posted by Justinian at 3:16 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


The email issue has always been a red herring.

Private email servers have been used since the Bush administration with most senior officials using dual email clients with the RNC accounts being preferred.

Of course after 2008 those servers got wiped but most reports indicate that proper data security processes were not followed.

Clinton shouldn't have used a private email server at all but it's also dumb to try to indict her according to rules in place after she left office.
posted by vuron at 3:57 PM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm no conspiracy theorist. I usually give the benefit of the doubt to even the worst actors, but a star of David on a pile of hundreds? Makes me wonder who convinced him to leave off the horns.
posted by Sophie1 at 4:04 PM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Mr. Love recalls getting an email after 1 a.m. after Mr. Obama saw a television report about students whose “bucket list” included meeting the president. Why had he not met them, the president asked Mr. Love. “‘Someone decided it wasn’t a good idea,’ I said,” Mr. Love recalled. “He said, ‘Well, I’m the president and I think it’s a good idea.’”

Then the two of them got into the car, drove to the Bethesda Holida Inn, and started knocking on doors. WAKE UP KIDS. YOU WANTED TO MEET THE PRESIDENT.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:09 PM on July 2, 2016 [21 favorites]


Clinton shouldn't have used a private email server at all but it's also dumb to try to indict her according to rules in place after she left office.

The rules regarding private server use relevant to this whole Clinton email thing were put in place when exactly? No snark, I haven't heard this brought up before and am curious.
posted by 3urypteris at 4:36 PM on July 2, 2016


Here is the interview MSNBC aired. 7:32 video.
posted by cashman at 4:55 PM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


November is a long ways off. Plenty of time for the Reublicans to invent a new Clinton scandal, or Trump to be relaunched.
posted by humanfont at 6:05 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also plenty of time for Trump to be indicted for his career-long string of crimes. It will lose him many of this last honest "yeah, but..." supporters, but will assure that the Trump Riots will happen.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:12 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


November is a long ways off. Plenty of time for the Reublicans to invent a new Clinton scandal,

Oh, come on. Republicans making shit up in a series of frothing and fruitless attempts to smear Clinton is so 1992 - 2015.

Don't you know that's the left's job now?
posted by dersins at 6:17 PM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Theme tune of the Cleveland RNC?
posted by Devonian at 6:18 PM on July 2, 2016




When do people realize that deleting tweets really doesn't delete them?

You fuck up on twitter and the only real answer is to explain your tweet. There are no do-overs and sanitizing your record especially as a public figure is next to impossible.
posted by vuron at 6:28 PM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump has bribedcontributed to plenty of elected officials... including Bill & Hillary. I suspect her Ultimate Weapon against him will be to release some correspondence asking explicitly for some quid pro quo that she rejected (then again, how much did he pay them to attend his 3rd wedding?). But she's obviously saving that for later - if she destroys him too early, the Republicans would have time to nominate another candidate who could possibly defeat her.

Don't you know that's the left's job now?
The Bernie Bloc know that getting Trump elected is the one chance for them to take over the Democratic Party in 2020. Just as several cliques in the GOP are already using the Trump debacle as a jumping-off point for their own future plans (sadly, some of them are as fascist as The Donald, just more subtle and less 'cult of personality').

When do people realize that deleting tweets really doesn't delete them?
Some people have learned, but most of them are smart enough to have them vetted in the first place. Trump was never smart enough - any impression he could be was the creation his character on The Apprentice by Mark Burnett and NBC (and I'm never going to stop blaming them).
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:38 PM on July 2, 2016


Jeremy Diamond at CNN: “Trump deletes tweet after complaints of anti-Semitic imagery”

People need to hammer him on bowing to political correctness after his song and dance about it.
posted by Talez at 6:43 PM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


People need to hammer him on bowing to political correctness after his song and dance about it.

Yeah, the oddest thing about that was he didn't just double down. "It's a sheriff's badge. The best kind of badge. Sheriffs love me. They're great."
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:50 PM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Bernie Bloc know that getting Trump elected is the one chance for them to take over the Democratic Party in 2020.

That couldn't be more wrong. They're best chance is to become part of the Democratic Party.
posted by bongo_x at 6:56 PM on July 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yeah, the oddest thing about that was he didn't just double down. "It's a sheriff's badge. The best kind of badge. Sheriffs love me. They're great."
except they don't... he knows if he ever sees a sheriff's badge in real life, it'll be with a pair of handcuffs as he's about to do his long-overdue perp walk.

That couldn't be more wrong.
You're right, I said it wrong. "SOME OF The Bernie Bloc knowBELIEVE that getting Trump elected..."
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:00 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


That couldn't be more wrong. They're best chance is to become part of the Democratic Party.

Join a political party? If you want to change things you don't join a political party. You organize and work together!

Seriously though, Bernie Boosters, according to the shit that spews out of /r/SFP, "quit the party in disgust" the day after the primary.
posted by Talez at 7:02 PM on July 2, 2016


The Bernie Bloc know that getting Trump elected is the one chance for them to take over the Democratic Party in 2020.

Yeah, this is not a true thing. The children are the future.

You're right, I said it wrong. “SOME OF The Bernie Bloc knowBELIEVE that getting Trump elected...”

A fraction of Bernie’s voters will go for Trump because they dislike Hillary. A fraction of that fraction will be doing so because they expect that it will help them take over the Dems.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:04 PM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I suspect her Ultimate Weapon against him will be to release some correspondence asking explicitly for some quid pro quo that she rejected

Donald Trump might be a crazy person. But the idea that he would run against someone TO WHOM HE OFFERED A BRIBE IN WRITING is beyond crazy.

(then again, how much did he pay them to attend his 3rd wedding?)

I… who cares? Who would care about this? The worst thing this could be for either one of them is tacky.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:11 PM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


except they don't...

Since when has that mattered?

As a Bernie supporter, I'm upset to see a fifth of our ranks defect, but I get it. These are low information voters who are scrambling to signal their distress. Brexit may be more relevant in the States than you'd think.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:11 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


the idea that he would run against someone TO WHOM HE OFFERED A BRIBE IN WRITING is beyond crazy.
Not crazy, just stupid. Or believing he could use it against her more than vice versa (did I mention 'stupid'?) Or when he started his crusade for the GOP nomination, he wasn't thinking that far ahead. And if she accepted the campaign contribution first, and he asked for favors later, it can't be a Bribe, right? (did I mention 'stupid'?) Or maybe part of his crusade against Hillary is because she took his money and didn't give him any quid pro quo? And THAT is HIS standard for "corrupt"? (Have I mentioned that one of my biggest disappointments in America's legal system is that Donald ISN'T sharing a cell with Madoff? His treatment vs. that of wealthy celebrity felon Martha Stewart is also strong evidence for sexism in the system. But at least she got to star on The Apprentice after she got out.)
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:39 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]




So the Clintons managed to snag tickets to a Saturday evening Hamilton performance probably with the entire main cast.

But she promised that she was going to Hamilton with me!
posted by vuron at 8:06 PM on July 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


As a Bernie supporter, I'm upset to see a fifth of our ranks defect, but I get it. These are low information voters who are scrambling to signal their distress. Brexit may be more relevant in the States than you'd think.

hmm, if only someone could inform these low information voters. Perhaps there could even be a person who Bernie supporters, by definition, er, support. That person could travel the country with a message of populism and discourage people from supporting a fascist nincompoop at the same time. They could tell said low information voters how best to achieve some of what they want now, and encourage them to press for more in the future. It would have to be someone many voters already look up to, perhaps a runner-up in the party's nominating contest? And probably not that O'Malley guy.

It's too bad nobody like that exists.
posted by zachlipton at 8:08 PM on July 2, 2016 [48 favorites]


but she was supposed to go with meeeeeeeee
posted by you're a kitty! at 8:09 PM on July 2, 2016


What I would not pay to see Hillary Clinton and Leslie Odom Jr perform a duet of "Wait for It" and "Room Where It Happens."
posted by zachlipton at 8:12 PM on July 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


This is an interesting set of graphics from the Wall Street Journal breaking down the demographics of the Clinton-Sanders race.

I obviously can't vouch for the completeness or accuracy of the Wall Street Journal's data, but it looks like Clinton outperformed Sanders in almost every age/race/income category, with the obvious and notable exceptions of under-30 voters (whom she lost by a bigger margin than she did to Obama in 2008), and independents.

Looks like Sanders performed his best--though generally not better than Clinton--with voters in the following categories:

Under 30
White
Very liberal
Independent
Some college or a college degree (but not a postgraduate degree)
Income between 50K and 100K
Living in or around a college town

This tracks pretty precisely with what I would have suspected, but it's interesting to see it corroborated.
posted by dersins at 8:39 PM on July 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


I'm not thrilled with Lynch's decision. Not because I think Clinton did anything significantly wrong, but because I do not underestimate the Republican willingness to shamelessly manipulate investigations to destroy Democrats; I lived through the 90s. And Comey is a Republican, and I bet so are a lot of the other FBI officials involved in the investigation. And the way this has dragged on is evidence to me that it's already being used for political purposes.

Of course, it may make no practical difference, since it's not like the recommendation wouldn't be leaked in a microsecond if she turned it down, and then that would be the scandal.
posted by tavella at 9:02 PM on July 2, 2016


Director of the FBI and FBI investigating agent are non-partisan positions. Once we start going down the road of believing that such positions cannot be performed relatively objectively we're basically lost. I don't believe Comey will recommend an indictment because he's a Republican in the same way that I don't believe a Democrat in his position would recommend against an indictment because he or she was a Democrat.
posted by Justinian at 9:15 PM on July 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Special prosecutor was supposed to be a non-partisan position too. I saw how well *that* was hewed to. I no longer believe that there are any limits to what Republican officials will do, sorry.
posted by tavella at 9:32 PM on July 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think I just don't think there's any circumstances in which the people involved in the investigation aren't aware of how it has political implications. Hell, I think she did something wrong, and I might be like "nope Secretary Clinton was totally innocent", and I'm a Republican. This year is just impossible.
posted by corb at 10:09 PM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Assuming that the inside buzz referenced above is true and no charges are filed in the email non-scandal, what is the next bullshit accusation against Clinton that will take root? I want to know what words I should start adding "gate" or "ghazi" to so I can block them in advance.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:13 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


the next bullshit accusation

My money's on Googleghazi or something along those lines.
posted by dersins at 1:24 AM on July 3, 2016


[Several comments deleted. Seriously, how many times do we have to say "don't make it personal," "cut out the personal insults," etc.? Justinian, take the day off.]
posted by taz (staff) at 1:58 AM on July 3, 2016


Hillary has beliefs. Trump has none.
posted by rikschell at 4:21 AM on July 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


right. why is the NRA running ads tying HRC to Benghazi.

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGHHHHHHH DIE DIE DIE DIE
posted by angrycat at 5:28 AM on July 3, 2016


why is the NRA running ads tying HRC to Benghazi.
Desperation.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:30 AM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I was shocked to learn yesterday that my mother and one of my sisters believe that Hillary is a liar and there's something to the Benghazi accusations because 'where there's smoke, there's fire', and they couldn't keep saying it if there wasn't some truth there. They will vote for her because they truly believe she is competent and the best choice but the years of throwing that shit against the wall takes its toll.

She has been the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy but the fact that she voiced this fact makes it a lie. Quite the conundrum.
posted by readery at 6:50 AM on July 3, 2016 [8 favorites]




God I hate the "where there is smoke there is fire" idea. It's such a tortured idiom. Sometimes all the rumor and innuendo does reveal a concealed truth but just as often the rumor and innuendo are based around false accusations created to harm the intended target.

Having seen the maturity level of some Republican leaders it seems like about 90% of the smears directed at Clinton seem to be roughly high school level in maturity.

She's either a hyper-competent manipulator or a totally inept individual riding the coattails of her husband. There is never any in between, every mistake is proof she's unfit to lead and every success is proof she's the antichrist.
posted by vuron at 7:13 AM on July 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


Seriously outsourcing your photoshoppery to /pol/?

That shows a level of incompetence and malfeasance that is shocking in scope.

I mean /pol/ is more technically capable than Stormfront but it's basically the same thing.
posted by vuron at 8:03 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've read it said that where there's smoke, there might be fire, or there might be fresh horseshit.
posted by Countess Elena at 8:10 AM on July 3, 2016


what have you been feeding your horse
posted by murphy slaw at 8:30 AM on July 3, 2016 [23 favorites]


Donald Trump's "Star of David" Hillary Clinton Meme Was Created by White Supremacists

this is my surprised face
posted by dersins at 8:31 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


okay, so The Donald is outsourcing his campaign to /pol/. have we drifted far enough into the worst timeline that weev as his running mate is not out of the question?
posted by murphy slaw at 8:38 AM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Weev is too young, thankfully.
posted by dw at 8:47 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think "Where there's smoke there are mirrors" would be a more apt idiom in this case.
posted by double block and bleed at 8:47 AM on July 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


THEY FOUND IT ON 4CHAN AND JUST REPOSTED IT?!?!?!?!

I'm sorry but like my brain literally is shutting down about this
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:50 AM on July 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


Why pay someone to do something someone else has already done for free?
posted by double block and bleed at 8:53 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]




Not only did they find it, but they stripped the watermark off the original image and then re-posted to make it look like it was designed in-house; did someone, in the course of combining the image with the Fox News poll data -- which isn't in the original image -- follow the watermarked attribution link, realize where it came from, and then consciously decide that the right course of action at that point was to erase the attribution rather than not use the image?

The mind boggles.
posted by cjelli at 8:57 AM on July 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


I mean, both are reprehensible but 4chan probably wouldn't sticky a post disparaging Elie Wiesel.
posted by Small Dollar at 8:59 AM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Worrying about any smoke emanating from the Clinton campaign while giving Donald Trump a pass is like fretting over your neighbour burning a few leaves in the backyard while ignoring the giant tire yard fire across the street.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:59 AM on July 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


It was on 8chan's /pol/, not 4chan's.

This just gets better and better, by which I mean way worse.
posted by murphy slaw at 9:10 AM on July 3, 2016


"Where there's hate-fueled conspiracy fever-dreams amongst misogynists, there's fire"
but I guess that's just a bit too wordy to fit on a bumper sticker.
posted by blueberry at 9:18 AM on July 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yuck, 4chan is full of edgy teenagers trying out ironic racism. Yeah it still does damage and should be condemned but 8chan is a festering pile of shit full of alternative right true believers that by all rights should be nuked from orbit and then salting the earth so no microbes can survive.

It's hard to imagine a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Pretty sure that Milo is a potential running mate based on this insight. Yes he is a UK citizen but rules don't apply to Trump. I mean he is soliciting foreign contributions openly.
posted by vuron at 9:28 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


So here's President Obama carrying on in the tradition started by FLOTUS Hillary Clinton in 1996.
posted by bardophile at 9:39 AM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I remember that first time. It really validated my sense of being truly American.
posted by bardophile at 9:40 AM on July 3, 2016


Blergh. It seems the video is from Thanksgiving, not the iftar dinner...
posted by bardophile at 9:51 AM on July 3, 2016


I'm actually secretly glad, because I was like "they couldn't at least have used real serving plates?" Images from actual White House Iftar dinners look more appropriately formal.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:59 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wasn't there some sort of study about how our mind has difficulty appropriately scaling? So people see the dumpster fire of Trump and are like "oh sure a lying terrible politician, like them all" rather than seeing he is orders of magnitude worse?
posted by corb at 10:12 AM on July 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


So this was the week we learned the Trump campaign really is run by neo-Nazis, and the worst thing about the news is that no one is particularly surprised.
posted by yhbc at 10:30 AM on July 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


> Yeah, the oddest thing about that was he didn't just double down. "It's a sheriff's badge. The best kind of badge. Sheriffs love me. They're great."

Wow, you called it: "Lewandowski claimed the image was meant to evoke law enforcement. 'This is the same star that sheriff's departments all over the country use to represent law enforcement,' he said."
posted by peeedro at 10:31 AM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Humans are generally horrible about assessing risks in the modern world (we simply haven't advanced out brains to keep pace with technology) but a really important part of the issue is that humans can't separate risk assessment from value judgements.

So if you've made a value judgement that the Republican party best represents your concerns and your values it's very difficult to break with the party when they nominate someone who represents a major risk. This prevents a lot of voters from being willing to cross the aisle because their value judgement conflicts with their risk assessment. What is really interesting is that because he's masquerading as a good Republican many on the right are willing to ignore the large number of areas that he deviates from the right. So people like Corb face an uphill climb in getting converts because everything that Trump says that agrees with Republican orthodoxy is seen as confirming the selection and anything that shows a heterodox approach gets rejected.

On the opposite side there is a tendency on the left to view every potential Republican nominee as awful because there is a fundamental disconnect between what are perceived core values. So we view all of the Republicans as similarly awful even though some were demonstrably worse than others. It also prevents us from accurately assessing the actual risk of Trump because our moral values are so diametrically opposed we tend to see Trump as a sign of the apocalypse.

Even after Trump inevitably crashes and burns there will be a desire to go right back to the well with more conservative candidates rather than being willing to accept that a large percentage of the US no longer shares core values of Republicans.
posted by vuron at 10:31 AM on July 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Maybe it's because he's less "magnitudes worse" and more "about as bad" as, say, almost every single Congressional Republican:
Tuesday, Democrats blocked the bill (as near as we can tell, on its way to the conference committee where differences between the Senate and House versions would be ironed out) on a procedural vote. They weren’t willing to accept cost shifting from other programs or cuts to family planning, not to mention the other fun stuff the House threw into the bill, like cuts to the Affordable Care Act — yes, let’s fight a disease by cutting health care — and weakening environmental restrictions on pesticide use. Not so much to allow wider use of pesticides against mosquitos, mind you, which could be spun as a necessary step to fight the disease, but just plain tossing out some sanctions on violations of the Clean Water Act, so pesticide spills wouldn’t be punished. Fun, huh?

Since the Zika funding is attached to the annual bill funding military construction and veterans affairs, the House added in a vital measure that will help The Vets and fight Zika, somehow: They added language reversing a previously passed law restricting the display of the Confederate flag in federal cemeteries. Because dammit, what good is a House majority if you can’t use it to add something monumentally dickish to a bill that absolutely has to be passed?
[...]
Needless to say, since Democrats aren’t willing to go along with a few necessary compromises — like slavery flags, cuts to funding for the ACA, allowing pesticide dumping, and insane cuts to family planning clinics when condoms would help slow the spread of the disease — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is shocked, shocked at the sudden outbreak of partisan obstructionism:
We have a public health crisis descending on our country … Pregnant women all across America are looking at this with dismay, utter dismay, as we sit here in a partisan gridlock manufactured by the other side.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:37 AM on July 3, 2016 [18 favorites]


The fact that Trump is in bed with neo-nazis, alt-right kooks, and white nationalists has been apparent for ages. Many of these groups have made public statements about how much Trump's candidacy has helped them just from the idea of making their viewpoints more politically acceptable.

I think what people are surprised is not that the Trump campaign has apparently joined forces with the forces of hate because he's always been a craven opportunist and white nationalism is apparently an untapped market it's just that he's been so inept at hiding his association.

But it's pretty clear that a big part of Trump's support base seems to be coming from the paleoconservative right and all the retrograde opinions common in those groups.
posted by vuron at 10:42 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]




Chris Christie, come on down.
posted by TwoStride at 10:45 AM on July 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


So Chris "Blink Twice if you are okay" Christie isn't enough of a yes man for Trump?

Is he going to nominate a ventriloquist dummy to the VP slot so he can double up on free media exposure?
posted by vuron at 10:47 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Jerry Mahoney, come on down!
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:49 AM on July 3, 2016


Maybe it's because he's less "magnitudes worse" and more "about as bad" as, say, almost every single Congressional Republican:

This is neither a particularly true nor particularly useful thing to say. While, yes, there a metric fuckton of super shitty Republicans in congress, the overwhelmingly vast majority of them are not literal, actual racebaiting, antisemitic fascists.

To claim Trump is no worse is to fall into precisely the trap that corb and vuron elucidated above.
posted by dersins at 11:04 AM on July 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


Ed McMahon's dead, but Linda McMahon might be available.
posted by box at 11:08 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm thinking Vince.
posted by dersins at 11:09 AM on July 3, 2016


While, yes, there a metric fuckton of super shitty Republicans in congress, the overwhelmingly vast majority of them are not literal, actual racebaiting, antisemitic fascists.

Right, they just dig the Confederacy and want to go against all the advice from public health experts to take health care away from the exact people who need it. I mean, the Confederate flag thing is race-baity as fuck, but at least it's not explicitly anti-Semitic, so I guess they get those points back. The blatant misogyny and supervillain-y disregard for the lives of millions seems like it would more than take up the slack, though.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:11 AM on July 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


And lbr, just because their evil isn't on display quite as much as Trump's is, we shouldn't give them a pass.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:12 AM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


rather than being willing to accept that a large percentage of the US no longer shares core values of Republicans.

I've talked about this before, but one thing that's really, really hard to understand, but is a fundamental split, is that by each party's standards, they represent a majority of the US - correctly. Nobody is wrong, they are both just measuring different things.

Cities are blue. Overwhelmingly blue! Tha vast majority of large cities vote Democrat, and have values in line with Democratic values - collaboration rather than individualism, large protective state rather than rugged pioneer, etc. And cities are where the majority of the population of the US is held. The Democrats are not wrong, looking at population, to see and say "We are the majority in the US and will only continue to be so."

But rural areas are red. Overwhelmingly red! And there is, by virtue of the US being one of the largest countries in the world with a concentrated population, much more physical red landmass - more regions that are red - than there are blue. If you look at a map of the United States, you see concentrations of blue on the coasts and in cities, and broad swaths of the rest of the country that are red. The Republicans are not wrong, looking at area, to see and say "The majority of the US believes like we do. We just need to free them from those cities that are skewing things."

And it's important to remember, from time to time, that the United States started as a group of colonies, who had an abundance of land area, but a comparatively low population. Populations are hard to estimate because they are pre-census, but conservative estimates of the colonies during the Revolutionary War are around 2 million, with England having about 8 million - so the colonies only about 20% of the population, with a much greater proportion of landmass. Even if the colonies had had representatives, they would have been outvoted on nearly every matter.

We generally think the colonists were correct to say "The rules that govern England are not the rules that should govern us, England is across the sea and has no interest in our lives or ideals."

I am not saying that the red areas of the country should secede. Far from it! But I think that eventually, we will have to figure out a way to govern that acknowledges that the rules that govern large, population dense cities, are not the way to govern small towns - and vice versa. Otherwise we're going to have a lot of pain brought about by smart people on both sides making correct assessments within their values that they are being held back by "the other guys", who are in their ideology, the minority.
posted by corb at 11:27 AM on July 3, 2016 [22 favorites]


The tl;dr, I suppose, is that "Why should a tiny island across the sea / regulate the price of tea" applies both then and now, and since revolutions are messy we should probably figure that shit out.
posted by corb at 11:29 AM on July 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


Urbanization in the United States: "In 1790, only about one out of every twenty Americans (on average) lived in urban areas (cities), but this ratio had dramatically changed to one out of four by 1870, one out of two by 1920, two out of three in the 1960s, and four out of five in the 2000s."

The Urban Population as a Percentage of the Total Population by U.S. Region and State:
1970: 73.6%
1980: 73.7%
1990: 78.0%
2000: 79.0%
2010: 80.7%
posted by kirkaracha at 11:47 AM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


> Rural areas are red. Overwhelmingly red! And there is much more physical red landmass ... The Republicans are not wrong, looking at area, to see and say "The majority of the US believes like we do. We just need to free them from those cities that are skewing things."

I agree with most of what you said, but this "belief" simply flies in the face of reality. I mean, we decided that it's people that get to vote, not acres of land. Otherwise, Alaska would be setting policy for the rest of the country, rather than California driving emission standards.
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:52 AM on July 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


I think that I'm not terribly convinced by any analysis of American voting patterns that divides people into "urban" and "non-urban." Those just seem like really blunt categories to me. For instance, a lot of Republican voters live in suburbs, rather than rural areas or small towns. And not all cities are big cities.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:52 AM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


And the less-populated, more "Individualistic" Red States consistently take more tax money from the Federal Government than they give. Can you say "Blatant Hypocrisy", boys and girls?

we decided that it's people that get to vote, not acres of land.
...the obvious error that Republican Gerrymandering is fixing.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:55 AM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Republicans are not wrong, looking at area, to see and say "The majority of the US believes like we do. We just need to free them from those cities that are skewing things."

Of course they're wrong, they're only using maps that distort electoral reality.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:57 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Urbanization in the United States: "In 1790, only about one out of every twenty Americans (on average) lived in urban areas (cities), but this ratio had dramatically changed to one out of four by 1870, one out of two by 1920, two out of three in the 1960s, and four out of five in the 2000s."

But then who will speak for the gas and oil fields? Need I remind you that they take up much more land than lowly islands like Manhattan.

The Senate already prioritizes rural states, that's how the Constitution planned it. Then the Senate went ahead and further prioritized rural rights by entrenching the filibuster. Fine. Then, because every state has to have at least one, and because we've capped the total number of Representatives, the House further entrenched rural interests. The percent of the vote that you own in Congress merely by dint of being a resident of a rural Western state is completely disproportionate. Add in the fact that we can't make D.C. a state and that most Republicans have gerrymandered most states to the edge of legality, and that the Senate (the Senate that is intentionally skewed toward rural interests) refuses to seat a member of the third branch of government (which branch singlehandedly elected a president in 2000 because the electoral college, another institution skewed towards rural interests, couldn't resolve itself despite the clear majority of the country voting for the guy who lost), and the notion that rural voters don't have enough of a voice at the federal level is one of the most absurd things I've read in any of the election threads.
posted by one_bean at 12:00 PM on July 3, 2016 [33 favorites]


Chilling article about rape allegations against Trump: Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored.
posted by chaiminda at 12:04 PM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Ok, again: the Republican party largely represents suburban people, not rural people. Rural people are only the majority in a few states, and a couple of them (Vermont and Maine, for instance) aren't reliably Republican.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:05 PM on July 3, 2016


Also, a lot of the landmass that the Republicans claim as "red," and almost all of it in the western US, is actually taken up by federally-owned lands.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:07 PM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


The reality is that there are structures in place that limit the tyranny of the majority (if majority is reflected by total population).

The US federal system has a distinct bias towards empowering rural agrarian interests by virtue of the Senate which gives all states equal representation regardless of population. The Senate of course used to be even less democratic than it currently is because Senators were selected by State legislatures rather than direct democracy.

The Electoral College is also to a degree designed to represent the will of agrarian states due to the electors being decided by total number of representatives and senators. If there were only 435 electors (DC of course being utterly screwed as always) you could argue that many of the recent elections would be much less close than they would otherwise be. 2000 of course would've gone completely differently.

And that's before we even get into the number of powers that the Constitution deliberately defers to the individual states. Within the current system we have 50 different laboratories that voters can select between by voting with their feet.

Overall I don't mind the impacts of the Jeffersonian-Hamiltonian compromise as the current Federal system tends to avoid most of the mob rule issues that have haunted some other Democracies. However where I think we have essentially run into problems is that rather than maintaining a culture of compromise where elected officials try to best represent the needs of their constituents we've created a very dysfunctional party system where ideological purity is a fundamental requirement and there is no punishment for being an absolutist.

In these cases Representatives and Senators (particularly on the Right) have basically come to the conclusion that they have to represent the viewpoints of the majority of their district (lest they be primaried) rather than try to represent voters across the spectrum. The result is within voting districts we are developing a functional tyranny of the masses where the opposition simply gets discounted.
posted by vuron at 12:16 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wow, you called it: "Lewandowski claimed the image was meant to evoke law enforcement. 'This is the same star that sheriff's departments all over the country use to represent law enforcement,' he said."

Wait… what? Didn't the Trump campaign fire him?
posted by indubitable at 12:36 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Lewandowski's now working as a "news analyst" at CNN... just another way Trump is outsourcing the expenses of his campaign (and how the 'liberal media' is subsidizing him)
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:41 PM on July 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


So, just this week alone, Donald Trump has broken federal law by soliciting campaign donations from foreign elected officials, produced a canonically antisemitic campaign ad, AND was accused of raping a child during his decades-long friendship with convicted rapist Jeffrey Epstein. And yet somehow this man is still the leading candidate for a major political party. Jesus wept.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:44 PM on July 3, 2016 [25 favorites]


Existential Dread: So, just this week alone, Donald Trump has broken federal law by soliciting campaign donations from foreign elected officials, produced a canonically antisemitic campaign ad, AND was accused of raping a child during his decades-long friendship with convicted rapist Jeffrey Epstein.

Surely this...
posted by Superplin at 12:46 PM on July 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Jonathan Rauch: How American Politics Went Insane
So Americans developed a second, unwritten constitution. Beginning in the 1790s, politicians sorted themselves into parties. In the 1830s, under Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, the parties established patronage machines and grass-roots bases. The machines and parties used rewards and the occasional punishment to encourage politicians to work together.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:49 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Surely this...
...will bring the ratings of TV News to new highs!!
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:51 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


a "news analyst" at CNN

There should definitely be a different title for that job--one that involves neither the word "news" nor the word "analyst." Preferably this title would highlight the tendency of people in that position to be loud, biased, substantially less informed and intelligent than they believe themselves to be, and male.

Perhaps, given that politics is looking more gladiatorial every day, news networks could take a page from their sports broadcasting counterparts and call people like Lewandowski color commentators.

Or maybe just mansplainers.
posted by dersins at 12:54 PM on July 3, 2016


Where there's smoke, there may be arson.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:59 PM on July 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


Even if the colonies had had representatives, they would have been outvoted on nearly every matter. We generally think the colonists were correct to say "The rules that govern England are not the rules that should govern us, England is across the sea and has no interest in our lives or ideals."

Up until right before the point of actual independence, that wasn't a popular idea. Given that no one is currently seceding, it's unhelpful to draw a parallel to when people were while ignoring the lead-up to that point. In the decades prior to the American Revolution, the contemporary complaint in the colonies -- among English emigres who saw themselves as much as English citizens as they did Americans -- was that the laws of England were not the same as the laws in the colonies, when they should be the same; that taxes and tariffs were being leveled uniquely on the colonies, when they did not apply in England, to favor English companies and individuals over colonial ones. As an example, remember the underlying complaint at the Destruction of the Tea was that the government was favoring the East India Company to the detriment of colonial merchants (and/or smugglers), by effectively lowering the price of EIC tea; the immediate precipitating cause was effectively (an oversimplification) the selective removal of a tax, not a raise in taxes, as many people presume. The complaint was that England's laws should govern us, and they did not.

The principle of 'no taxation without representation' was not originally a call for direct democracy. The proposed remedy to objectionable legislation -- for more than a decade before 1776 -- was representation in parliament. There wasn't an intrinsic objection to English governance; there was a set of specific objections to individual laws and the choices about how to govern. That dispute escalated, of course, but it's worth remembering that there was a long history before Independence Day: if you start at the Declaration of Independence, you get a very warped idea about what the American Revolution was about, and why it came to happen -- and if you're looking to why people would rebel, it makes no sense to start at their rebellion and work forward. You need to start there and work backwards.
posted by cjelli at 1:01 PM on July 3, 2016 [24 favorites]


I think that I'm not terribly convinced by any analysis of American voting patterns that divides people into "urban" and "non-urban." Those just seem like really blunt categories to me. For instance, a lot of Republican voters live in suburbs, rather than rural areas or small towns. And not all cities are big cities.

There are exceptions. Tulsa and Arlington, TX, are very Republican despite being among the 50 largest cities. You're seeing suburbs in expensive cities fill up with lower class PoC that typically vote Democratic.

That said, it's still pretty rare in this country to see concentrations of Democrats in rural areas or Republicans in urban areas. And much of it stems from the GOP's unwillingness to treat cities as a positive thing during the days of gang wars and the crack epidemic. When cities became the hot thing, they stayed in the burbs.
posted by dw at 1:26 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


The big exception being Phoenix, because AZ has to be weird. Most of the smaller cities and even towns are more liberal. The state votes Republican because of Phoenix, but Phoenix is mostly suburb anyway.
posted by bongo_x at 1:31 PM on July 3, 2016


Does Phoenix have a large retiree population? Would that explain it?
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:41 PM on July 3, 2016


It does.
posted by dersins at 1:43 PM on July 3, 2016


Or, rather, the metro area does.
posted by dersins at 1:44 PM on July 3, 2016


We do have a large retiree population, and in the suburbs, a large Mormon population (something that came as a surprise to me when I moved out here).

Central Phoenix is actually quite liberal, and we've had a Democratic mayor since 2004 (Phil Gordon until 2011, now Greg Stanton).
The metro area includes the more conservative East Valley (Scottsdale, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, etc.) and West Valley (Glendale, Peoria, etc.) suburbs. So we're like a constellation of cities/suburbs, many of which do tend to be staunchly Republican.
posted by Superplin at 1:46 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, I forgot to include Tempe, which is a "university town" (ASU actually has four campuses throughout the Valley, but it began and is still administratively seated in Tempe). As a result, it tends to also be more liberal than its other East Valley neighbors.
posted by Superplin at 1:48 PM on July 3, 2016


That said, it's still pretty rare in this country to see concentrations of Democrats in rural areas or Republicans in urban areas.
Right, but I'm saying that it's too simple to divide the country into urban areas and rural areas. Democrats do well in big cities. Republicans typically do well in rural areas. But you can't really generalize about suburbs: it depends on the suburb. And my guess is that more Americans live in suburbs than live in either urban or rural areas.

Here'a an interesting article from fivethirtyeight on how government stats divide everything into urban and rural, and that underestimates the percentage of people who are actually suburban.
Nationally, 26 percent of Americans described where they live as urban, 53 percent said suburban and 21 percent said rural.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:54 PM on July 3, 2016


The rural-urban thing was illustrated most clearly for me in the most recent election in Alberta - not the U.S., I know, though it's sometimes called the Texas of Canada - in which there were two conservative parties. The socialist-ish party got the cities; the "moderate" conservative party got the towns; and the "pure" conservative party got the rural areas. If you zoomed in, even places with a collection of only three or four streets were likely to be islands of "moderate" conservatism in a sea of rural conservative purity.

The exceptions were the rural areas with large First Nations populations.
posted by clawsoon at 1:56 PM on July 3, 2016


Besides retirees and Mormons, Phoenix is very much all business all the time. Couldn't be more different than other AZ cities and towns, which are mostly not much business most of the time, unless maybe we're not busy, maybe next week, is that cool?
posted by bongo_x at 2:03 PM on July 3, 2016


From LRB (Linked in the Brexit thread)
But it also isn’t a coincidence that the two places where truly destabilising populist politics have been let off the leash are Britain and the United States. Looking at what we have allowed to happen, Trump must be licking his lips. Under winner-take-all systems, people who are happy to gamble away their nation’s security only have to get lucky once.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:06 PM on July 3, 2016


Under winner-take-all systems, people who are happy to gamble away their nation’s security only have to get lucky once.

I'm pretty sure a rank choice Brexit vote would have had the same results...
posted by one_bean at 2:39 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


From LRB (Linked in the Brexit thread)
But it also isn’t a coincidence that the two places where truly destabilising populist politics have been let off the leash are Britain and the United States. Looking at what we have allowed to happen, Trump must be licking his lips. Under winner-take-all systems, people who are happy to gamble away their nation’s security only have to get lucky once.
That's a weird paragraph. The author strongly implies that Britain and the US have something inherent in common, and that thing--not "coincidence"--is what has led to the rise in Leave voters and Trump voters in their respective countries.

But whatever that something might be (which is totally not coincidence, no, really, he swears), the author never names or describes it, or even attempts to make any real connection between the political climates of the two countries beyond the assertion that there is one.

On the whole, this makes me suspect he may not have any idea what he's talking about, and may in fact just be making shit up as he goes along because he thinks it sounds vaguely insightful.
posted by dersins at 2:40 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


"The Republican Jewish Coalition also did not respond to a request for comment."
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew that valued bigots over my own people.


Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:08 PM on July 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


(And, yes, I do realize that the final sentence of my last comment describes like 97% of all punditry.)
posted by dersins at 3:09 PM on July 3, 2016


Besides retirees and Mormons, Phoenix is very much all business all the time. Couldn't be more different than other AZ cities and towns, which are mostly not much business most of the time, unless maybe we're not busy, maybe next week, is that cool?

Most of my friends here are artists of some sort(s), or arts-adjacent, so that describes the bulk of Phoenix people I know, too.
posted by Superplin at 3:15 PM on July 3, 2016


I'm pretty sure a rank choice Brexit vote would have had the same results...

His point is a proportional representation government wouldn't have proposed it
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:34 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


How American Politics Went Insane

There's been a disturbing trend of discussion in this election that maybe the problems facing democracy around the world is that there's just too much of it -- that voters should have less say in the running of politics and political parties and that politicians themselves, being personally and professionally interested, should have final say over what goes on in the halls of power.

Political atomization and dysfunction isn't the fault of democracy. Middle class and elite antipathy for democracy is not a solution.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:53 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump doesn't even need to get elected to cause harm. A Muslim doctor walking to his mosque was assaulted and shot by three assailants in Houston this morning before being rushed to the hospital. There were children playing outside the mosque at the time of the shooting. Fortunately, he is likely to survive. However, the police seem uncooperative:

Police say there is no indication this is a hate crime... Eyewitnesses told police the three suspects ran off again on foot after the attack, and we have yet to get a good description of the suspects from police.

Right. So that's how it is.
posted by stolyarova at 4:06 PM on July 3, 2016 [24 favorites]


the police seem uncooperative
Considering the victim, quite unsurprising in America these days. In Houston, even less so. A 'hate crime' designation just means (1) a lot more paperwork and (2) a higher likelihood the perps are friends of cops.

Trump's campaign isn't the problem; it's a symptom. (And I still feel it's not based on his own racism... after all, he has total disdain for everyone who is NOT him... but he's going to keep riding the horse he came this far on and totally ignore that it's regularly kicking other people in the face)
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:20 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


A Muslim doctor walking to his mosque was assaulted and shot by three assailants in Houston this morning

As usual, don't read the comments.
posted by zachlipton at 4:26 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


The comments we shouldn't read are evidence that bigotry, ignorance ad assholery from America's Majority/Dominant Group is the biggest threat to our society. But on the bright side, most of the scumbags are writing hateful comments and NOT bothering to go out and shoot people they don't like (and in many cases, not even bothering to vote).

Meanwhile, Marvel Comics has just put things all in perspective, in the alternate Earth-65, where the superhero with Spider Powers is Gwen Stacy (Spider-Gwen!) and a certain 'real-life' political celebrity has been re-imagined as MODAAK (Mental Organism Designed As America’s King). Considering MODOK has always been one of Marvel's lamest supervillains (there has been an annual photoshop contest called March MODOK Madness that I have made contributions to), this is the biggest diss the Mighty Marvel Marching Society could bestow on the real-life stuporvillain.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:46 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]




After repeated calls from BuzzFeed News on Sunday, a police spokesperson eventually confirmed the incident occurred and described it as a “non-bias incident.”
*angry breathing*
posted by stolyarova at 5:08 PM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


The attacker allegedly shouted “You fucking terrorist”
Actually, he shouted "You fucking lame terrorist - THIS is how you do terrorism!"
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:18 PM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


I definitely would not be in favor of less democracy as I think there is almost always a group of individuals that feel like they are best suited towards making decisions for the unwashed masses, while in theory it could work well the reality is that the number of truly selfless enlightened despots is vanishingly small and self interest almost always results in elites becoming dicks to the plebs.

The solution isn't necessarily to push everything through a plebiscite either as few people tend to bother to educate themselves about every nuance of government policy and an uninformed or misinformed populace can enact policies that definitely aren't in their favor (see Brexit and about 3 dozen California referendums).

So less democracy isn't ideal and more democracy has issues so perhaps the solution is to assume that on big macro level issues the electorate tends to vote according to their values but that we need representative democracy and trained professional bureaucrats to put the broad strokes into action.

Reducing the impact of campaign giving on candidates would be ideal but requires a change in the composition of the SCOTUS. I'm hesitant to create term limits on congress because I'm not sure that it would be the best result but it seems like it would undermine the current tendency to re-elect incumbents and might encourage more bipartisanship because you really won't be able to make a career of congress.

Anything to do with trying to improve the engagement of voters would be beneficial but anything that would disqualify people from voting because of X would be horrifically stupid.
posted by vuron at 5:36 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Seriously NYPD? What is the possible motivation for seeking to minimize what was quite likely a hate crime?

Is it too hard to say "The NYPD is treating this incident seriously and investigating the possibility that it could be racially or religiously motivated but until we conduct more interviews we don't want to assume anything because catching the perpetrator is our top priority".

Or some sort of bland PR version of that. Don't minimize, don't confirm without additional evidence but simply be open to all possibilities.
posted by vuron at 5:44 PM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


When has the NYPD ever needed a motivation to act like racist assholes?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:09 PM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


It kinda sounds like maybe there's a little more to the story than what's in the Buzzfeed article. That doesn't excuse the asshole-and-possible-racist who committed the (quite likely hate-) crime, or the asshole-and-possible-racist NYPD who denied at first it even took place, but there are enough little hints in that story that this may have been something else , either in addition to, or instead of, "racist randomly attacks two muslim teens."

It was 1am in a neighborhood known for drugs and prostitution, the fancy parked car with tinted windows contained a woman who was dressed "provocatively" and was owned by the attacker who was immediately recognized as a local, known to members of the congregation.

Something's going on there. (Though that doesn't mean it wasn't a hate crime, just that there may be something in addition to it being a hate crime.)
posted by dersins at 6:25 PM on July 3, 2016


It kinda sounds like maybe there's a little more to the story than what's in the Buzzfeed article.

Fine! Likely, even. But unless there's overwhelming evidence that it wasn't a hate crime, maybe treat it like it might have been a hate crime?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:32 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


the number of truly selfless enlightened despots is vanishingly small
...while the number of truly evil despots who rose to power either by being directly elected is fairly high; and most of the rest were overwhelmingly-popular leaders of supposedly enlightened movements who could've won fair elections if they needed to.

It kinda sounds like maybe there's a little more to the story than what's in the Buzzfeed article.
Remember the big-headline story of the guy who shot down his two Muslim neighbors over what investigators later determined was "a parking dispute". Yeah, he was witnessed shouting a lot of hateful shit at them in the months before, but if it was just about parking, the police and prosecutors saved themselves some paperwork. (And saved themselves having to screen out jurors who were PRO-hate-crimes)
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:57 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Heh. I thought about linking the story about the Houston doctor last night, but then decided there wasn't sufficient info in the story to judge whether it was a hate crime. When I read it, they were suggesting it was a mugging.
posted by bardophile at 9:34 PM on July 3, 2016


And the less-populated, more "Individualistic" Red States consistently take more tax money from the Federal Government than they give. Can you say "Blatant Hypocrisy", boys and girls?

Dismissing it as "hypocrisy" misses the more important question: why is it happening? I find this answer from an article about Brexit quite compelling:
While it may be one thing for an investment banker to understand that they ‘benefit from the EU’ in regulatory terms, it is quite another to encourage poor and culturally marginalised people to feel grateful towards the elites that sustain them through handouts, month by month. Resentment develops not in spite of this generosity, but arguably because of it. [...]

In this context, the slogan ‘take back control’ was a piece of political genius. It worked on every level between the macroeconomic and the psychoanalytic. Think of what it means on an individual level to rediscover control. To be a person without control (for instance to suffer incontinence or a facial tick) is to be the butt of cruel jokes, to be potentially embarrassed in public. It potentially reduces one’s independence. What was so clever about the language of the Leave campaign was that it spoke directly to this feeling of inadequacy and embarrassment, then promised to eradicate it. The promise had nothing to do with economics or policy, but everything to do with the psychological allure of autonomy and self-respect.
posted by galaxy rise at 9:44 PM on July 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


Meanwhile, I can't wait to hear the spin that Trump and/or his supporters are going to put on this homemade fireworks explosion in Central Park. Tweets already leaving me battered. I may just completely stop looking at Twitter.
posted by bardophile at 9:56 PM on July 3, 2016


I don't know if I agree or not, but Jonathan Rauch over at the Atlantic is driving me to despair, and possibly drink.
posted by corb at 10:13 PM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's amazing that guy wrote all those paragraphs without acknowledging that when he talks about "strengthening parties and middlemen", he's not talking about American political parties in general, but two very specific ones. The fact that the current as well as the former state of the political system he pines for are based on having two enormous entrenched monolithic political power blocs seems kind of pertinent to examining the question of why everything would go haywire when the public starts insisting on the elimination of the middlemen and cronyism and under-the-table dealing he's not only saying is all necessary but (with a ludicrous degree of earnestness) is analogizing to a well-functioning immune system.

I'd feel a whole lot better about political parties governing themselves internally in whatever crazy and non-democratic-looking fashion they like, and being all "Private organization! You don't get to complain!" if there were actually a selection of them and voters on the left or the right could feasibly vote a different party in to represent their views. Yeah, that would require substantial changes, but when the author's talking about re-establishing middlemen and smoky rooms and pork-barrel favor-trading anyways...
posted by XMLicious at 3:04 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


There's been a disturbing trend of discussion in this election that maybe the problems facing democracy around the world is that there's just too much of it

This is why Rauch spends time talking about Hibbing and Thiess-Morse. There are things I don't like about their work -- it's really dependent on focus groups, which seems pretty squiffy -- but the overall conclusions are somewhere between scary and terrifying. By and large, Americans basically just don't like democracy. Don't seem to really accept the idea that people have different preferences and values. Really really don't like it when people with different preferences and values publicly disagree about what to do about something. Really really REALLY don't like it when that conflict ends up in some sort of deal where nobody gets everything they want. If you accept their conclusions, what Americans mostly want is for someone to just be the decider; whether they do it democratically doesn't seem to be very important.

It would be less scary if it didn't line up with other examples of mass opposition to the foundations of American democracy. Like the large majorities that favor stripping whoever they don't like of most any political rights that show up in every tolerance study ever.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:53 AM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Well, I mean... this is why America doesn't have direct democracy. We DO pick people to decide things for us so that we don't have to, and we always have.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:28 AM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


If anything, we're much more democratic than the country was originally designed. The forefathers didn't seem to have a whole lot of interest in direct democracy and set up the country to have many layers between the people and the decision making process.

Universal suffrage wasn't implemented until the country was 150 years old and it obviously still has issues. We didn't have direct elections of senators until 1913. Party primaries didn't start until the 20th Century and weren't binding until the seventies and of course we don't even directly elect the president. We elect delegates who elect the president. Direct referendums are fairly modern and only binding in less than half the states.

I'd say that we're much more democratic than we used to be and I'd also say that the results have been mixed. Just look at some of the ballot initiatives that California has passed to see how the public can be pretty spectacularly wrong-headed. I'm not even remotely happy with the state of congress right now and with the effect of corporate money on elections but I still like the idea of some buffer from the tyranny of the masses.
posted by octothorpe at 8:04 AM on July 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


...It was a great campaign destined to come up short but that shouldn’t take away from its power. Bernie himself managed to do that by his actions and statements since the primaries ended. He alone is diminishing the chances to accomplish what all those millions of people who donated their $27 to him sought to do. Success and accomplishment in politics are an art. One part is the ability to get elected, something Sanders has been able to do for the past thirty-three years, and for a short time it even looked as if he would come close this year. But the art and finesse needed to get something done after the campaign apparently still escape him.

He had the chance to be a hero and a mensch at the same time. He should have taken a cue from how Hillary handled her loss to Obama in 2008 when she came away looking like a star, and a star with power. Instead he frittered away his chances, rather whining his way close to irrelevance.
Bernie Manages To Turn A Win Into A Loss
posted by y2karl at 8:10 AM on July 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Frederick Douglass' "What to a slave is the 4th of July?" feels especially appropriate this year:
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.
[...]
One is struck with the difference between the attitude of the American church towards the anti-slavery movement, and that occupied by the churches in England towards a similar movement in that country. There, the church, true to its mission of ameliorating, elevating, and improving the condition of mankind, came forward promptly, bound up the wounds of the West Indian slave, and restored him to his liberty. There, the question of emancipation was a high religious question. It was demanded, in the name of humanity, and according to the law of the living God. The Sharps, the Clarksons, the Wilberforces, the Buxtons, and Burchells and the Knibbs, were alike famous for their piety, and for their philanthropy. The anti-slavery movement there was not an anti-church movement, for the reason that the church took its full share in prosecuting that movement: and the anti-slavery movement in this country will cease to be an anti-church movement, when the church of this country shall assume a favorable, instead of a hostile position towards that movement. Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the two great political parties), is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of your countrymen.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:22 AM on July 4, 2016 [20 favorites]




All of the news agencies have picked up the story on the neo-nazi origins of Trump's "Sheriff's Badge" tweet. So far his only response has been to tweet: Dishonest media is trying their absolute best to depict a star in a tweet as the Star of David rather than a Sheriff's Star, or plain star! I find it hard to believe that the Donald himself authorized the star of David tweet himself because I believe he loves and respects and relys on Ivanka but someone in his campaign did this with or without Trump's stamp of approval. He better make a big show of firing someone.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:56 AM on July 4, 2016


He better make a big show of firing someone.

Admit a mistake, anywhere in the organization? Ain't gonna happen.
posted by yhbc at 9:11 AM on July 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


That would also require admitting that the Twitter account isn't All His Own Work, which is something that it's always played very hard on -- that it's pure unfiltered Trump, nobody pulls his strings. That, or at least the commonly-agreed pretense of that, has worked very well for Trump so far; but it's also going to make it harder for him to distance himself from the obnoxious things that it retweets.

All moot anyway because of course he's going to stick to the "it was a sheriff's star" lie no matter how utterly implausible it sounds.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 9:23 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


The George Saunders article that box posted is great. I feel like trying to understand the anxieties driving Trump supporters is the perfect subject for Saunders.
posted by aka burlap at 9:39 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ahem.
I don't know whether it was planned or not, but I think the "sheriff star" is just a distraction.
There are really tons of things that you can hammer him with (such as the constant lying, the glib grandiosity, the disrespect of large swaths of the population the utter disregard of decency, the danger of having this sorry excuse for a human being the representative of your country, and the obvious unfitness to be president), that this is just an unimportant sideshow.

Look at it this way: Who has never insulted or been insensitive to someone due to slip of tongue, heat of the moment or even sheer ignorance? Now, who do you think most people will sympathize with, the person who slipped up or the zealots who keep hammering the issue for news cycle after news cycle?

Let it go, people, and concentrate on the really important stuff.
posted by sour cream at 9:47 AM on July 4, 2016


Nope. This wasn't a "slip of tongue"; it was deliberate. Antisemitism is "disrespect of large swaths of the population."

This shouldn't be let go. This is a Presidential candidate openly embracing fascism. And that is goddamn significant and should not be quietly ignored.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 9:59 AM on July 4, 2016 [27 favorites]


Don't worry. Trump is more than happy to provide new outrages.
posted by double block and bleed at 10:01 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Who has never insulted or been insensitive to someone due to slip of tongue,

This was a deliberate choice to use imagery that seems to have been acquired from a white supremacist (not "white supremacist" in the systemic, critical race theory sense, but in the overt Klan / Stormfront sense) source.

Suggesting this was a "slip of the tongue" is like telling someone who just got punched in the face "Gee I guess his hand must have slipped. It accidentally formed itself into a fist and then just slipped onto your nose. Could have happened to anyone though, right?"

And then oops it happens again.

And again.

And again.
posted by dersins at 10:14 AM on July 4, 2016 [22 favorites]


Donald Trump to meet with Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, a possible running mate.

The Christie and Gingrich rumors seem like a feint to me. Trump likes to make news and those are the most boring possible selections. Besides, the fakeout is another great way to torture Christie.
posted by msalt at 10:22 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ernst is perfect. She's Michele Bachmann minus the crazy-eyes and plus fatigues. I'm trying to imagine why I didn't think of her before.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 10:37 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I think Ernst is a real possibility. She doesn't have a very high profile, even in Iowa, and I think she'd be a net neutral for Trump, which is probably the best he can do. She definitely wouldn't overshadow him. I'd like to think that being associated with him would be bad for her reputation and make it more likely that she's be defeated in 2020, but I'm pretty sure that's wishful thinking.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:44 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I thought they said they weren't going to "pander" by choosing a woman. Oh yeah here it is;
That's certainly the implication of what Trump campaign chair and chief strategist Paul Manafort told the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman in an article published Wednesday:

The campaign probably won’t choose a woman or a member of a minority group, he said. "In fact, that would be viewed as pandering, I think."
Of course that was all the way back in May so I'm sure by now Manafort has forgotten he ever said anything like that-- the Trump campaign has the memory span of a toddler stuffed with birthday cake.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:57 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I had never heard of her before, but her views are pretty extreme even for a Republican.

Ernst has proposed eliminating the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Education, and the Environmental Protection Agency as a means of cutting federal spending. She has advocated eliminating the Department of Education.

Ernst opposes the federal minimum wage, and instead argues that states should have sole authority to set their own minimum wages.

posted by showbiz_liz at 10:59 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


There doesn't look like there's a single issues of hers that I agree with. Conservatives will love her.
posted by octothorpe at 11:11 AM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Thirding the excellence of that New Yorker piece. Thank you for the wonderful morning read.
posted by stolyarova at 11:36 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


In gratitude and in keeping with the date, here's James Earl Jones reading Frederick Douglass's 1852 "The Meaning of July 4th for the Negro" via boingboing.net.
posted by stolyarova at 11:39 AM on July 4, 2016


Thirding the excellence of that New Yorker piece.

Yeah, this is as good a description of Trump's demeanor as I have ever read:
"His trademark double-eye squint evokes that group of beanie-hatted street-tough Munchkin kids; you expect him to kick gruffly at an imaginary stone. In person, his autocratic streak is presentationally complicated by a Ralph Kramdenesque vulnerability. He’s a man who has just dropped a can opener into his wife’s freshly baked pie. He’s not about to start grovelling about it, and yet he’s sorry—but, come on, it was an accident. He’s sorry, he’s sorry, O.K., but do you expect him to say it? He’s a good guy. Anyway, he didn’t do it."
posted by dersins at 12:10 PM on July 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


...When he flew to Scotland the day after the vote, unaware that Scottish voters overwhelmingly wished to remain in the European Union, he tweeted, “Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!”

Actually, for Trump it is all a game, one in which, though this seems an odd way to characterize it, he has outsmarted himself fatally. He famously sleeps only four hours a night—sufficient, one assumes, to squeeze in a recurring nightmare of November 9th headlines screaming “loser!!” Vast evidence suggests that such a scenario is what he has dreaded most throughout his life. Still, the voters who support him will not be going anywhere. The resentment that he has exploited to win their votes will remain and grow, as it will among like-minded populists in Europe who feel overwhelmed by globalization and, especially, immigration. At some point, it will hit his followers that they’ve been sold out by a huckster who coveted their votes only for the sake of his colossal self-regard. And that, all along, he had nothing real to offer.
Trump, the Man and the Image
posted by y2karl at 12:24 PM on July 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hillary for America Statement on Trump's Use of Anti-Semitic Imagery, aka I'm gonna crack open my grandkids' history textbooks and see the heading 'The Twitter Election'
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:29 PM on July 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


There are a lot of people online arguing that it's just a silly old sheriff star while simultaneously using outrageous antisemitic slurs. They know it's a preposterous defense and they don't care - in fact, its transparency is part of the abuse. It's the "I'm not toooouching you" game.
posted by theodolite at 1:39 PM on July 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


[Sheriff Woody voice] Somebody's poisoned the discourse!
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:59 PM on July 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


There are a lot of people online arguing that it's just a silly old sheriff star while simultaneously using outrageous antisemitic slurs.
~~~
Man with racial slur as his screen name explains to me that Donald Trump isn't racist.
posted by sandswipe at 1:59 PM on July 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


Let it go, people, and concentrate on the really important stuff.

It is really important that the social media operation of the Republican campaign for the presidency of the United States of America has a nonzero population of Nazis.
posted by multics at 2:06 PM on July 4, 2016 [29 favorites]


On the one hand, I think it's really important. On the other hand, I think that anyone who cares at all is probably already not going to vote for Trump. And sadly, a lot of people don't seem to care at all.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:07 PM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


There are a lot of people online arguing that it's just a silly old sheriff star while simultaneously using outrageous antisemitic slurs. They know it's a preposterous defense and they don't care - in fact, its transparency is part of the abuse. It's the "I'm not toooouching you" game.

Yeah I'd say Donald Trump is pretty much in that category at this point too. The man has lost any right to the benefit of the doubt on racism and he certainly should have on antisemitism as well by now.

And the ridiculous thing is that it doesn't matter. If Trump apologized and forcefully condemned his antisemitic supporters, the stormfronters and /pol/ folks would just write it off as "oh well he had to do that; we all know what he really thinks." It's not like those people would go find another candidate to support. But he doesn't even have the decency to apologize, because never apologizing is part of his persona.
posted by zachlipton at 2:10 PM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


On the other hand, I think that anyone who cares at all is probably already not going to vote for Trump.

I don't think this is necessarily true. It might seem nuts to us, but most people just don't follow the elections all that closely until a few months out. There are probably plenty of people who usually vote Republican and know nothing about Trump besides "oh yeah, that business dude with the bad hair." But right around now is the time when people like that start paying attention.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:13 PM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Let it go, people, and concentrate on the really important stuff.

I don't think Laura Silverman (not Laura J Silverman the actor) will be able to let it go anytime soon. The people harassing her sure won't.

Or how about Erin Schrode, a 25-year-old who was making a longshot stab at running for Congress. Do you think she's inclined to let "Get to Israel where you belong. That or the oven. Take your pick" go?
posted by zachlipton at 2:27 PM on July 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


Donald Trump’s Complex Business Ties Could Set a New Precedent
“Trump’s empire would pose unprecedented conflicts of interest due to the size of its holdings, privately held nature of the family-run business, and concentration in one industry,” said Richard Painter, University of Minnesota law professor who was the White House’s chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush.

“A blind trust would never work in Trump’s case, because his assets are known, not blind, and children aren’t independent trustees,” he added, noting that other modern-era wealthy presidents, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, were “old-money with diversified holdings” that didn’t directly manage businesses the way Mr. Trump does.

No federal law would require Mr. Trump, famous for putting his name on his swath of enterprises, to remove himself from running his empire, ethics experts say.
But don't worry, Trump has assured us that “I’ll do whatever makes people comfortable. It’s very easy.” Well that puts all my fears to rest on that subject! Trump always strives to make people comfortable.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:16 PM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump personally signing a giant stack of checks is bizarre and fits right in with the complaints of hundreds of vendors who say Trump has stiffed them. The idea that instead of having a budget and a finance staff and everything, he's sitting there going "do we really have to pay this guy $10,000 fuel?" speaks to a real control problem.
posted by zachlipton at 3:30 PM on July 4, 2016


A Terrifying Glimpse at What Donald Trump’s Mount Rushmore Would Look Like. One artist reimagines the national monument as anchored by the presidential aspirant.


Doughnut Time is offering the "Hair Dependence Day" doughnut: It's glazed, filled with peanut butter and jelly and like the man who inspired it, it's "topped with a fairy floss toupée," according to Doughnut Time's Facebook page.

The doughnut is only available in Australia on July 4.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:31 PM on July 4, 2016


Proposal: I was going through some old Beany & Cecil cartoons and noticed the character of Dishonest John, who mastered the villainous laugh - "nya-ha-ha!" - and coined the phrase "Dirty deeds done dirt cheap (Special rates for Sundays and holidays)" on his business card. And considering Trump's habit of dishing out insulting nicknames, I thought "Dishonest Don" would be alliterative perfection. Yes, there's no physical resemblance, but he's Don, not John, although John IS his middle name, so a variation of Cecil's frequent exasperated expression "D.J., you dirty guy!" could apply to him as "D.J.T., you dirty guy!" Because he really is.

Also, Les Savy Fav has a song titled "Dishonest Don" (with semi-appropriate lyrics: "You Know that isn't really true, The band makes up history for you"). And "Dishonest Don's" on Facebook is a fireworks dealer in Missouri.

In all my years on the internet, I've only created one 'meme' that went viral: "Neil Before Zod" (because he WAS), and I really really really want this to happen, so pass it on...
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:23 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders is running out of time to get a speaking slot at the convention. Is this really happening? He's gonna go all the way and forfeit a speaking slot?
posted by Justinian at 4:27 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


If he doesn't get one at Clinton's convention, I'm sure Trump will offer one at his; I hear he's having trouble filling slots.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:31 PM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


DNC silencing and censorship is out of control. What don't they want us to hear? - that one guy on facebook, July 28, 2016
posted by theodolite at 4:52 PM on July 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I was going through some old Beany & Cecil cartoons and noticed the character of Dishonest John, who mastered the villainous laugh - "nya-ha-ha!" - and coined the phrase "Dirty deeds done dirt cheap"

It's true. And the song is a tip of the hat to the cartoon Angus Young watched as a child.

(I've felt that "Dimwit Donnie" is a better nickname than "Dishonest Donnie," tho, because people are more tolerant of dishonesty than idiocy.)
posted by octobersurprise at 5:23 PM on July 4, 2016


Sanders is running out of time to get a speaking slot at the convention. Is this really happening? He's gonna go all the way and forfeit a speaking slot?

He has to. The Democratic party has to have a failsafe candidate the party can rally behind who is not connected to the Clinton campaign at all.

Hillary Clinton spent more than three hours speaking with the FBI on a Saturday on a long holiday weekend.The odds are it's just GOP bullshit conspiracy mongering, and by odds, betting on the Cleveland Browns winning the Superbowl would be a more certain thing than anything coming of it, but if, in the off chance, reaaaaaaally off chance the AG decides to indict, it will be before the convention. After then her veep pick can carry on the fight, and they will be brilliant, and endorsed by Sanders. Before then, a candidate with a groundswell of support is a nice thing to have on hand.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:30 PM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


That's a nice theory, but I think it's much more likely that he just doesn't want to cave and say nice things about Hillary Clinton.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:36 PM on July 4, 2016 [27 favorites]


Sanders at this point has no room to claim the nomination if Clinton were to drop out (she won't)

I'm pretty sure that if there are rules for replacing a nominee it would be based upon a floor vote and the idea of Sanders winning a contested convention are basically zero.

Warren would almost certainly be the consensus pick capable of winning a ballot.
posted by vuron at 5:38 PM on July 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


If in the very unlikely event Clinton were indicted, then Sanders "conceding" and "suspending his campaign" would matter literally nothing to how the national convention would pick a replacement nominee. They'd have to change the rules (starting in those highly contested rules committees) just to unbind the delegates so why would Sanders refusing to concede now matter? It has no practical meaning in this absurd scenario.
posted by R343L at 5:56 PM on July 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


the sanders people would claim that as runner up, he's more entitled to the nomination than person x - it would, according to them, be another nail in the coffin of democracy

i'm really hoping this scenario doesn't come to pass - the last thing we need is an unholy mess with BOTH parties
posted by pyramid termite at 6:02 PM on July 4, 2016


I'm trying to remember if these fantasies of someone other than the presumptive nominee coming out of the conventions as the winner happened in previous years. They're really kind of weird, and I've seen them for both parties this year. I don't recall them being around before, although I do remember bizarre theories that Sarah Palin was going to be replaced by a Secret White Guy as the VP candidate.
posted by kyrademon at 6:06 PM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh, good god, that takes special pleading to a new level. Suspending his campaign would not in fact affect his delegate count, and he would be no more or less likely to be the convention's second choice. He's doing it because of ego, not some supersecret plan to Save the Democratic Party.
posted by tavella at 7:02 PM on July 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yep, it's entirely arrogance.

The chances that Clinton will be forced to drop out are extremely small (but not completely impossible) but the reality seems to be that if for some reason she was forced to withdrawal the candidates currently bound to her would need to be released in some way. Bernie doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win outright even if all the superdelegates suddenly shifted to him. I can't see any scenario where unbinding Clinton's delegates while keeping Sanders bound would ever happen so it seems like you'd have to unbind them all and then open the nomination process to a good old fashioned floor vote.

Based upon his current behavior Sanders would never win a floor fight. There are way too many Clinton supporters and let's be honest former Sanders supporters that have seen his immature side for him to ever be selected.

I'm sure he'd still get a sizable number of supporters as delegates gel around the various options but eventually unless the convention turns into a riot (not entirely impossible) you'll probably see a consensus gel around an acceptable compromise pick that would be acceptable to both Sanders and Clinton supporters and currently the person that would most easily accomplish that goal of being an olive branch to both factions would be Warren. In the old days you might've been able to get a mixed ticket with a Clinton ally as President and a Sanders ally as VP (or vice-versa) but I couldn't see a mixed ticket working particularly well.
posted by vuron at 7:24 PM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


That's a nice theory, but I think it's much more likely that he just doesn't want to cave and say nice things about Hillary Clinton.

I think I've seen that "Littlest Pet Shop" episode! Spoiler alert - they become friends at the end.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:17 PM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't care what Bernie does anymore. And with the shrinking size of his base, combined with the increasing urgency of defeating Trump AND the continued drumbeat of a Liz Warren vice presidency, it feels every day like he's more and more irrelevant.

The worst he can do, at this point, is monkeywrench from the floor. And I would expect that he'll try.

He could run over and endorse Jill Stein. But Stein, as mentioned before, is a problematic candidate, and endorsing her means risking Trump swipes some swing states Stein is on the ballot in, which would probably mean political suicide for his Senate career.

At this point, he just doesn't seem relevant to the election narrative. He's pretty much dropped out of the news save getting on MSNBC or CNN once a week to remind us all he's still out there.
posted by dw at 8:25 PM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


folks, in the interests of clarity can we save the fan fiction until after the election
posted by murphy slaw at 8:46 PM on July 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


For him to drop out now would be a betrayal of everything Hillary has worked for. He represents the glass ceiling which will be symbolically shattered at the convention, and it's vital that he be there to play his part.

Only half joking, because really, what other point is there in him being around?
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:05 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Only half joking, because really, what other point is there in him being around?

Pushing the party left. Pushing and pushing and pushing. Maybe the party budges, maybe it doesn't. Either way this is both a good and a correct direction in which to push the party.

I wish there were more like him. I wish there were more Elizabeth Warrens. Contemporary politics are (ordinarily?) toxic and Sanders is there loudly saying that we need to do better. He is not saying that Clinton must lose to teach the Democrats a lesson. He's not saying she's just as bad as Trump. He's not saying she's unqualified. He is saying we need new and better ideas about what is possible, how we engage with politics, who we invite to the table, and why.

Especially he's saying the Democratic party establishment needs to embrace progressive ideals or face an incredibly perilous obsolescence in the immediate future. Some contend Trump renders Sanders' voice less relevant, I say Trump's presence on the national stage gives Sanders' message considerably more weight and importance.

I want Sanders to continue to push at the party, as long as he is able to do so. I don't know if he'll learn any new tricks or fix any bad habits, but I trust deeply that he wants a future for this country where more people vote, more people care, more people are heard, and more people are fairly served by their representatives.

(I'm also implying no credence to the he's just a sexist who couldn't stand to see a woman win angle. Trump on the one hand deserves no benefit of the doubt; Sanders on the other has fucking earned his. He is a good man and he's been fighting in the best interests of his country for so many years.)
posted by an animate objects at 9:43 PM on July 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


I hope that when and if Clinton manages to get some headway made on the progressive causes she's supported for decades, Sanders doesn't get all the credit for 'pushing her to the left'.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:45 PM on July 4, 2016 [39 favorites]


I, too, hope that Clinton and Sanders are equally celebrated for that progress, if we are so lucky as to see it.
posted by an animate objects at 9:46 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


At long last, the Trump is a Russian sleeper agent piece that this election has cried out for. Happy birthday, America!
posted by chrchr at 9:54 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


At long last, the Trump is a Russian sleeper agent piece that this election has cried out for. Happy birthday, America!

I believe I called this one
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:09 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


ahem
posted by chrchr at 10:21 PM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I stand corrected.

I mean... you guys... but... but, like, no, right? I mean this is a fun goof, but... right? Guys??
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:35 PM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]




I, too, hope that Clinton and Sanders are equally celebrated for that progress, if we are so lucky as to see it.

Translation: The man treats the woman like shit, then gets the credit for the work she does.

In other words, business as usual.
posted by happyroach at 11:39 PM on July 4, 2016 [24 favorites]


Diehard Bernie Supporters Camping Out in NJ to Protest Democratic Convention

Well yeah, with this regional rail issue none of us are getting into the city to protest. Doing it at a campground instead is a good idea. :P
posted by Drinky Die at 12:30 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Diehard Bernie Supporters Camping Out in NJ to Protest Democratic Convention

Protesting that he didn't win or Protesting the party platform or Protesting what specifically?
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]



Protesting that he didn't win or Protesting the party platform or Protesting what...?


I think the answer to that is Yes.
posted by bardophile at 1:42 AM on July 5, 2016 [19 favorites]


corb: So in Interesting Facts From The RNC, we are being told that delegates who "refuse to support the nominee" after a nominee is selected will be decredentialed.

Corb, I missed this from when you posted it. Are there any journalists or bloggers covering these machinations? I want to believe someone is paying more attention to this intra-party conflict beyond pointing out which conservative commentator or politician said something anti-Trump today.
posted by schroedinger at 4:27 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Word on Twitter is that FBI director James Comey will be making an announcement on an undisclosed topic at 11:00 AM EST. Stay tuned!
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:37 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Some people are paying attention to it. Unfortunately the media overall just doesn't seem good at covering this - some of it sadly is because one of the major delegate groups is bad at media, and I'm doing a delicate media dance with my group because I was in a lot of media for a somewhat lefty cause before, and can't afford to have people calling me a "RINO" while I'm trying to whip votes.

Fox News is kind of on it.
posted by corb at 7:05 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


TPM: Trump Camp Denies Anti-Semitic Tweet Was Sourced From White Nationalist Site
Donald Trump’s campaign has released a second statement trying to explain how an image of Hillary Clinton and a graphic resembling the Star of David atop a pile of cash ended up on his Twitter feed.

“The social media graphic used this weekend was not created by the campaign nor was it sourced from an anti-Semitic site. It was lifted from an anti-Hillary Twitter user where countless images appear,” Trump social media director Dan Scavino wrote in a statement released Monday eveningand obtained by CBS...Scavino said he deleted the tweet soon after it went up because he “would never offend anyone.” The user who posted it, @FishBoneHead1, has taken his account offline but previously shared other anti-Semitic posts about Clinton.
'We didn't take it from an anti-semitic website, we took it from an anti-semitic Twitter feed. Totally different thing.'

This is probably unlikely to sway anyone's opinions on Trump (despite ex-KKK leader David Duke confirming that it's not a 'sheriff's star'), but the look inside the Trump campaign's operations is fascinating. At best, we know they're lifting images from Twitter, using them without attribution -- indeed, actively removing that attribution -- and doing all of that without vetting their sources or, beyond that, vetting the images they're using. That's their social media strategy. At best. That feels remarkably unpolished for a presumptive presidential nominee.

It worst, it's an intentional and explicit dogwhistle that originated (in the choice of the imagery) from within the campaign, and that the campaign of the presumptive nominee of a major party would be doing that is, if not unprecedented (sadly), still, frankly, shocking. Trump's inability to accept that he's ever been wrong is going to make it hard to even let his Scavino (his social media director) take the fall -- how can Trump let someone take the heat for something that Trump can't admit was bad in the first place?

This feels like a situation that a lot of prospective candidates, campaign managers, and historians will be looking to as a notable change in how campaigns are run, or, perhaps, how campaigns should not be run, as we learn more details about how (and perhaps why) it happened.
posted by cjelli at 8:02 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


This doesn't sound too good.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:07 AM on July 5, 2016


Oh Jesus. Comey's statement is bad so far.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:08 AM on July 5, 2016


"Comey: "No evidence" that Clinton deleted emails to conceal them; deleted like other email users delete." (Daniel Dale on Twitter)
posted by maudlin at 8:10 AM on July 5, 2016


"No intentional misconduct."
posted by box at 8:11 AM on July 5, 2016




Intentional means nothing legally, though. She put top secret info in those emails.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:12 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]




Intentional means nothing legally, though.

Except it literally does, because the law in question says that she would have had to knowingly compromise classified material with malicious intent.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [14 favorites]


"We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges."
posted by box at 8:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


So no indictment, but she definitely took some damage. Expect "extremely careless" to star for the rest of 2016.
posted by maudlin at 8:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


"No charges are appropriate in this case."
posted by box at 8:17 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

That's that, then.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:17 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


well, that popping sound you hear is millions of republican heads exploding
posted by pyramid termite at 8:17 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, my bad there, I meant to say "politically". I'm a little jittery listening to this. No criminal charges, but this is going to hurt her campaign.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:17 AM on July 5, 2016


So, they will not recommend an indictment. After laying out plenty of red meat soundbites to fuel the anti-Clinton crowd. I look forward to Trey Gowdy heading up the next Congressional investigation into this matter.
posted by Roommate at 8:17 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


That's that, then.

I seriously doubt this is over.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:18 AM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


Expect "extremely careless" to star for the rest of 2016.

It's not like they're putting up the best candidate to lob those accusations, though.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:19 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


I was just watching Twitter react in real time (because I was too nervous to actually watch the press conference) and watching Rightwing Twitter grow a huge chub and praise Jesus for Comey and watch out Comey she's going to off you now suddenly turn to CORRUPT! THE END OF AMERICA! COMEY IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR! was... something.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:19 AM on July 5, 2016 [11 favorites]


also, and i have to say this, it still reveals very poor judgment on clinton's part

still, unlike her opponent, she's sentient, and that has to count for something
posted by pyramid termite at 8:20 AM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


No criminal charges, but this is going to hurt her campaign.

Who exactly is going to have their mind changed by this? Republicans gonna Republican, Bernieorbusters gonna Bernieorbust, and Clinton supporters gonna move on.

That's no different than it was last week.
posted by dersins at 8:20 AM on July 5, 2016 [28 favorites]


It's not like they're putting up the best candidate to lob those accusations, though.

I agree, but there are already people saying they're voting for the former slumlord who's had multiple fraud suits against him because they don't want a corrupt president. He'll hammer this, and people will listen. We are in a post-fact political reality.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:21 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


It was almost nine months ago that Bernie Sanders said “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails."

Hay will of course be made about this, as it has been for over a year, but I don't see this outcome swaying many people from the opinions they already formed about the emails months and months and month ago.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:21 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's not like they're putting up the best candidate to lob those accusations, though.

Thank god for this
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:22 AM on July 5, 2016


"Extremely careless" isn't great news.

"I'm running against Donald Trump" is still good news.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:22 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Who exactly is going to have their mind changed by this? Republicans gonna Republican, Bernieorbusters gonna Bernieorbust, and Clinton supporters gonna move on.

I live in that reality too, but there are moderate and undecided people out there. Not to mention that there are a bunch of people who've been saying they'll hold their nose while voting for her, and a bunch of them could be put off by this.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:23 AM on July 5, 2016


The Rs can boast a candidate who is extremely good at controlling his internet usage and legal compliance, so they'll definitely have the higher ground.

More seriously, I hate that I have to be so relieved. This was a hell of an unforced error and the fate of the election, and the world, hinged on it. With any other corpse in a suit on the Republican side, I wouldn't feel that way, but this is not any other candidate.
posted by Countess Elena at 8:24 AM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Ari Fleischer, via Twitter: Bottom line: Hillary is reckless, careless and has poor judgement, but she's not a criminal. Which means she's likely to be our next POTUS.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:24 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


“Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

In a perfect world, that would be the headline. In this world, my cynical self assumes that it will be about the number of secret threads and the failings of the state department’s security culture, with that quote as a footnote.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:24 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


So no indictment, but she definitely took some damage. Expect "extremely careless" to star for the rest of 2016.

Eh. No indictment, no criminal charges, so...no reason for us to hope Bernie can be our perfect back up candidate? Can he quit now?
posted by zutalors! at 8:25 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


An insecure mail server with no security staff assigned, 110 emails in 52 email chains with classified info, 8 chains with top-secret info, 36 secret and 8 confidential. I don't care what the FBI says, if that was a normal intelligence person they would most certainly be seeing the inside of a cell before having their clearance stripped regardless of intent.

I'm just desperately glad that she's running against someone who is such an obvious idiot that it seems unlikely to wreck her chances.
posted by jaduncan at 8:25 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


Expect "extremely careless" to star for the rest of 2016.

Which is a tough blow for someone running on her resume.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:25 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Careless Clinton?
posted by peeedro at 8:26 AM on July 5, 2016


Here's the official statement from Director Comey.
posted by bardophile at 8:26 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


I seriously doubt this is over.

As a sound-byte, talking-point issue, sure: Trump was already prepping the argument over the last week that a failure to bring an indictment would be itself proof of Clinton's misdeeds -- would, in fact, be her fault, somehow. But if it wasn't this it would be something else; he'd go back to Whitewater maybe, or keep talking about Vince Foster. And if Comey had come out and said 'she was perfectly reasonable and perfectly careful and nothing wrong happened at all,' Trump would probably attack that as proof that the outcome was 'rigged.'

It might have been nice to hear something more positive, but the only substantive issue here was whether or not there would be an indictment. The PR issue was never going to be resolved by the FBI. No charges, no indictment, and no reasonable cause for either -- that potential problem is over.
posted by cjelli at 8:27 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


So, has anyone checked in on HA Goodman yet?
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:29 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


This just in: "Hillary for Prison" t-shirts plummet in value!
posted by FJT at 8:32 AM on July 5, 2016


In a perfect world, that would be the headline.

FWIW, a quick check of most mainstream news sites right now mostly shows some variation on "No charges for Clinton." It may change throughout the day and in tomorrow's papers, though.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:32 AM on July 5, 2016


Comey: "Your average person would receive hella consequences"
posted by sylvanshine at 8:33 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is a "problem" for as long as the news cycle holds it in it's attention. So about 24-36 hours. No charges means no real actual news comes of this going forward.
posted by Twain Device at 8:33 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]




Also, as a practical matter, that the head of the FBI -- in a position where he'd be feeling massive institutional pressure to be as judicious as possible -- feels comfortable saying Clinton's behavior was "extremely careless" doesn't fill me with hope for how her administration will handle dicey judgment calls. I mean, she'll handle them better than Trump would, blindfolded and in her sleep, but comparing her to a theoretical ideal it's less inspiring.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:35 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Unfortunately, theoretical ideals don't run for president. People do, and we've got the candidates we've got, none of whom are ever going to be a theoretical ideal.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:37 AM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]


Eh. I know the e-mail thing is a big deal to some of you, but as scandals go it always made me shrug my shoulders and think, "Who gives a crap?" The more hay that people attempted to make with it, the less of a crap-giving I gave. I guess we'll see going forward whether more people agree with me or with the crap-givers.
posted by kyrademon at 8:38 AM on July 5, 2016 [26 favorites]


@realDonaldTrump: FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem
That's kind of a low-energy response for him.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:40 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Jinx.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:41 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Extremely careless" sounds like a sop being thrown to the people who wanted Clinton prosecuted.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 8:42 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


I understood, indeed understand, the people who think the email server is a big deal from a freedom of information and transparency perspective. I'm kind of shruggo about 8 emails out of more than 30,000.
posted by bardophile at 8:42 AM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]


The reality is that infosec is rarely as clean cut as people like to make it out and it's exceedingly hard at times for IT resource managers to tell functional people that vastly outrank them No you can't do that but we can come up with a solution that meets your needs and meets the security requirements of the US government.

Unfortunately in an organization the size of the US Federal government agility is not a major identifying trait so rules tend to lag way behind user needs.
posted by vuron at 8:43 AM on July 5, 2016 [23 favorites]


To be fair, though, I also don't have a lot of respect for the national security apparatus of any country, so that informs my lack of caring about OMG Top Secret! mails.
posted by bardophile at 8:46 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


as somebody who once emailed half an office with a link with nothing but the words, "If you were a nerd like me in the eighties, you'll love this" which was supposed to go a site hosting classic video games like frogger and instead went to a site that was basically chock-a-block of pulsating erections and gifs of money shots--

i've never been angry at HRC about the emails.
posted by angrycat at 8:47 AM on July 5, 2016 [43 favorites]


Unfortunately, theoretical ideals don't run for president. People do, and we've got the candidates we've got, none of whom are ever going to be a theoretical ideal.

Which is why I noted that as far as this election goes this news shouldn't affect anybody's vote one iota. But it does make me worry a bit more than I did before about what stupid shit a Clinton administration will drop the ball on.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:48 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


But it does make me worry a bit more than I did before about what stupid shit a Clinton administration will drop the ball on.

Eh. Every government is incredibly stupid in multiple ways. It's the nature of the beast.
posted by bardophile at 8:50 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm just impressed by how scandal-free the Obama administration has been, compared to... well, name me a better one in modern times.

The 'extremely careless' thing isn't welcome, but any half-decent campaign can calibrate that against the general history of late and - most especially - against the opposition's record on probity. A really good opposition campaign could make use of it nonetheless, with care, but that's not really what we're looking at. Put it another way, the fact that this is an actual counter-Clinton fact which does have validity in deciding on her suitability for POTUS is going to be vastly diluted among all the ranty hate fibs and general sense that Doctor Clue is not responding to his pager.
posted by Devonian at 8:51 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


MetaFilter: basically chock-a-block of pulsating erections and gifs of money shots.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:52 AM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


"Hillary Clinton is a terminator who has her shit together" was a much better look than "Hillary Clinton uses her nephew for tech support"
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:53 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Actually I have to question why TOP SECRET and above information is ever okay to be transmitted over email, even encrypted email.

I don't work in that level of security but in general if I have to share data or information with another person I generally provide them a link to an encrypted share that is preferably secured with some sort of two-factor authentication.

I guess an even more preferable solution would be to have any devices that are accessing secure data basically be using a VPN connect to some sort of Virtual Machine on a secure server. When you open files or emails you are opening them on the remote server and they only thing being transmitted is the display over and encrypted channel. That way no persistent data would ever leave the secure facility so your risks of an endpoint being lost or compromised go way down.

Of course shoulda, woulda, coulda.
posted by vuron at 8:53 AM on July 5, 2016


I would care way more about these emails if she weren't running against HitlerLite. And yes, "extremely careless" seems appropriate. I'm glad there was at least some censure. But in this election, it's just irrelevant.
posted by corb at 8:53 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


Eh. I know the e-mail thing is a big deal to some of you, but as scandals go it always made me shrug my shoulders and think, "Who gives a crap?"

I seem to be in the minority here as a Hillary voter, so I'm willing to admit my judgment may be skewed here, but:

The practice of using private backchannels for government business is, in and of itself, indefensible to me. FOIA is an important thing, public record keeping is an important thing. I understand that this was standard practice, but that to me reveals a widespread application of bad judgment, not a status quo that's therefore okay. The fact that she would not use secure email servers, especially those maintained by security professionals in the government whose job it is to keep this information safe, was likewise very bad judgment on her part.

But the one thing I took solace in on this issue was this: Surely she wouldn't put top secret information into those emails. I mean, if I put someone's SSN in an email for work trying to diagnose a problem in production, I could be fired. Email is a security minefield. Surely she knows not to put state secrets into unsecured emails?

Well, she (or someone on her staff) evidently didn't know that. Or thought it'd be okay. And that to me falls in "what the hell were you thinking" territory.

So to me it's a big deal on the government records front, and on the infosec front. I hope those of you who think this won't affect things politically are right, but I'm also coming at this believing that winning ain't enough. So much damage has been done by the mere fact of Trump's campaign that he really needs to be obliterated in the election, and this diminishes those chances. Stuff like this feeds into the "corrupt Hillary" narrative in a way that could sway some voters.

The reality is that infosec is rarely as clean cut as people like to make it out and it's exceedingly hard at times for IT resource managers to tell functional people that vastly outrank them No you can't do that but we can come up with a solution that meets your needs and meets the security requirements of the US government.

Absolutely this, but a Secretary of State shouldn't have had to be told this, IMO. Protecting state secrets is part of her job description.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:57 AM on July 5, 2016 [23 favorites]


Reads to me like Comey dismantled the idea that Clinton deleted emails on purpose to hide them from the investigation, which Trump has been pushing pretty hard.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:05 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Apparently HA Goodman is trending on Twitter.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:09 AM on July 5, 2016


But the one thing I took solace in on this issue was this: Surely she wouldn't put top secret information into those emails.

I have seen it asserted that the emails marked as classified were not classified at the time, but were made so after the fact. (Which is why you're not supposed to use your own server at all, because that's a known thing that can happen, but it's not quite the same as if they had been classified right then.)
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:12 AM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


I was under the impression that the classified info that was in the emails wasn't classified at the time it was sent. Is that not the case?
posted by amarynth at 9:12 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


I look forward to Trey Gowdy heading up the next Congressional investigation into this matter.

Pretty much. My first thought on seeing this news was to wonder how quickly we'd see a Congressional investigation into the FBI's investigation.

And then the investigation into the Congressional investigation, and so on.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:13 AM on July 5, 2016


I was under the impression that the classified info that was in the emails wasn't classified at the time it was sent. Is that not the case?

It was classified at the time it was sent and received.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was under the impression that the classified info that was in the emails wasn't classified at the time it was sent. Is that not the case?

From the statement:
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
So, most of the "classified" emails were not classified when sent. But some of them were.
posted by sparklemotion at 9:17 AM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


The practice of using private backchannels for government business is, in and of itself, indefensible to me. FOIA is an important thing, public record keeping is an important thing. ...[T]he one thing I took solace in on this issue was this: Surely she wouldn't put top secret information into those emails. I mean, if I put someone's SSN in an email for work trying to diagnose a problem in production, I could be fired. Email is a security minefield. Surely she knows not to put state secrets into unsecured emails?

While we don't know exactly what was in the Secret and Top Secret emails -- and I doubt that we'll be able to find out definitively anytime soon -- the Wall Street Journal, among other publications, has reported that many of the classified emails regard the management of the CIA's drone program -- which, as the WSJ notes,
The CIA drone campaign, though widely reported in Pakistan, is treated as secret by the U.S. government. Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems.

The State Department said in January that 22 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s personal server at her home have been judged to contain top-secret information and aren’t being publicly released. Many of them dealt with whether diplomats concurred or not with the CIA drone strikes, congressional and law-enforcement officials said.
...
Despite being treated as top secret by the CIA, the drone program has long been in the public domain in Pakistan. Television stations there go live with reports of each strike, undermining U.S. efforts to foster goodwill and cooperation against militants through billions of dollars in American aid.
I'm leery of drawing comparisons to, say, HIPPA violations, because there are a lot of complicating factors in what gets classified and by whom. Overzealous classification is also a FOIA problem, both in that it blocks information from being released and that it creates a procedural burden to determine whether or not something should be released which slows down the approval of requests.
posted by cjelli at 9:19 AM on July 5, 2016 [13 favorites]


My first thought on seeing this news was to wonder how quickly we'd see a Congressional investigation into the FBI's investigation.

Comey was Deputy AG in the Dubya administration who donates to GOP candidates, so that'll be an interesting bit of theater.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:20 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Overzealous classification of things is also a FOIA problem, both in that it blocks information from being released and that it creates a procedural burden to determine whether or not something should be released which slows down the approval of requests.

I think this is why this doesn't bother me all that much - because while "classified" sounds like it means "the nuclear codes" or something, in reality the process for marking stuff as classified seems as if it's pretty arbitrary.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:22 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


At least some of the 'classified' emails were discussing newspaper articles. Yes, I know perfectly well that the official position is that if you have a clearance that you are supposed to pretend newspaper articles that mention classified information don't exist. I think it's unbelievably stupid to expect the Secretary of State and her staff to not keep up with all public information. It's vital to their job that they know what other people know, and certainly the people they are dealing with in other countries damn well read the NYT and the Guardian. Can you imagine how stupid that would look? "Madam Secretary, this report says that 20 of my citizens were killed by a missile fired on incorrect information. I'm kicking out half your embassy staff unless I get an explanation." "I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about."
posted by tavella at 9:23 AM on July 5, 2016 [19 favorites]


Apparently HA Goodman is trending on Twitter.

One last harrumph.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:25 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm enjoying the blissful silence of my very conservative friends about this on Facebook so far, but I know it won't last long. They usually react much faster to these things.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:26 AM on July 5, 2016


I'm enjoying the blissful silence of my very conservative friends about this on Facebook so far, but I know it won't last long. They usually react much faster to these things.

They're trying to edit the stars out of all the memes.
posted by Etrigan at 9:27 AM on July 5, 2016 [15 favorites]


I figure they're waiting for their marching orders from Breitbart.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:29 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm just impressed by how scandal-free the Obama administration has been, compared to... well, name me a better one in modern times.

Ha, that's from where you sit. Right wing world has a vastly different perspective. Look how corrupt and scandalous the Obama administration has been in their eyes:
IRS, Benghazi, Solyndra, Fast & Furious, violation of constitution with executive orders & executive appointments, suspicious refusal to say Islamic extremist in Fort Hood & other attacks, VA scandals, the Iran deal, new Black Panther voter intimidation, holding a coffee cup while saluting the military, birth certificate-gate, transgender bathroom-gate, Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange, employing radicals like Van Jones, the 'fact' that he is not a citizen, etc.

That's just what I can remember we've wasted time on and that the media has entertained at some level, much to their shame.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:31 AM on July 5, 2016 [28 favorites]


"Extremely careless" sounds like a sop being thrown to the people who wanted Clinton prosecuted.

My favorite comment on (another site that isn't well thought of around these parts): "Where my mad wingnuts at?" The muckrakers on the local right wingy talk station are already just astounded and outraged. They were practically hanging their hats on an indictment, especially after Bill's recent airport tarmac faux pas.
posted by fuse theorem at 9:32 AM on July 5, 2016


they ain't got much to march to besides what already got hashed out months ago. we knew the email setup was 'careless.' we knew there was classified info that got shuttled through it. the only real news here is that there's no recommendation for charges. the talking heads can feed off that cow for a few days but where does it go from there? once something more interesting takes over the news cycle there's not much reason to revisit this.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:33 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]




@HAGOODMANAUTHOR

I was right, about Clinton's behavior, TOP SECRET intelligence, careless decisions. Better hope Bernie becomes nominee, or else Trump wins


Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?
posted by Sophie1 at 9:37 AM on July 5, 2016


HA Goodmans gonna HA Good.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:40 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]




Prepare for an endless series of ultimately fruitless investigations of the investigation.
posted by stolyarova at 9:46 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


Spokesman: Bernie Sanders watched FBI statement on Clinton case; asserts decision won't have bearing on his candidacy - @DannyEFreeman
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:47 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


When you think about this presidential election, how do you feel? Alarmed: 61%.
Terrified: 11%
Vacillating Between Bored and Confused: 8%
Choking on Rage: 7%
Cry-Laughing: 6%
Hangry: 5%
Cautiously Somewhat Optimistic Maybe Perhaps: 2%
posted by Cookiebastard at 9:47 AM on July 5, 2016 [15 favorites]


Lie Bot, what is the saddest thing?

The saddest thing is a Speaker of the House who is tweeting and promising a closed FBI investigation that it can still be an indictment someday.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:48 AM on July 5, 2016 [18 favorites]


When you think about this presidential election, how do you feel?

How do you think I feel? Betrayed, bewildered.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:48 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Someone's going to add up all the time and money and effort spent on vilifying the Clintons and find out that they were the world's seventh largest economy over the last quarter-century.
posted by Etrigan at 9:50 AM on July 5, 2016 [30 favorites]


I feel like I spend a lot of time reading and thinking about this election and it's doing bad things to my mental health.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:52 AM on July 5, 2016 [11 favorites]


And here we go. Paul Ryan: We need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation

"Oh, and by the way, I'm still voting for the guy that tweeted what even I think is anti-Semitic propaganda."
posted by zombieflanders at 9:52 AM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]


I feel you, double block and bleed. On the plus side, the anxiety I used to channel into body insecurity and EDNOS is now directed at Donald Trump, so I guess that's an improvement. Thanks, Donnie!
posted by stolyarova at 9:54 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


Someone's goingto add up all the time and money and effort spent on vilifying the Clintons and find out that they were the world's seventh largest economy over the last quarter-century.
Job creation!
posted by phearlez at 9:54 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


When you think about this presidential election, how do you feel? Alarmed: 61%.
Terrified: 11%
Vacillating Between Bored and Confused: 8%
Choking on Rage: 7%
Cry-Laughing: 6%
Hangry: 5%
Cautiously Somewhat Optimistic Maybe Perhaps: 2%


Is side-eyeing everything an emotion?

I am at 81% side-eye all the things
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:06 AM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


There needs to be a shruggo emoji that incorporates the use of both middle fingers.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:13 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm really glad the FBI phase of the investigation is over.
posted by humanfont at 10:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


The reality is that infosec is rarely as clean cut as people like to make it out and it's exceedingly hard at times for IT resource managers to tell functional people that vastly outrank them No you can't do that but we can come up with a solution that meets your needs and meets the security requirements of the US government.

I was under the impression that this happened because the NSA refused to secure a Blackberry like the one they gave Obama and insisted that she only have access to email while literally sitting at her desk in DC, which basically no Secretary of State would find workable. Am I misinformed?
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:30 AM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


Honestly that wouldn't shock me at all. Infosec guys are quite commonly willing to lock stuff down to the point of uselessness and then they get mad when people grow their own solutions...
posted by vuron at 10:39 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


For your facebook feeds when your wingnut family member says the fact that classified items were shared in HRC's email and that's a priori proof what she did was criminal - here's an example of a classified item.

This article from the NSA newsletter "Explanation of the process of downgrading information’s classification level and who at NSA performs the downgrading task."
(C//SI) Downgrading is often confused with sanitization:

Sanitization is carried out in order to make COMINT information releasable outside of COMINT channels (e.g., making it straight SECRET).

Downgrading, by contrast, does not involve taking material out of COMINT channels -the information stays either within or outside of COMINT channels, and that aspect of it does not change. The only change is to the classification level. So, for example, changing text from TS//SI to S//SI would be a downgrade, as would changing TOP SECRET information to SECRET. In order to downgrade COMINT, a plausible cover (i.e., collection from a less sensitive source) must exist.

(U//FOUO) The downgrading of U.S. COMINT is performed only by:
  • an Original Classification Authority (OCA) at NSA, in coordination with the Information Security Policy office (DC322), or
  • personnel tasked specifically with the formal review and declassification of cryptologic materials. (These are typically contractors working to comply with E.O. 12958, and does not include anyone in the SIGINT Directorate below the level of OCA.)
The footer: DYNAMIC PAGE -- HIGHEST POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION IS
TOP SECRET // SI / TK // REL TO USA AUS CAN GBR NZL
DERIVED FROM: NSA/CSSM 1-52, DATED 08 JAN 2007 DECLASSIFY ON: 20320108


That's right, this is TS and will not be automatically declassified for public consumption for another 16 years, lest this freedom-destroying fact about the difference between declassifying and redacting were to come into the hands of ISIL. And remember, TS is the top - this juicy nugget isn't just confidential, it's not just secret. It's TOP SECRET.

So I dunno what was in those email chains and I doubt those of us over 40 will ever get to know. Mighta been awful and dumb to put it in email. But the simple fact of it being TS? Meaningless.
posted by phearlez at 10:45 AM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


I was under the impression that this happened because the NSA refused to secure a Blackberry like the one they gave Obama and insisted that she only have access to email while literally sitting at her desk in DC, which basically no Secretary of State would find workable.

Yep.
"We began examining options for (Secretary Clinton) with respect to secure 'BlackBerry-like' communications," wrote Donald R. Reid, the department's assistant director for security infrastructure. "The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive."

Reid wrote that each time they asked the NSA what solution they had worked up to provide a mobile device to Obama, "we were politely told to shut up and color."

Resolving the issue was given such priority as to result in a face-to-face meeting between Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, seven senior State Department staffers with five NSA security experts. According to a summary of the meeting, the request was driven by Clinton's reliance on her BlackBerry for email and keeping track of her calendar. Clinton chose not to use a laptop or desktop computer that could have provided her access to email in her office, according to the summary.
posted by Etrigan at 10:50 AM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


It's vital to their job that they know what other people know, and certainly the people they are dealing with in other countries damn well read the NYT and the Guardian. Can you imagine how stupid that would look? "Madam Secretary, this report says that 20 of my citizens were killed by a missile fired on incorrect information. I'm kicking out half your embassy staff unless I get an explanation." "I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about."

"The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap."
"This is preposterous. I've never approved of anything like that."
"Our source was the New York Times."
posted by jackbishop at 10:51 AM on July 5, 2016


if this is the amount of outrage that the right can muster, i think clinton's gonna be okay
posted by murphy slaw at 11:02 AM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


The whole emails thing is basically the right's attempt to pull a "get Capone on tax evasion" strategy, a Hail Mary by playing on technicalities. It's a talking point, not something that the rank and file would actually go agitate for.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:07 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


So it seems like Comey tried to do his job as well as he can despite the handicap of being a Republican. Non-partisan jobs really are non-partisan sometimes.
posted by Justinian at 11:08 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's the difference between being a professional and being a hack.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Mike Huckabee apparently outsourcing his jokes to a team of typewriter-proficient monkeys:
"Hillary may not be POTUS, but she'll be on the Winter Olympic team for ice skating, no one has successfully skated on more thin ice than her"
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


There's an Olympic event for skating on thin ice?
posted by mazola at 11:22 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]




Dana Schwartz: An Open Letter to Jared Kushner, From One of Your Jewish Employees
I can’t abide another defensive blame-shift to the media or to “politically correct culture gone amok”. David Duke, outspoken and explicit white supremacist, anti-Semite, and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, saw the image your father-in-law tweeted out, and to him the message was quite clear to him. Those aren’t stereotypical “sheriff” hands in the corner.

The worst people in this country saw your father-in-law’s message and took it as they saw fit. And yet Donald Trump in his response chose not to condemn them, the anti-Semites who, by his argument were obviously misinterpreting the image, but the media.

And now, Mr. Kushner, I ask you: what are you going to do about this? Look at those tweets I got again, the ones calling me out for my Jewish last name, insulting my nose, evoking the holocaust, and tell me I’m being too sensitive. Read about the origins of that image and see the type of people it attracted like a flies to human waste and tell me this whole story is just the work of the “dishonest media.” Look at that image and tell me, honestly, that you just saw a “Sheriff’s Star.” I didn’t see a sheriff star, Mr. Kushner, and I’m a smart person. After all, I work for your paper.

Edmund Burke once said in times that are starting to seem more and more similar: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Well, here I am, and here we are. Both Jewish, both members of the media. And you might choose silence, but I’ve said my piece.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:24 AM on July 5, 2016 [32 favorites]


Wikileaks publishes Clinton war emails

This appears to just be Wikileaks grabbing the emails that State released months ago and searching them for Iraq, no?
posted by zachlipton at 11:34 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


if Wikileaks can ctrl+F their way to conclusive proof that Clinton voted for the Iraq War, her candidacy is doomed
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:36 AM on July 5, 2016 [11 favorites]


Not only that, but look how many people were sending her emails offering to sell her illegal V1AGR4! Where there's smoke, there's fire...
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:38 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


This appears to just be Wikileaks grabbing the emails that State released months ago and searching them for Iraq, no?

Yes, that's correct; it's not release of new, unseen, emails, just a new presentation of the emails that were already released back in February.
posted by cjelli at 11:39 AM on July 5, 2016




> Spokesman: Bernie Sanders watched FBI statement on Clinton case; asserts decision won't have bearing on his candidacy

This is literally true.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:40 AM on July 5, 2016 [24 favorites]


searching them for Iraq

Er, if you want to be precise the actual search string they used was 'iraq|baghdad|basra|mosoul' so maybe I spoke too soon, but BASICALLY YES that is correct.
posted by cjelli at 11:42 AM on July 5, 2016


Is that a joke? It's a matter of public record that Clinton voted for the Iraq war. It was widely known at the time that she supported the war and would be easily "discovered" by searching the archives of any major media outlet of the day.

If we're talking actions that Clinton took during her tenure as Secretary of State, the Obama administration policy on the war is also widely known. Unless the allegation is that Clinton secretly worked to keep the war going despite official Obama policy, or in contradiction to things she said in the media at the time?

As far as I'm concerned, Clinton's hawkish reputation and the fact that her policy positions have been public knowledge since at least 2000 means that the emails would have to reveal damning evidence of war crimes on her part for this to have teeth at all.
posted by Sara C. at 11:43 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I almost feel bad for Ivanka and Jared. I mean, AFAICT they're not sociopaths and Ivanka at least has demonstrated the level of self-awareness and humanity which I would imagine induces some amount of shame at her father's bad behavior, but, hell, what can she do about it?
posted by jackbishop at 11:43 AM on July 5, 2016


Honestly that wouldn't shock me at all. Infosec guys are quite commonly willing to lock stuff down to the point of uselessness and then they get mad when people grow their own solutions...

While I'm in the very small potatoes world of educational technology and not state secrets, this has been the story of my life for the past decade. At our morning meeting this morning it was concluded that if we can't get central IT to streamline processes for integrating new applications into our existing infrastructure (which currently involves a lot of begging, pleading, filling out 20-page forms, and an incredible amount of just straight-up being ignored), we literally will not be able to move forward with [large, just-announced major initiative].

So, while I am only #withher because the alternative is so, so terrifying, I am also inclined to be pretty sympathetic w/r/t the email thing.
posted by soren_lorensen at 11:44 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


Is that a joke? It's a matter of public record that Clinton voted for the Iraq war.

yes, I was making fun of wikileaks being all "we will CURATE this to show how illegal Hillary Clinton is!"
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:46 AM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


Ah, whew.

Do you ever feel like you're actually in the We Have Always Been At War With East Asia scene from Nineteen Eighty-Four?
posted by Sara C. at 11:47 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ivanka at least has demonstrated the level of self-awareness and humanity which I would imagine induces some amount of shame at her father's bad behavior

Yeah, about that...
posted by zombieflanders at 11:47 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


but, hell, what can she do about it?

I am reminded of the scene in Return of the Jedi where Luke Skywalker resigns from the Rebel Alliance to go serve as a spokesperson for Darth Vader and the Empire. "What can I do, he's my dad" he says with a shrug
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:49 AM on July 5, 2016 [34 favorites]


I should publicly confess that one of my favorite pairs of shoes is branded Ivanka Trump.

In my defense, I didn't know the brand before trying them on, they were clearly the best of the bunch, she may have stolen the design (which isn't really earth-shattering: they're black patent-leather pumps, after all) but I undoubtedly couldn't have afforded whatever she copied them from if she did, and I purchased them long before Trump announced his candidacy. Probably before he even seriously considered it.

Still, I'll probably feel a little weird about wearing them forever, now. /Trumpfessions
posted by Superplin at 11:59 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Secretary Clinton's first campaign appearance with President Obama is scheduled to begin any minute and is livestreaming here.
posted by stolyarova at 12:02 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Campaign rally music, why are you always so terrible?
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:08 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Campaign rally music, why are you always so terrible?

Because it's cheaper than paying $25,000 for Eye of the Tiger.
posted by cjelli at 12:15 PM on July 5, 2016


What, you were expecting she'd come out to the Dead Kennedys version of "I Fought The Law"?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:16 PM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


A girl can dream.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:17 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


"I Fought The Law"

omg can you imagine Trump coming on stage to "I Shot the Sheriff"?
posted by stolyarova at 12:17 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Or the Clash's "I'm So Bored With the USA"
posted by AJaffe at 12:18 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


What, you were expecting she'd come out to the Dead Kennedys version of "I Fought The Law"?

Only now do I truly understand the meaning of "headcanon"
posted by theodolite at 12:18 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


Sara Bareilles is playing so she should be coming out soon.
posted by stolyarova at 12:20 PM on July 5, 2016


Whoops, that's Katy Perry. My age is showing.
posted by stolyarova at 12:20 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sara Bareilles. Grrrrrr. Like if it were "Love Song" or something... but always with Brave. Why not Fireworks at that point?
posted by Justinian at 12:22 PM on July 5, 2016


Oh god. Is it really Katy Perry? I'm just following this thread.
posted by Justinian at 12:23 PM on July 5, 2016


Yep, it was "Roar" (according to Google). Now it's Sheryl Crow's "Woman in the White House."
posted by stolyarova at 12:24 PM on July 5, 2016


I still remember that The National's "Fake Empires" played at the rally for Obama's acceptance speech in 2008. I was busy weeping with joy and relief, but part of me definitely thought, "I love The National and this instrumental part is pretty, but a song with the lyrics 'we're half-awake in a fake empire,' is maybe not the best call here." Should've played "Mr. November" for the crowds instead, "I'm Mr. November, I won't fuck us over!"
posted by yasaman at 12:24 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh god. Is it really Katy Perry?

If she were playing "Circle the Drain," this would be a sight.
posted by psoas at 12:24 PM on July 5, 2016


pls back the kickstarter for my new business venture, Now That's What I Call Campaign Rally Music Vol. I! Our rockin' mix includes bipartisan songs sure to fire up the crowd, for example:

* Ear of the Panther
* Born in These United States
* Fighting Song
* Back Down? I Won't

Forget paying top dollar to the elite 1% of musicians who have the system rigged!
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:25 PM on July 5, 2016 [33 favorites]


We are the Champignons
posted by jamaro at 12:26 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Where be Hamilton?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:26 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Now it's the FIFA song (K'Naan - Waving Flag).
posted by stolyarova at 12:27 PM on July 5, 2016


HERE WE GO
posted by stolyarova at 12:28 PM on July 5, 2016


We don't have Hamilton but we can get you a deal on some tunes from Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:28 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Rachel Platten. My ears....
posted by Justinian at 12:28 PM on July 5, 2016


My theme song for this election season is Be OK - Ingrid Michaelson, fwiw.
posted by stolyarova at 12:28 PM on July 5, 2016


Ok but if anybody talks smack about Ingrid we will fight.
posted by Justinian at 12:29 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wake me up when Gary Johnson walks out to Mr. Tambourine Man (he's done Hamilton before).
posted by zachlipton at 12:30 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


We're Not Going To Take This Any Longer
posted by mazola at 12:32 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm just here for BarryO, tbh.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:32 PM on July 5, 2016


...The second declaration is even more astonishing, because it is signed by “Tiffany Doe”, Mr. Epstein’s “party planner” from 1991-2000. Tiffany Doe says that her duties were “to get attractive adolescent women to attend these parties.” (Adolescents are, legally, children.)

Tiffany Doe says that she recruited Jane Doe at the Port Authority in New York, persuaded her to attend Mr. Epstein’s parties, and actually witnessed the sexual assaults on Jane Doe:

I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old.
Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored
posted by y2karl at 12:34 PM on July 5, 2016 [13 favorites]


If any candidate was going to walk out to Bob Marley it'd definitely be Gary Johnson. So many choices!

- Get Up, Stand Up
- Easy Skanking
- Stir It Up
- Waiting in Vain
posted by stolyarova at 12:35 PM on July 5, 2016


adolescent women

WTF??
posted by zutalors! at 12:37 PM on July 5, 2016


"Continue Believing"
posted by bongo_x at 12:37 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


"Begin I Rise"
posted by mazola at 12:38 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Throwin' some subtle shade at Bernie Sanders.
posted by Justinian at 12:42 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oooooh snerky little non-mention of Sanders there.
posted by stolyarova at 12:42 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Not everyone is able to watch the speech, so if you are liveblogging it would be helpful to give some context.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 12:44 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


She made some comments about how she and Obama fought a very tough campaign. But that when it was clear Obama won she was very proud to drop out and endorse him. She said it with a clear twinkle in her eye.
posted by Justinian at 12:45 PM on July 5, 2016 [18 favorites]


Clinton said that she and Obama had competed hard, but after she lost the primary, she endorsed him enthusiastically.
posted by stolyarova at 12:45 PM on July 5, 2016


Justinian, get out of my head!
posted by stolyarova at 12:45 PM on July 5, 2016


Now Barack is talking about Party unity after a contentious primary. I'm sensing a theme.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:52 PM on July 5, 2016


Lots of 2008 talk. What's the intention there? Highlighting their differences or bridging them?

Gosh, it's good to see President Obama campaigning again.
posted by R a c h e l at 12:52 PM on July 5, 2016




Now it's Sheryl Crow's "Woman in the White House."

No, this is not acceptable. The Obama administration never used Paint the White House black so I am so not cool with HRC using on the nose stuff. Everyone has to be as disappointed as me; I am a white dude in my 40s, this is apparently the kind of demands for cultural consistency of suffering I am expected to make.
posted by phearlez at 12:54 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


That rape lawsuit is pretty messy.
posted by schroedinger at 12:56 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Whoever chose Katy Perry over "I'm Not Throwin' Away My Shot" should be fired.
posted by Sara C. at 12:59 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


This reminds me of the Trump email subject line "Have You Heard About Clinton's Endictment" only it's from the NY Times

(I mean it's possible that's just how their app always truncates headlines, but it's weird that nobody tried to amend it since it implies the opposite of what it says)
posted by pocketfullofrye at 12:59 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


On the other hand, I'd be perfectly happy to see literally anyone walk onstage to "F*ck Donald Trump" (SLYT, NSFW).
posted by stolyarova at 1:00 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


One of these days the Right is going to cry wolf one too many times over Hillary and everyone will ignore them.

One of these days.

I was hoping it would be, oh, 20 years ago.
posted by dw at 1:08 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Hmm such a conundrum. I want to just print out the first few pages of the complaint against Trump [pdf] and stick it under the windshield wiper of anyone with a TRUMP bumper sticker, secure in my protection under fair reporting privilege. But the level of explicitness is such that I might run up against obscenity/harassment problems. (Normally I'd worry about triggering/inflicting this on a random person but I have a hard time believing anyone willing to publicly support Trump is capable of human emotions of that type)
posted by phearlez at 1:08 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I really want her to borrow John Cena's entrance music.
Especially for the debates.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:12 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh my god. Clinton/Cena 2016? PLEASE.
posted by stolyarova at 1:13 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


I just realized I don't know the difference between John Cena and Michael Cera.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:14 PM on July 5, 2016 [16 favorites]


Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — until Hillary Clinton
The Obama-appointed FBI Director gave a press conference showing that [Hillary Clinton] recklessly handled Top Secret information, engaged in conduct prohibited by law, and lied about it repeatedly to the public. But she won’t be prosecuted or imprisoned for any of that, so Democrats are celebrating.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:15 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


go home glenn greenwald, you are drunk
posted by murphy slaw at 1:19 PM on July 5, 2016 [14 favorites]


I don't get Greenwald sometimes. He starts by saying how ridiculous the security strictures are:
Secrecy in DC is so revered that even the most banal documents are reflexively marked classified, making their disclosure or mishandling a felony. As former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden said in 2010, “Everything’s secret. I mean, I got an email saying ‘Merry Christmas.’ It carried a top secret NSA classification marking.”
And then he criticizes the FBI for not being obscenely doctrinaire and following those absurd restrictions?
posted by stolyarova at 1:20 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Obama-appointed FBI Director gave a press conference showing that [Hillary Clinton] recklessly handled Top Secret information, engaged in conduct prohibited by law, and lied about it repeatedly to the public. But she won’t be prosecuted or imprisoned for any of that, so Democrats are celebrating.


I thought Greenwald was smarter than this. What Clinton did was not materially different from the way that Rice or Powell handled their email, and the legal issue is the intentional distribution of classified documents.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Don't boo, vote!
posted by soren_lorensen at 1:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Between Greenwald's trolling and Max Blumenthal's hit tweet on a deceased Elie Wiesel, the alt-left really seems to be struggling right now with not sounding like the alt-right.
posted by dw at 1:23 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Whatever argument Greenwald is making, he does agree with the basic decision:

Looked at in isolation, I have no particular objection to this decision. In fact, I agree with it: I don’t think what Clinton did rose to the level of criminality, and if I were in the Justice Department, I would not want to see her prosecuted for it.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 1:24 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


I thought Greenwald was smarter than this. What Clinton did was not materially different from the way that Rice or Powell handled their email, and the legal issue is the intentional distribution of classified documents.

It's amazing how fucking stupid people can be when being smart would deny them what they want.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:27 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]




Don't believe this has been linked yet: in the last 100 years, no president has campaigned as hard for their successor as President Obama is expected to (NPR)

I mean, many in the past 100 years didn't want to, or couldn't.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:29 PM on July 5, 2016


@HillaryClinton Thanks, Obama.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:32 PM on July 5, 2016 [25 favorites]


I just realized I don't know the difference between John Cena and Michael Cera.

I realize this is a politics thread but oh my gosh the two of them together would be perfect for a Twins reboot.
posted by cjelli at 1:35 PM on July 5, 2016 [13 favorites]


WHAT A SOCIAL MEDIA TEAM
posted by you're a kitty! at 1:41 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


@HillaryClinton Thanks, Obama.

Hey, I heard you liked meta-references so I put some meta in your meta.
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:45 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


I realize hating on Greenwald rivals hating on AFP here, but I am really surprised to see Metafilter being hostile to the "this is the level of prosecution whistleblowers should have been getting the last five years and have not" message. He similarly doesn't differentiate between the standards a cabinet member would be held to versus any grunt, and I have made clear I disagree with that. But I don't think his "this ain't consistent" message is remotely wrong.
posted by phearlez at 1:46 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]




Please please if you don't know who John Cena is, go to this thread from yesterday and watch his video
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:46 PM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


GET HYPE!
posted by vuron at 1:48 PM on July 5, 2016


Yeah, look, once Trump was nominated I was not cheering for Hillary's indictment, but as a former intelligence professional, it is kind of teeth grinding to see the "I mean who even cares about classification amirite?" argument. Especially when right now, people still lose their careers over taking the wrong document home.
posted by corb at 1:50 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


Sure, and if Greenwald wrote an article that was more "let's use this to talk about classification craziness" and less "let's use this to hate on Hillary Clinton some more," that would make more sense. His argument seems to be that Clinton should have been indicted rather than that lots more people shouldn't have been.
posted by zachlipton at 1:53 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


I realize hating on Greenwald rivals hating on AFP here

I'm not sure who AFP is and I very much admire Greenwald's work with Snowden, but the idea that Hillary Clinton is the beneficiary of special, favorable treatment from the world is right up there with the idea of "reverse racism" in its misguidedness.

The standard by which it makes sense to judge whether Clinton is getting special treatment in this case is how Rice and Powell, other secretaries of state, were treated when they did the same thing.

So yes, "this ain't consistent" is in fact correct about this situation. But what's not consistent is that the standard to which Clinton is being held is higher than others, not lower.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:55 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


As a civil libertarian/classical liberal (better labels?), I agree with zachlipton's interpretation. Greenwald is using the opportunity to snark, and as someone who thinks Snowden is a national hero, I can't say I blame him for railing at the apparent double standard. But even I see a clear difference in both kind and degree between Snowden's actions and Clinton's.
posted by stolyarova at 1:56 PM on July 5, 2016


The reality is that federal agencies use data classification standards are abused in order to make FOIA requests ridiculously difficult. That isn't to say that some things don't need security or that Infosec shouldn't be the norm but by a similar token the reality is that the Federal Infosec standards simply could not keep up with the changing way in which decision-makers are supposed to receive and process information.

By preventing Clinton from getting a secured Blackberry despite it being a critical tool for her day-to-day business the NSA opened this Pandora's box. The idea that decision-makers would only need to access their email and calendar at their desk (it's not even clear that Clinton was given the option to VPN into the State Department network) is archaic and accentuates the problems with centralized decision-making in the modern environment. Operational agility has become the watchword of many organizations including the US Armed Forces but it's not entirely clear that the Infosec guys in charge of securing the data have any clue as to how to construct a modern secure and agile data sharing environment.

Is the use of a private server troubling? Yep but it was troubling when the RNC ran parallel email servers for the Bush White House with some indication that most if not all business was typically done over the RNC network. Should the rules concerning data security be tighter? Probably. Should the rules concerning what is and what is not Secret/Top Secret be reviewed? Definitely.
posted by vuron at 2:02 PM on July 5, 2016 [18 favorites]


It's not necessarily that they're being used to prevent FOIA, it's more - oh, does anyone remember those old logic puzzles? Where it's like "Mrs. Maple gets her newspaper the day before her neighbor" and at the end, you've figured out the address and daily schedule of your five targets? Any one piece of info is useless, but when you combine them, you get dangerous info.

Classification systems tend to work -and I agree - around assuming that any of the fragments that could be added to get the classification hold the classification itself. That's not a flaw or a bug, that's by design to deny enemy action. It may seem silly, but skilled people can add them together to bring real danger to people and national interests.

A classified Blackberry is a terrible security risk. I wouldn't want them to sign off on one for her or anyone else.

This is one of the things where yes, half of the anger is totally "grr I hate Hillary" but half of it is also "I expect 18 year olds to get this right, and put the possibility of a lifetime in jail if they get it wrong, what the fuck is wrong with you?"
posted by corb at 2:11 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


A classified Blackberry is a terrible security risk. I wouldn't want them to sign off on one for her or anyone else.

So the one Obama uses should be destroyed? Should state officials only have access to their email in their DC offices?
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:14 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


I mean, to be clear, Trump is a way bigger crime than email mishandling, and I'll still be (relatively) glad to see her defeat Trump, but that doesn't mean just because she isn't facing charges that I feel good about what she did.
posted by corb at 2:14 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I’m not sure who AFP is

Amanda Palmer
posted by Going To Maine at 2:14 PM on July 5, 2016


A classified Blackberry is a terrible security risk. I wouldn't want them to sign off on one for her or anyone else.

So the one Obama uses should be destroyed? Should state officials only have access to their email in their DC offices?


My first thought after reading about Obama's Blackberry upthread as an aspect of this is that maybe Obama's Blackberry isn't really all that secure, either. Doesn't sound like the security guys are interested in sharing whatever "security measures" are in place on that. I'd bet the whole thing is a massive sore spot for them.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:19 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Corb, you realize people at Clinton's level working for the Bush Administration (Condoleeza Rice, probably others whose names aren't coming to mind at the moment) committed exactly these same types of security breaches, correct? Are you saying that they should all be indicted, as well?
posted by Sara C. at 2:20 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's worse than that- the Bush admin worked off of RNC-controlled servers specifically in order to evade archiving.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:21 PM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


[Couple of comments deleted; if anyone wants to learn more about the some-people-dislike-Amanda-Palmer thing, better to site search and not bring that whole derail in here.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


I look forward to Trey Gowdy heading up the next Congressional investigation into this matter.

The True Believers have already soured on Gowdy thinking that he is part of the Clinton conspiracy and coverup.
posted by peeedro at 2:25 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Think both Clinton and Obama gave good, workmanlike campaigning speeches - no doubt who the star was, but whatcha gonna do? But it all looked genuine enough, the messages were solid, the digs at Trumo sly and substantive.

Not a bad start.
posted by Devonian at 2:54 PM on July 5, 2016


The Bush administration should be indicted for a lot of reasons, e-mail being pretty far down on the list.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:07 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


So, er, that Jeffrey Epstein character is very well-connected to elites across the board, including the Clintons, who he donated a lot to in the '90s. I'm not sure if either campaign is going to want to bring that up at all. One wonders if this is going to be Satanic ritual abuse conspiracy theory territory, or Catholic Church sexual abuse conspiracy of silence territory.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:19 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wikileaks publishes Clinton war emails

I read several articles about that "leak" from websites hostile to Hillary, and not one mentioned a damning detail from the emails. In fact, none listed ANYTHING from the emails at all, just breathlessly reporting the fact of their release as Hillary's doom.

Is there something I missed? Because Assange promised that this was enough to indict her -- for a war that began long before she took office as Secretary of State, and that she in fact ended on her watch. A big whiff would put a serious hole in Assange's credibility.
posted by msalt at 3:23 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Assange is a self important asshat. Wikileaks is a good concept but he's an awful champion
posted by vuron at 3:28 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


Already seeing obvious Republican talking points about Obama and Clinton using Air Force One to campaign, coming from conservative Facebook friends.
posted by Sara C. at 3:31 PM on July 5, 2016


Already seeing obvious Republican talking points about Obama and Clinton using Air Force One to campaign, coming from conservative Facebook friends.

Probably because Trump tweeted twice about it earlier today. (I'd link, but I'm on a mobile device.)
posted by salix at 3:39 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Of course he used Air Force One. He can't travel any other way.
posted by zutalors! at 3:41 PM on July 5, 2016 [14 favorites]


The folks I saw talking about it implied that Clinton was also traveling on AF1 and thus somehow freeloading off the American People or something??? I mean obvs this is bullshit but yeah
posted by Sara C. at 3:54 PM on July 5, 2016


I heard Clinton shot a man, just to watch him die. It was on the radio, I think.
posted by bongo_x at 4:04 PM on July 5, 2016 [16 favorites]


I remember reading about this Air Force One issue recently. I thought it had been posted here but I can't find it. It boils down to part of the expense of using Air Force One while campaigning is covered by the candidate's campaign funds. That is what Obama did during his re-election campaign in 2012 and that is what he is doing now. Yes, for security reasons Obama cannot fly on any old jet so when he needs to fly somewhere for private reasons not related to his Presidential duties than at least part of the expense is paid for by private funds.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:05 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


Also, as a matter of terminology it's impossible for the president to fly on anything other than Air Force One because any plane that carries the president is automatically designated Air Force One.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 4:10 PM on July 5, 2016 [29 favorites]


Probably because Trump tweeted twice about it earlier today.

Trump's just jealous because he has to fly around in third-hand 757 bought from Paul Allen, who himself bought it from a defunct Danish airline. The plane probably still has that lingering odor of pickled herring and sweaty programmers.
posted by FJT at 4:23 PM on July 5, 2016 [13 favorites]


Bob Corker auditioning for VP right now in Raleigh
posted by