The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself: after the US election
November 13, 2016 12:04 PM   Subscribe

Several days after the 2016 US election, president-elect Donald Trump is holding meetings, interviews and starting to build his administration team. His positions on issues such as mass deportation, tax and foreign policy are the cause of speculation; election positions on the ACA are possibly partially rolled back, but against bleak forecasts environmental positions seem to stay as they were, to the concern of scientists. Elsewhere there is discussion of why Hillary lost to Donald, such as James Comey's involvement, rural voting patterns, swing state perceptions or voter rights and suppression, while the Democratic Party consider who should lead them forwards. Meanwhile, protests occur in several US cities, there is speculation about Trump being impeached, the electoral college is under further scrutiny, and Kate McKinnon and Dave Chappelle on SNL.

To mod-quote: Don't go after each other, don't poke known sore points. There is an election channel in Chat. (If the web interface isn't working for you, frimble has instructions for connecting with Adium, Monal, and Apple Messages. A longer list of Jabber-compatible clients.) Alternately...

Take it to MetaTalk
* Holidays, gratitude, and Metafilter.
* Grief and Coping Thread: Election 2016.
* MeFites offering refuge for the holidays.
* US Election Day Roundup.
* It's a big snowball - political sub-site discussion.

For legacy content, see posts tagged with election2016. Recent election posts include After the 2016 US election, Election Night II: Load Balancing Boogaloo, Of the people, by the people, and for the people: US election day, and Senators, Representatives, and Referenda. The election thread reference wiki explains some of the terminology used in comments on these threads.

There are also many recent election-related threads in Ask MetaFilter; these include I need a good laugh, badly by azpenguin and Desperate for distractions by tzikeh. There are also some links of distraction and comfort by Deoridhe.

Post title by Franklin D. Roosevelt in a 1937 letter to all state governors.
posted by Wordshore (3277 comments total) 93 users marked this as a favorite
 
I remember when I used to look forward to these. :(
posted by tonycpsu at 12:06 PM on November 13, 2016 [91 favorites]


Is this the first 2020 thread?
posted by Justinian at 12:06 PM on November 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


Is this the first 2020 thread?

Where's that deportation force when you need it?
posted by tonycpsu at 12:07 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


CNN exit polls
posted by Brian B. at 12:07 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Our president-elect seems to have spent most of the day on Twitter today, perhaps with someone helping him craft bizarro tweets.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:09 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


My takeaway: as long as times are hard, no one who has a record to run on (or a spousal record hung around her neck) can actually win. Being very far outside the political system is a pretty huge advantage when many people hate the system.

Looking past the Trump nuclear apocalypse dumpster fire, I see a lot of reality TV stars and YouTube streamers and (ack) retired Red Sox players out shilling for our votes. Being a politician seems to bring a tainted smell with it.
posted by puddledork at 12:13 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Guardian: "What I learned after 100,000 miles on the road talking to Trump supporters"

Article actually profiles people of color and women.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:13 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Right now I'm in a place of uncertainty, anger, focus, resolve, and lots of physical energy. I'm also finding interest in reaching out to others who will be affected, which is a new feeling for me. Thanks, trump. If Hillary had won I'd probably have gone back to sleep.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:18 PM on November 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


God dammit. Not 2020, 2018! The decisive votes come in off-presedential elections.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 12:18 PM on November 13, 2016 [131 favorites]


And now, Trump does not want to live in the White House full time. He wants to live in Trump Tower also. He wants us to foot the bill to secure that building? He wants to take the office of the commander and chief to his hotel?

Not one of his family members should have a security clearance, ever, they should not even be able to catch dogs. Mike Pence should also not have a clearance, as he as stated clearly his loyalty is not with the United States, two times removed.
posted by Oyéah at 12:20 PM on November 13, 2016 [44 favorites]


Glaubst du etwa an die Evolution?​ (Do you believe in Evolution?)

English Translation (not mine)

This is utterly depressing. And Minnesota of all places.
posted by Talez at 12:21 PM on November 13, 2016 [21 favorites]


2018 will be a difficult year for Democrats.
posted by jpe at 12:22 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


If it's gotta be populist outsiders or nothing for the next few cycles I nominate Neil Degrasse Tyson.
posted by sourwookie at 12:24 PM on November 13, 2016 [32 favorites]


I guess the election threads really are going to run from here to eternity as others predicted. Glob help us all.
posted by comealongpole at 12:24 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Here is how you can report a hate incident to the Southern Poverty Law Center. They logged 201 between Election Day and the COB on Friday.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:24 PM on November 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


1. I remember when I used to look forward to these. :(
2. Is this the first 2020 thread?
3a. Where's that deportation force when you need it?
3b. God dammit. Not 2020, 2018! The decisive votes come in off-presidential elections.
4. 2018 will be a difficult year for Democrats.


Oh, Metafilter. Thanks for the sniffle-chuckle-fading-into-a-sob.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:26 PM on November 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Although maybe if Trump protesters keep beating people the American people will realize they were wrong to vote Republican.
posted by jpe at 12:26 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Except that article is predicated on a Clinton win. It suggests actually that the "slim chance of a Trump win" would be better for Democratic senators in "ruby red" states.
posted by corb at 12:26 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]




Meanwhile, Conway threatened Harry Reid today, telling him to be "careful" in the "legal sense."
posted by zachlipton at 12:28 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


God dammit. Not 2020, 2018! The decisive votes come in off-presedential elections.

True, but 2020 is when election districts can be redrawn, so that would be good tool. 2018 should be all about getting as much of House back, while building an infrastructure to tackle everything in 2020.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:29 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


anyone seen exit polls with income + race (together)? seems to be missing from cnn.
posted by andrewcooke at 12:29 PM on November 13, 2016


Although maybe if Trump protesters keep beating people the American people will realize they were wrong to vote Republican.

You mean Californian liberals aren't bastions of perfection? Shit and here I was hoping. Let's pack it up people. Twenty years of Republican rule now. No more healthcare or welfare.
posted by Talez at 12:30 PM on November 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


My hunch is that the margin of error on a crosstab of the exit poll with both income and race would be so high so as to make it meaningless. The exit poll is already kind of a mess just looking at race because of the small number of people in each subgroup.
posted by zachlipton at 12:32 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Meanwhile, Conway threatened Harry Reid today, telling him to be "careful" in the "legal sense."

Yep, and dear Melania is pursuing a libel lawsuit against a blogger. So it looks like that pesky free speech deal will be up for some revision soon. It's gotta be one of Trump's own biggest interests.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:33 PM on November 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


Maybe this goes in the grief support thread. All through this campaign and election, I've contemplated participating but mostly kept opting out. I don't know why.

There's been a bit of a debate in my household. Both my husband and I supported Clinton in 2008, and initially supported Bernie this time around. When Clinton became the nominee, I was happy to support her, and he wasn't. He said a lot of stuff about how she was cold and calculating, part of the system. He's still saying those things. He won't watch her concession speech, though he did admit to getting choked up over Kate McKinnon's song on SNL "despite his feelings about Hillary." You know, his feelings that she was a part of the political machine.

I tried to articulate how Clinton's identity as a politician is part of what was so inspiring to me, and part of what was so crushing about this defeat. She is a white woman in expensivepantsuits, attractive and polished, married to a successful president, faithful through his breaking of their marriage vows. She was smart and professional and good. She went high when she was called nasty. She has played by the rules of this system, no matter how dirty those rules were. This is how we tell women that they can succeed. Play as well as the boys, while working twice as hard, and you can do it.

But she failed. And that makes me feel so despairing. If she can't, can any of us? My husband's hope is for Warren in 2020. Part of me hopes for that, too. But Warren is not as polished as Clinton, not as controlled, "goofy," as Trump put it. Zephyr Teachout ran in my district, and all the campaign propaganda attacked women just like Warren, and just like me: a know-it-all liberal professor who stands to make "you" (male voters, I guess) look foolish. Who doesn't understand "you."

But Teachout (who lost) was me, and Warren is me, and I'm so scared of seeing her run because it was almost impossible for me to watch those debates and hear unqualified Trump talk over Clinton and call her a Nasty Woman because I already identified too much. And if someone more radical and angrier and less polished goes up against him and loses, I'm going to feel so crushed, so destroyed.

But I also feel like I need to hope. I need to get radicalized. Because the world used to tell us we could win if we were twice as professional as men and worked twice as hard. And that was a lie. So maybe we need to get angry. Maybe we need to face the hatred and own it, to be a smart, goofy know-it-all who won't be nice, go high, be quiet.

For the last decade I always left the room when politics came up with my conservative family, while they said Hillary was gross, while they said Santorum was a nice guy. My eyes went wide and I thought that was enough to register my disgust. I'm not leaving the room anymore. I want to make them uncomfortable as they made me. It won't help change minds, but maybe I won't feel like dying inside all the time anymore.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:34 PM on November 13, 2016 [254 favorites]


In even more alarming news, NBC is reporting that Linda McMahon is being considered for Secretary of Commerce. He really is just going down the list of the six "friends" he has.
posted by zachlipton at 12:35 PM on November 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


2018 will be a difficult year for Democrats.

...in the Senate, because there are so many Democrats up for election.

As corb notes, the chances for vulnerable Democrats probably just improved markedly, since Trump and the GOP are very likely to be facing very low approval ratings going into 2018. Likewise, the underlying fundamental chances for Democrats in the House, governors' mansions, and statehouses in 2018 are now pretty good.

While it's ghoulish to say so, these chances are even better if a recession hits between now and 2018. Just because voters punish the President's party, but also because Trump and the Republicans are likely to be pretty damn ineffective at fighting it, so it will be worse and last longer than it has to.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:39 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Posted this in the tail end of the last post, don't want it to get lost:

Everybody prepping to do the slog work of 2018, we have something to attend to NOW, here's the best article I've seen yet talking about the Louisiana runoff election with calls to action.
posted by foxfirefey at 12:39 PM on November 13, 2016 [27 favorites]


The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself

Our nation just soiled itself.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:43 PM on November 13, 2016 [46 favorites]


eponysterical!
posted by zachlipton at 12:44 PM on November 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


Hey PhoBWanKenobi - I always tried to keep the peace & keep quiet with my conservative family too - and we have all done ok with just not talking about politics.

But I've decided that I'm going to make up some fun games to play with them - inspired by other MeFites in other threads!

Volunteer the info that you voted for Trump? Fantastic, Mom - I'm gonna donate $xx to the ACLU.

Snide comment about All Lives Matter? Super, highly regarded friend of family! $xx to Black Lives Matter!

Expressing pleasure about possible conservative Supreme Court Justices? Planned Parenthood thanks you for the $xx donation I just made in your name!

Given how easy it is to donate to progressive causes directly from my phone, I plan on just having websites primed and ready to go.
posted by hilaryjade at 12:44 PM on November 13, 2016 [85 favorites]


I'm trying to find a place in my head where I can start thinking strategically, but I'm still too bewildered and disgusted.

And more than a little afraid, though not for myself. I've got the option of stealth mode, if it comes to that... too many people I care about either don't or would rather die.
posted by BS Artisan at 12:44 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


I am a very very hopeful person and I choose to believe that this will result in a beautiful outpouring of progressive support that will last far longer than four years. (Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the next 4 years "won't be that bad," I'm just saying there's a possibility for the reaction to be strong and positive.)
posted by miyabo at 12:44 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


It's gotta be one of Trump's own biggest interests.

yeah one of my first thoughts about him post-election was "wow i hope no one tells him about lese-majeste" but actually now i'm wondering if the scary foreign-sounding name might put him off.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:45 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Crony capitalism is going to be the order of the day and since his murderers row of inept friends have zero charisma and zero competency it will be somewhat interesting to see if Republicans are able to get much done while they race to profit themselves.
posted by vuron at 12:46 PM on November 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


Somebody close to me lives in Harlem. He's white. He's about two zillion miles removed from a Trump supporter. Somebody saw his lily whiteness, challenged him, and the thing ended with somebody declaring it was "Donald Trump time" and suggested that my loved one be taken around the block and beaten up.

I feel like there should be a new way of saying this is the darkest timeline.
posted by angrycat at 12:47 PM on November 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


In even more alarming news, NBC is reporting that Linda McMahon is being considered for Secretary of Commerce. He really is just going down the list of the six "friends" he has.

Guy Debord: "In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation."
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 12:48 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


In even more alarming news, NBC is reporting that Linda McMahon is being considered for Secretary of Commerce.

How many past cabinets have had the priviliege of not one but two members getting the Stone Cold Stunner?
posted by PenDevil at 12:49 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


For whatever's next, Democrats should go for boldness, not incrementalism. Craft policies that don't get buried in the fine print of a platform page. Instead, something that's straightforward and simple enough to be summarized in a few words and a snappy phrase. Might I suggest guaranteed income or basic income? It's only the most hyped pie-in-the-sky proposal touted by privileged white libertarian Silicon Valley techies like this guy. (More here.)
posted by Apocryphon at 12:53 PM on November 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


How many past cabinets have had the priviliege of not one yt but two yt members getting the Stone Cold Stunner?

"Where have you gone, Joe Dimaggio, Stone Cold Steve Austin, a nation turns turns its lonely eyes to you...."
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 12:56 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


This story is interesting. Since Trump doesn't conform to the Republican orthodoxy, the GOP money men will be happy to see him impeached, and replaced with a more pliable Mike Pence.
posted by Bee'sWing at 12:57 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


So here's my question. What the fuck are the Republicans going to do about the ACA? They have to overturn it. They've been promising that they'd overturn it since it was passed. But overturning it is going to be deeply, profoundly brutal. They can't keep the pre-existing condition provisions without the individual mandate, because there's no way the insurance companies would put up with that, but people are going to be *pissed* when the pre-existing condition provisions go away. So are they just going to run on "fuck you sick people, you can die in a ditch"? Because I"m not sure what else they're going to have to run on.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:58 PM on November 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


>are they just going to run on "fuck you sick people, you can die in a ditch"? Because I"m not sure what else they're going to have to run on.

I'm pretty sure they're gonna go with 'it's Obama's fault'. We are post-factual now and 'it's Obama's fault' is gonna have legs like you would not believe.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 1:02 PM on November 13, 2016 [105 favorites]


And now, Trump does not want to live in the White House full time. He wants to live in Trump Tower also. He wants us to foot the bill to secure that building? He wants to take the office of the commander and chief to his hotel?

This is pretty much what Sarah Palin did during her abbreviated term as Alaska governor, to the point where members of the state legislature had buttons made up reading, "Where's Sarah?"
posted by Halloween Jack at 1:03 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


So are they just going to run on "fuck you sick people, you can die in a ditch"? Because I"m not sure what else they're going to have to run on.

"It hurts right now, but once we deport all those immigrants and they stop using up all the medicine and the emergency room, everything will work out."
posted by kewb at 1:03 PM on November 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


So here's my question. What the fuck are the Republicans going to do about the ACA? They have to overturn it. They've been promising that they'd overturn it since it was passed. But overturning it is going to be deeply, profoundly brutal. They can't keep the pre-existing condition provisions without the individual mandate, because there's no way the insurance companies would put up with that, but people are going to be *pissed* when the pre-existing condition provisions go away. So are they just going to run on "fuck you sick people, you can die in a ditch"? Because I"m not sure what else they're going to have to run on.

I feel like they're going to try to keep the preexisting conditions protection, keep kids on parents' insurance until 26, ditch the mandate, and then toss the whole mess to the states to figure out how to fund so they can try and wash their hands of it.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:03 PM on November 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


Replace and repeal were popular when Republicans didn't actually have to deliver on the promises. Trying to get a remotely palatable replacement past their own house is next to impossible.

So yeah they have to repeal some very popular provisions to get rid of the stuff their base hates.
posted by vuron at 1:03 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Might I suggest guaranteed income or basic income?

While we are imagining our ideal platform, could I just throw Full Employment out there? We aren't post-scarcity yet. Right now there's still so much work that doesn't get done just because no one is being paid to do it. U6 doesn't need to be 10%.
posted by great_radio at 1:05 PM on November 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


Remember when the greatest fear of "After Trump loses" was the likelihood of an even worse but more competent neo-fascist rising? Well, today's very narrow "bright side" is that it's going to be more difficult to pull that off in the post-Trump years (if we survive to the 'post-Trump years'). And so we have to bet on the incompetence of a man who can't make a profit on casinos to save us. Which is not a bad bet.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:05 PM on November 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Maybe it will be Kardashians 2020, as some kind of family ticket like he's doing with his guys.
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:07 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


There is one more senate race that could hamper the Republicans ability to pass legislation.

I'll remind everyone that the Clinton campaign instituted a Pied Piper strategy of asking their media friends give Trump media coverage during the Republican primary, specifically because he was teh worst candidate

We'll never know exactly how the momentum that strategy gave Trump aided him during the general. We all found it completely bizarre how the media talked about him and nobody else though. And it visibly saved him many millions in television ads. It's clear his experience in television helped some too, but probably nothing like the free ramp from media friends of the Clinton campaign. It's obvious the Pied Piper strategy helped Trump more than anything the Green party did, probably more than many other single influence about which Democrats complain.

Also I quite enjored This is who is to blame for Trump by Jonathan Pie
posted by jeffburdges at 1:09 PM on November 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


Kanye West has declared his candidacy and he's married to a Kardashian.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:09 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


I feel like they're going to try to keep the preexisting conditions protection
They can't. It doesn't work like that. You can only have protection for preexisting conditions if you have some mechanism to make healthy people buy insurance. You can't let people wait until they're sick to get insurance: that's like letting people wait and buy homeowner's insurance after their house is on fire. Insurance works because it pools risk. It doesn't work if people can wait until they need a payout before they contribute to the system.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:09 PM on November 13, 2016 [53 favorites]


So here's my question. What the fuck are the Republicans going to do about the ACA?

We know a little about what Trump is planning to do, though we don't yet know if the GOP will go along with it. (Read that whole thing, it's astonishing.)
Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
posted by skymt at 1:10 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


So basically: fuck you sick people, you can die in a ditch.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:11 PM on November 13, 2016 [31 favorites]


ArbitraryAndCapricious: "So are they just going to run on "fuck you sick people, you can die in a ditch"? Because I"m not sure what else they're going to have to run on."

They don't need to. Most people don't have personal experience with getting screwed by the health industry prior to the ACA. Most Trump voters are middle class, not poor, and the only effects they see are their premiums rising higher and higher. I've talked to several since the election, and they generally seem to think that everything was great before the ACA, and that all the horror stories in the biased media were about lazy & undeserving people who didn't bother to get health insurance or get a job that provided it.

The only thing the GOP has to do is repeal the ACA, make some token reforms in the name of the free market and let things take their natural & horrible course. The natural inclinations of the Trump voter will provide all the political coverage they need.
posted by xthlc at 1:12 PM on November 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


So basically: fuck you sick people, you can die in a ditch.

that's been the republican platform for however many decades now, so no surprise there.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:12 PM on November 13, 2016 [72 favorites]


So basically: fuck you sick people, you can die in a ditch.

Trump's health policies are nothing like that. It's exactly this dismissal of what he said that led so many people to get pleasantly surprised when they listened to him for 30 seconds.
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:12 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


There's a chance he'll sell off the ditch to a private equity firm in a public-private-partnership scheme, so you'll need to pay a toll before you can die in that ditch.
posted by zachlipton at 1:13 PM on November 13, 2016 [47 favorites]


Most people don't have personal experience with getting screwed by the health industry prior to the ACA.
Are you sure about that? I think a lot of people forget how many of us were fucked by the pre-existing condition thing, or else they don't understand how the ACA works and think they'll be able to keep pre-existing condition protections, which they won't.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:14 PM on November 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


they charge your family for the shovels and labor it took to fill the ditch in.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:15 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's exactly this dismissal of what he said that led so many people to get pleasantly surprised when they listened to him for 30 seconds.

And then they listen for another 30 seconds and realize he just said something completely different.
posted by Etrigan at 1:15 PM on November 13, 2016 [45 favorites]


Arguably Reagan nationalized health care with that law that kept hpositals from turning away people who could not pay, just without any plans to pay for it.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:15 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


On Friday, these alt-right posters were distributed around the building on Ohio States that houses foreign languages, an international book store, and an international students' cafe. The anthropology graduate students and faculty are going to be organizing a series of teach-ins and fora on race, human variation, and cultural relativism in the coming weeks. If anyone is in Ohio and interested in attending, send me a message. If you're interested, here is the American Association of Anthropologists' statement on race.
posted by ChuraChura at 1:16 PM on November 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


They can't. It doesn't work like that. You can only have protection for preexisting conditions if you have some mechanism to make healthy people buy insurance. You can't let people wait until they're sick to get insurance: that's like letting people wait and buy homeowner's insurance after their house is on fire. Insurance works because it pools risk. It doesn't work if people can wait until they need a payout before they contribute to the system.

They can't successfully, it would destroy the system, but why would they worry about that? They can keep the popular parts and then tell the states "here are your block grants, healthcare is now a state issue, good luck!" and their base will make a million excuses why that somehow didn't work.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:17 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


Oliver Stuenkel ‏@oliverstuenkel
If Le Pen wins in France next year, these would be the five leaders in control of the UN Security Council...


Good point Talez. One of the (castastrophising?) offtopic thoughts I had to bite my tongue on posting in the immediate post-Trump threads was "Never mind that, how do I/we stop Le Pen?". I don't know France and I don't know French, but it kind of feels like all the dominos are falling and even the worst varieties of the usual mean political self-interest are being replaced by something still more hateful and more cruel.
posted by comealongpole at 1:20 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Speaking of Le Pen...

@AdamBienkov
Marine Le Pen admits National Front funded from Russia. Then says Europe no longer needs Nato #marr
posted by chris24 at 1:23 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Le Pen is stopped by having a candidate with a more attractive platform. "Your campaign is thoughtcrime" didn't work against BREXIT, didn't work against Trump and won't work against Le Pen.
posted by MattD at 1:24 PM on November 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


And Trump has supposedly picked Reince as Chief of Staff. I guess good that it's not Bannon?
posted by chris24 at 1:24 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Just read that Marine Le Pen's presidential ambitions are somewhat fraught with infighting with her father Jean-Marie (who is bitter that she has a better chance than he did) and her niece Marion Maréchal-Le Pen (who wants to win the presidency for herself, at a later date). If accurate, I find it immeasurably amusing that struggle within a political dynasty is what's styming far-right takeover in France of all nations.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:27 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Le Pen is stopped by having a candidate with a more attractive platform.

Which French candidate, what's the platform?
posted by Apocryphon at 1:29 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump's health policies are nothing like that. It's exactly this dismissal of what he said that led so many people to get pleasantly surprised when they listened to him for 30 seconds.
Trump's health policies are typical Republican talking points: deregulate the insurance industry and make it easier for people to save money to pay for healthcare expenses. I don't think he has anything else. Obamacare was the old-school moderate Republican solution to this problem, back when there were moderate Republicans.
You do understand that you are on a webpage full of people with college degrees who voted for Hillary Clinton, right? Did you really mean to call everybody else here dumb?
I'm 100% certain he did mean that, and the best course of action is not to take the bait.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:32 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


My suspicion is Trump and the GOP House spend months fighting over how to effect replace-and-repeal, and eventually they pass something pretty similar to Obamacare with one major difference they can highlight. Trump spends all of his time not talking about the bill itself, but rather demanding that everyone stop saying "Obamacare" and only call it "Trumpcare" from now on.

I do like his idea to require cost transparency by providers, which could lead to steering and tiering in ways that reduce inefficiency in the markets. Too bad in addition to this reasonable proposal, he also plans to install a neo-Nazi as his Chief of Staff.

It's like someone said "I hear you wanted a doughnut. I've backed a truckload of dog poop up behind your house, with a donut buried in there somewhere. If you eat the whole thing you'll eventually maybe get to the donut before the poop-eating kills you."
posted by sallybrown at 1:33 PM on November 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


I just dropped in to see what position my Metalfilter was in.

I've been trying to keep far away from the news, including Metafilter, only peeking every once in a while.

And, of course, Facebook can be a minefield at times. One friend of a friend posted a link to a story on the protests and commented, "This is not how mature adults handle disappointment" and I've been simmering about it ever since. So many people are going to lose so much in terms of civil rights, safety and health care, and this fucker is tut-tuting like we lost a goddamn game of Monopoly.

There. That felt better. Thanks, folks.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 1:33 PM on November 13, 2016 [69 favorites]


This is about the right amount of WWC class outreach I think. No pandering to racists, no compromise in platform, just pointing out the failure of Reps to deliver on their promises.

@HeerJeet
Going forward, Dem message to Obama-to-Trump voters & working class GOP base: you've been suckered. Trump is Ryan's puppet.

@HeerJeet
Dem message to WWC: "Trump promised to be your champion, now he's puppet to Ryan's agenda of privatizing medicare & social security."

@HeerJeet
Same message if Trump follows through with neo-con foreign policy. "You've been suckered. He is not who he said he was. He's regular GOP."
posted by chris24 at 1:33 PM on November 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


Trump's health policies are nothing like that. It's exactly this dismissal of what he said that led so many people to get pleasantly surprised when they listened to him for 30 seconds.

Taking you seriously, I, and basically nobody else including Donald Trump himself, have any idea what his healthcare proposals are.

The most complete view we've seen was this proposal, which he put out extremely late in the campaign. It's basically a plan to repeal all of the ACA, end the individual mandate, sell insurance across state lines (largely meaningless), makes individual plans tax-deductible (doesn't help you at all if you're not making enough money, he provides no clue how he'd pay for it too), more HSAs (again, doesn't help if you don't have enough money), require price transparency from providers (sure, not a bad thing, but not much help if you have a heart attack), block-grant Medicaid (let the states screw over poor people as hardly as they wish), and allow importation of drugs from other countries (sure, assuming safety is assured).

Then, a couple of weeks ago, he spoke absolute gibberish about health care. Repeal Obamacare was still always priority #1 though.

Following the election, he scrubbed his plan into something that looks like Paul Ryan wrote it, getting rid of the drug import component and the price transparency (because that's a regulation), killed the tax deduction for premiums on the individual market, and added a plank to "modernize" Medicare, whatever that means.

Then he gave an interview to the WSJ where he said he wants to keep parts of the ACA, such as coverage for dependents under 26 and the mandate that insurers cover preexisting conditions. Nobody has explained, nor has he been asked, how insurers will cover preexisting conditions without an individual mandate without leading to a death spiral in the market. He also hasn't explained what the 20 million people who've gained coverage under the ACA are supposed to do after he's done repealing it.

So yeah, people were pleasantly surprised if they listened to him at the right moment, but he fundamentally has no plan and has changed direction on major components within the space of a couple weeks. That's the biggest problem with the "well let's just hear him out" argument. He will tell anyone what they want to hear and nobody has any earthly idea what he wants to do.
posted by zachlipton at 1:35 PM on November 13, 2016 [132 favorites]


Too bad in addition to this reasonable proposal, he also plans to install a neo-Nazi as his Chief of Staff.

Oh good, I missed the breaking news. His chief of staff is a man who failed to object to a know-nothing narcissist seeking the Presidency; his advisor is a neo-Nazi.
posted by sallybrown at 1:35 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


I doubt Le Pen will win in France because French people are not sucked into the asinine two party mentality. France has multiple successful parties because they have a parliament that does not use first-past-the-post.

We expect Le Pen will make it into the runoff for the presidency, but if the other candidate does not suck too badly then she will loose. As I understand it, there are good odds that other candidate will be right-wing too, but it's feasible the left-wing parties could abandon their nepotism and compromise on one good candidate who appeals to both PS and the far left. It's far more likely PS will nominate whatever party flack they like and gambol on far left voters supporting them in the first round.

I think if PS can produce a "Bernie sanders" who inspires people across the left-wing political spectrum, and does not scare the right too as badly as Le Pen, then there are very good odds they can win the presidency.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:35 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


“Bannon and Priebus will continue the effective leadership team they formed during the campaign, working as equal partners to transform the federal government, making it much more efficient, effective and productive,” the statement reads.

The Chief of Staff is supposed to be top dog, not an equal partner. So I dunno.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 1:37 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Le Pen will almost certainly win next year. They have had a state of emergency going on there for a year while people get run over with trucks or massacred in theatres. The strategy of 'sharpening the tensions' works well for both jihadis and the French state.
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:37 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Chances are Le Pen's a shoo-in, then. And then the EU disintegrates, another light on the hill of liberalism is extinguished, and Alexander Dugin's Eurasian masterplan comes closer to completion.
posted by acb at 1:37 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Which is the candidate with the good platform because we can take all of the positive cases to learn from right now
posted by Apocryphon at 1:38 PM on November 13, 2016


Trump's health policies are nothing like that. It's exactly this dismissal of what he said that led so many people to get pleasantly surprised when they listened to him for 30 seconds.

What do you think differs from "Fuck you, sick people?" It's right there on his own web page. The things he's saying will replace obamacare are:

(1) You should save your pennies in case you get cancer.
(2) If you want to, you can buy a health insurance policy at full sticker price. You will also be able to buy one from another state.
(3) Whatever state you live in can do what it wants with medicaid money.

I could sort of accept that at some level he'd prefer that Americans had good coverage. But... it's just stupid. Keeping the ban on pre-existing condition limitations means that mostly sick people will be buying coverage, which means the plans people will be able to buy across state lines will be very expensive. Which means lots of people will be unable to afford any available policy, but also make too much money for Medicaid. What his plan offers to those people is just that they should save their pennies because they might get cancer, or their kid might get run over.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:40 PM on November 13, 2016 [21 favorites]


The Chief of Staff is supposed to be top dog, not an equal partner. So I dunno.

Agreed it sucks Bannon's involved at all. But slightly better that they're not brazen enough to officially make a white nationalist CoS. Sad that's where we are, but... 2016.
posted by chris24 at 1:41 PM on November 13, 2016


The Chief of Staff is supposed to be top dog, not an equal partner. So I dunno.

The candidate cannot make tough choices because his narcissism makes him need love and approval from anyone he is in front of at the moment. See also: his waffling on his VP selection. See also: his compliments of President Obama, the man he's spent 8 years harassing and trying to discredit.

The game for his staff the next four years is going to be preventing their rivals from getting facetime with the President.
posted by sallybrown at 1:42 PM on November 13, 2016 [38 favorites]


They can't. It doesn't work like that. You can only have protection for preexisting conditions if you have some mechanism to make healthy people buy insurance

I want to stress I think this is a horrible and truly evil idea, but here's a terrifying look at what Competent Evil Trump who gives no fucks about the US might do.

Keep the pre-existing conditions ban and repeal the mandate. It doesn't matter if the insurance companies revolt, what can they do to him? If they yank up prices, blame it on the ethnic origin of their owners. "These companies, they have a lot of foreigners on their boards. They're un American. You need to give me more power so I can take them on."

Eliminate the Medicaid expansion entirely in blue states where it is primarily used by demographics that opposed him. Wait for liberal- voting older Dems to die off. Allow block grants to red states with red governors so they can funnel funds to Republican voting districts only. Wait for more people to die.

Use executive order to halt the implementation of the regulations that force hospitals to take everyone regardless of their ability to pay.
posted by corb at 1:43 PM on November 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Letting companies sell insurance across state lines means all of them will move to the state with the fewest regulations on how hard you're allowed to screw your customers.
posted by EarBucket at 1:43 PM on November 13, 2016 [45 favorites]


And isn't Merkle up for re-election next fall? I'm sure the worldwide right will be looking to pour some money into stoking fear in Germany soon too if that's the case.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:44 PM on November 13, 2016


RE: Reince as CoS... The deplorables are getting restless already.

@DrDavidDuke
"I thought we were draining the swamp? Here we go again......"
posted by chris24 at 1:44 PM on November 13, 2016 [27 favorites]


Bannon still gets his name above Priebus on the announcement, which either means something about who's really important, or it just means that Bannon is the one who approved the release before it went out.
posted by zachlipton at 1:45 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


.
posted by glonous keming at 1:46 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


How could this not have been called What Comes Next?

(Winning was easy, young man. Governing's harder.)
posted by rokusan at 1:47 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


I'd like to draw some attention to a comment I wrote way back in February. I won't quote it, but I think it's worth reading.

I was wrong about the second part (that he'd implode), but I think that to the very end no one really understood the nature of this white-resentment version of right-wing populism. And this has profound consequences for the GOP. This idea that lots of the GOP and their monied backers would love to see Trump impeached and replaced by Pence is exactly right ... but I find the likelihood of that happening very low because the bottom line here is that this white resentment right wing populism is a real thing that's not going to go away. I think that the GOP is going to tear itself apart.

But we should take no comfort from that. Because in the process, a Trump administration is going to, at minimum, tear this entire country apart. And in my mind, that's the best case scenario. I can think of at least five or six ways in which Trump could start a chain of globally catastrophic consequences, chief among them turning a blind eye when Putin invades or incites a reverse color revolution in the Baltics, which will then tear apart NATO and, not concidentally, increase the impetus for the European populist right to ascension. I can imagine Trump undermining the dollar as the currency of last resort, as the reserve currency. I can imagine the bond market collapsing here and in Europe, triggering not just a global recession, but a genuine depression. And none of this relies upon trade. All the worries about trade are the typical neoliberal scaremongering about protectionism. Trump could manage some protectionism, but not enough to do any real damage. The rest of the party won't go along with that. But he could do enormous economic damage otherwise.

But the US President has an almost unequaled latitude when it comes to foreign policy and the use of the military among modern democracies. The damage Trump could do -- this narcissist who nurtures resentments and acts out against his list of enemies on an impulsive manner -- is horrifying. This is someone who makes Nixon look sober and cautious and forgiving.

The best case scenario is that Trump does tremendous damage to the US, but not the world. The worst case is that he does tremendous damage to the entire world. The US is the global hegemon. There is nowhere to move to, nowhere to hide, nowhere that is safe.

Yes, I think that this heralds a radical and unpredictable era of political realignment of both parties. I don't see how the GOP can withstand this in its current shape. I think that, in the long run, this is the death-knell for that coalition of big-business and the Christian right that has sustained it since Reagan. And, sure, that's a good thing because it means that a big portion of what is now the GOP will become a de facto white nationalist party, making them dangrous, but a notable minority party. But this will involve increasing fear and anxiety and violence, and the uncertainty about what the new political alignment on both the left and the right will have its own costs. There is no way forward from this that isn't very bad, even given the fact that, yes, I believe that the GOP has basically guaranteed its own eventual end. But who knows what political order will replace what we, in the US, and for that matter the rest of the world has known for decades. Whatever it is, it could be much worse.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:48 PM on November 13, 2016 [56 favorites]


Le Pen will almost certainly win next year. They have had a state of emergency going on there for a year while people get run over with trucks or massacred in theatres. The strategy of 'sharpening the tensions' works well for both jihadis and the French state.

As terrible as is it would be for us, wouldn't the French see what's going on in Trump's America and Brexit U.K. and be deterred accordingly?
posted by Apocryphon at 1:51 PM on November 13, 2016


I dunno. I can totally believe that Trump has no healthcare plan because he doesn't care about policy and never thought about what he would actually do if he won. But I don't believe that the Republican establishment is on board for destroying the entire American healthcare system and cackling while it burns. I think they'll rescind the pre-existing condition protections and try to blame it on some kind of scapegoat. And maybe that will work, but it seems risky.

My guess is that they'll keep the thing where kids can stay on insurance until they're 26, because that's popular and not that expensive. But pre-existing conditions are going to have to go.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:51 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Basically, we've elected the American Alan B'Stard.
posted by kewb at 1:52 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Team Trump was aggressive, ambitious, and unpredictable. They also did a better job of connecting with voters. Trump might be a narcissist, but "Make America Great Again" was a slogan about America. His promises about bringing manufacturing back to Anytown, USA may be hollow, but they were direct promises. His voters saw him slay his "fellow" Republicans during the primaries, and yea did they laugh - he used the act of campaigning itself to show that he could "drain the swamp", as they say. Yes, he's an orange misogynist, but many of his voters are perfectly aware of this - just as many Clinton voters pinned their noses as they pulled the lever, so did they. (They can be just as cynical about their political choices as us!) Trump has a well-established brand: loud-mouthed, tacky, phony hair, a model on each arm. Once you accept that this is who he is, it becomes easy for a lot of people to lose any reaction to the "grab 'em by the pussy" remarks. It's the Tyson Effect. He rode it to victory.

Team Clinton was complacent and insular. Team Clinton did not run a terrible campaign, but they did not run a campaign that was good enough. Too much of the messaging assumed that you already liked the status quo and that you already liked Hillary Clinton. "I'm With Her" and "It's Her Turn" were both slogans about Hillary Clinton herself - paradoxically, this might be acceptable if she were more of a comically vocal narcissist, but it doesn't pair well with her utterly professional demeanor. Even worse, "America is Already Great" tells the MAGA crowd that their concerns are wrong - a deadly failure, from a rhetorical POV. At the end of the day, they assumed that Obama voters would pull for Clinton, and that "smarter" Republicans would also flock to her. Well...Clinton's voters were whiter and wealthier than Obama's in 2012, but mostly because she had lost much of Obama's minority support, and also because Trump had actually made some gains in minority voters over Romney in 2012.

At the end of the day, it is clear that rural voters - white voters - voters without college degrees - that these huge voting blocs would rather cast their lot with Trump.

shit sucks
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:53 PM on November 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


Forgive me if someone has already said this in the previous thread that I did not read all of:

It seems to me Republicans held the government hostage for the last 6 years. AND IT WORKED. Now, suddenly, maybe infrastructure spending isn't socialism, and it will pass. And they will get credit for doing it. Because why would Dems vote against it? They've been wanting it for years themselves.

How many other policies like this will now pass because the president is "republican"? How can Dems ever run things if the other party can just shut down the govt anytime they hold the presidency?

I am reading very few articles about how Democrats move forward after this loss. It seems so all encompassing and overwhelming. We keep being told that Republicans are on their last leg, and then they win another State house, or governorship, or - gasp - the presidency.

What do we do to beat that?
posted by wittgenstein at 1:55 PM on November 13, 2016 [35 favorites]


This is your friendly reminder that Steve Bannon's ex swore under oath (years and years before this election) that he said he didn't want his kids going to a certain LA private school because there were too many Jews there.
posted by zachlipton at 1:55 PM on November 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


chris24: "And Trump has supposedly picked Reince as Chief of Staff. I guess good that it's not Bannon?"

until someone's collecting a paycheck, I don't care what he's supposedly decided. Who knows what's actually going to happen.
posted by boo_radley at 1:57 PM on November 13, 2016


Making Bannon an unofficial but effective Co-Chief of Staff with Priebus will ensure maximum conflict on the level just below the President so that Dumb Donald gets less input from both sides. Perfect for a manager who doesn't want to actually Manage.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:59 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


wouldn't the French see what's going on in Trump's America and Brexit U.K. and be deterred accordingly?

Not with Brexit, since the only thing that's actually changed in 5 months has been a devaluation of the pound, affecting those Britons living abroad on state pensions quite badly (stock market is flying and other economic indicators such as employment seem normal). Brexit inspired Trump's victory, which in turn is likely to lead to victories for the right in Austria (December), France, Netherlands (March 2017) and maybe even Germany. If the EU was able to 'punish' Britain for Brexit it would have done so already.
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:59 PM on November 13, 2016


Who knows what's actually going to happen.

That's why I said supposedly. But they have issued a press release confirming it.
posted by chris24 at 2:00 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've seen a bunch of people talking about how they hope Trump gets mired down in building the wall. Be careful what you wish for.

Ever since I saw the video of Gwynne Dwyer explaining that the wall could absolutely happen as long as you're willing to kill people, I started to think about how that would likely work in today's America, and I realized that the drone program provides essentially the perfect weapon. Drones can ceaselessly patrol large rural sections of the wall 24/7 with zero risk of danger to those patrolling. Do you think republicans are going to care that we're murdering random non-US citizens trying to cross the border? I think they'll be absolutely delighted. Obama's intelligence expansion activities have handed Trump the ability to massively abuse the system with essentially zero oversight, and innocent people are going to pay for it.
posted by zug at 2:01 PM on November 13, 2016 [26 favorites]


> What do we do to beat that?

Kobayashi Maru
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:02 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


But I don't believe that the Republican establishment is on board for destroying the entire American healthcare system and cackling while it burns.

No, of course not. But they've backed themselves into a corner where they have to repeal obamacare but don't dare repeal obamacare. It's going to be interesting watching them try to square that circle.

Also going to be fun: watching them deal with the Ryan budget, which (at least in 2014) polled at a whopping 22\% support and is so obviously, catastrophically unpopular that one time House Republicans had to scramble around finding enough of their own to vote it down.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:03 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Now, suddenly, maybe infrastructure spending isn't socialism, and it will pass. And they will get credit for doing it. Because why would Dems vote against it? They've been wanting it for years themselves.

How many other policies like this will now pass because the president is "republican"?


I'm sort of expecting "only Nixon could go to China" to reemerge, being floated in talking points as the narrative around some of the genuinely good ideas with bipartisan support that they blocked because it would have meant working with Obama. Because yeah, now the Republicans can take credit.
posted by jason_steakums at 2:05 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


RE: Reince as CoS... The deplorables are getting restless already.

@DrDavidDuke
"I thought we were draining the swamp? Here we go again......"


The responses after that tweet are surprisingly satisfying. But then my personal history with white supremists like him makes me quite biased to a good bit of told you so taunting and laughing.
posted by Jalliah at 2:07 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Although maybe if Trump protesters keep beating people the American people will realize they were wrong to vote Republican.

What's he complaining about? He got exactly what he wanted.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 2:08 PM on November 13, 2016


Not with Brexit, since the only thing that's actually changed in 5 months has been a devaluation of the pound

Weren't there hundreds of reports of racist incidents and harassment following the Brexit vote? While such things weren't entirely new, that feels like a change.
posted by zachlipton at 2:10 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


One thing about the "drain the swamp" rhetoric: I know the original quote is "When you are up to your ass in alligators, it is difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp." Of course, with that analogy, it's hard NOT to see that Trump is not going to do that because he IS the Biggest Alligator. (Of course, what we really need is some alligator-eating-otters)
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:10 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


I am reading very few articles about how Democrats move forward after this loss. It seems so all encompassing and overwhelming. We keep being told that Republicans are on their last leg, and then they win another State house, or governorship, or - gasp - the presidency.

What do we do to beat that?


First step: never, ever, ever, ever assume that they are on their last leg. A lot of people (including myself) had said at various points that the Republicans were finished as a national party. That was fucking wrong. That is the kind of thinking which leads certain Presidential candidates to skip fucking Wisconsin.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:12 PM on November 13, 2016 [35 favorites]


Chris Christie is going to be so upset if he doesn't get a cabinet post.


He was really looking forward to attending all those concerts Bruce was going to perform specifically against him.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:14 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


So, the world is running out of the resources we need to survive as a species. We're in massive overshoot thanks to oil, and now the oil is getting scarce. This isn't difficult to figure out.

If you take a look at the Limits To Growth chart, you'll find that we're facing a decline in services pretty soon. Services being things like medical care, communications, transportation, water, sewer, power, that sort of thing. It's simply not going to be possible to provide all of the services that everyone needs to survive; we just can't afford it anymore.

Obamacare isn't a failure because it's ideologically wrong or financially unsound, it's a failure because it was implemented with an understanding that Americans were relatively healthy. What they found out was that, while fighting to conceal pre-existing conditions from the insurance comanies during the rapacious eighties and nineties, America had been getting a lot sicker than anyone expected.

The societal burden of disease had been massively underestimated, and it cost the insurance companies an assload of cash trying to keep up with it. They've given up. We can't afford it.

So now we're faced with a broke government that hasn't invested in things like infrastructure in decades, and it's going to have to make some deep cuts, because we simply can't afford things like asphalt and concrete and steel anymore. Food prices are going up, and food availability is going down. Water is getting scarce, and harder to purify. Medical care is too expensive, and people are too sick to afford to treat. Every service the government has a hand in providing, especially to the poor, is getting more expensive.

And there's a surplus of labor.

Trump is the consultant you bring in when you need to fire people. You hire an asshole, let him piss off the whole company, and then when he's gone you issue a sincere apology, tell everyone that will never happen again, and let's all pull together to fix the damage. Except the damage never really gets fixed; it's the exact damage that management needed.

Trump can cut food stamps, and it will be the fault of the poor. Trump can cut medical care, can cut services to rural communities, can even do things like raise the age limit on social security, and it won't be the fault of the elites. It will be the poor people, the angry voters. The ones that got duped into electing a corporate figurehead as a populist revolutionary.

Public relations is a wonderful thing.

Expect things to get very, very bad for the poor and the sick in our society in the next few years. As resources get scarce, we are throwing our weak to the wolves.
posted by MrVisible at 2:17 PM on November 13, 2016 [89 favorites]


Since Trump doesn't conform to the Republican orthodoxy, the GOP money men will be happy to see him impeached, and replaced with a more pliable Mike Pence.

But he has value as the attention-sucking lightning rod at the top of the diagram, leaving the next level to actually run things without so much scrutiny.

He's Junior Soprano.
posted by rokusan at 2:18 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


MrVisible: Obamacare isn't a failure because it's ideologically wrong or financially unsound, it's a failure because it was implemented with an understanding that Americans were relatively healthy.

Plus, your healthcare is a lot more expensive than it needs to be, compared to other industrialised countries.
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:22 PM on November 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


Well this is reassuring from John Kasich's Chief of Staff.

@JWGOP
The racist, fascist extreme right is represented footsteps from the Oval Office. Be very vigilant America.
posted by chris24 at 2:25 PM on November 13, 2016 [50 favorites]


MrVisible: Trump is the consultant you bring in when you need to fire people. You hire an asshole, let him piss off the whole company, and then when he's gone you issue a sincere apology, tell everyone that will never happen again, and let's all pull together to fix the damage. Except the damage never really gets fixed; it's the exact damage that management needed.

Ok, when I need my dystopian near-future fiction fix, I'm coming back to you. It's frighteningly plausible.

(But who's the management in this scenario? The Wisdom of Crowds?)

Also, I am convinced that years from now, this cartoon will be remembered as profound.
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:25 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


"One friend of a friend posted a link to a story on the protests and commented, "This is not how mature adults handle disappointment" and I've been simmering about it ever since."

To dust off an old gem from a dark era, Appeasement is not the way mature adults handle a demogogue. (I have a feeling we'll find a lot of vocabulary and rhetoric from that era revived in the coming years.)
posted by klarck at 2:27 PM on November 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


I wish I had 5 minutes to sell Trump on a patriotic American Health Service with military style uniforms and flags everywhere, a great project to improve the USA's infrastructure and strength, but which would just actually be a clone of the wonderful U.K. National Health Service rebranded as a Republican idea.
posted by w0mbat at 2:31 PM on November 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


posted by oneswellfoop the original quote is "When you are up to your ass in alligators, it is difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp."

Well, it makes sense. Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, and Joe Arpaio are exactly the kinds of bottom-feeding creatures living at the bottom of a swamp.
posted by mattdidthat at 2:33 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


As terrible as it would be for us, wouldn't the French see what's going on in Trump's America and Brexit U.K. and be deterred accordingly?

I am not certain that the worst of the visible economic consequences will have hit by the time of the French election. Social consequences, such as an awful empowering of ignorant, racist bastards, don't seem to have deterred anyone so far. Most of the visible 'punishment' of the UK cannot happen until Article 50 is triggered.

On the other hand, the French have faced this sort of showdown before and I would hope they would vote for the less fascistic option despite Marine Le Pen's charisma.

The next pinch point is the Italian constitutional referendum on December 4. I cannot pretend to understand the details but given the wobbliness of the EU and the particular wobbliness of Italian banks, it could cause further instability.

As a Brit, I would like to apologise personally for the nauseating shithouse rat Nigel Farage, who is apparently trying to ensconce himself up the arse of Donald Trump. It really has been unedifying to watch the near-nervous breakdown in the press because Trump loves Farage but only phoned Theresa May ninth. Only ninth! Is the special relationship all for naught?!1!1eleventy?!
posted by finisterre at 2:34 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


From the last thread- I mean what if a few more country music stars had campaigned with her, would that draw in those few extra rural/suburban white women she needed? It just gets silly after a while, but when margins are that small, really almost anything slightly different could have done the trick in theory. (Or hurt her chances too of course, but that is never the point of the exercise.)

If we're going to get into fun but pointless hypotheticals, one wonders if Clinton could have gotten the apolitical Taylor Swift to join Jay-Z and Beyonce as one of her celebrity spokespeople. The internet NEET segment of the alt-right would have schismed.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:35 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


The problem with that limits to growth chart is the same one Neo-Malthusianism always has: Those categories are essentially meaningless without elaboration. "Services to the public" and "resources" have incredibly broad potential interpretations, and there is almost zero reason to suspect the birth rate will actually increase along with pollution, or with a decline of services and resources.

Nonetheless, that's exactly the kind of chart the oligarchs will be using to backup the policy solution you mention (I know it's not *your* policy position) and it's the same one the Malthusians always go for: Let the poor die. A lot of people in this thread have already predicted it.
posted by aspersioncast at 2:37 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


I wish I had 5 minutes to sell Trump on a patriotic American Health Service with military style uniforms and flags everywhere, a great project to improve the USA's infrastructure and strength, but which would just actually be a clone of the wonderful U.K. National Health Service rebranded as a Republican idea.

The US Public Health Service is the uniformed health corps of the Department of Health and Human Services. Its head is the Surgeon General.
posted by snuffleupagus at 2:37 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


in a bad call for my mental health needs, I researched Steve Bannon and am now having the following thoughts:

--I'm glad my partner has six months of emergency essentials stocked
--I must stop thinking of Threads
--I must stop thinking about Threads

And also:

Dear God, whatever God that exists, what might Thou do to save us?

I am in the bargaining stage?
posted by angrycat at 2:39 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


This article was probably posted this summer in the election threads, but I thought it was the most insightful thing I ever read about Trump, so I'm reposting. Here are the key insights from a psychologist and writer who specializes in psychological profiles of the Presidents:

The Mind of Donald Trump by Dan. P. McAdams
Across his lifetime, Donald Trump has exhibited a trait profile that you would not expect of a U.S. president: sky-high extroversion combined with off-the-chart low agreeableness. . . . A cardinal feature of high extroversion is relentless reward-seeking. . . . Indeed, anger may be the operative emotion behind Trump’s high extroversion as well as his low agreeableness. Anger can fuel malice, but it can also motivate social dominance, stoking a desire to win the adoration of others. Combined with a considerable gift for humor (which may also be aggressive), anger lies at the heart of Trump’s charisma. . . .

Like Bush, a President Trump might try to swing for the fences in an effort to deliver big payoffs—to make America great again, as his campaign slogan says. . . . Because he is not burdened with Bush’s low level of openness (psychologists have rated Bush at the bottom of the list on this trait), Trump may be a more flexible and pragmatic decision maker, more like Bill Clinton than Bush: He may look longer and harder than Bush did before he leaps. And because he is viewed as markedly less ideological than most presidential candidates (political observers note that on some issues he seems conservative, on others liberal, and on still others nonclassifiable), Trump may be able to switch positions easily, leaving room to maneuver in negotiations with Congress and foreign leaders. But on balance, he’s unlikely to shy away from risky decisions that, should they work out, could burnish his legacy and provide him an emotional payoff. . . .

The real psychological wild card, however, is Trump’s agreeableness—or lack thereof. There has probably never been a U.S. president as consistently and overtly disagreeable on the public stage as Donald Trump is. If Nixon comes closest, we might predict that Trump’s style of decision making would look like the hard-nosed realpolitik that Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, displayed in international affairs during the early 1970s, along with its bare-knuckled domestic analog. . . .

In sum, Donald Trump’s basic personality traits suggest a presidency that could be highly combustible. One possible yield is an energetic, activist president who has a less than cordial relationship with the truth. He could be a daring and ruthlessly aggressive decision maker who desperately desires to create the strongest, tallest, shiniest, and most awesome result—and who never thinks twice about the collateral damage he will leave behind. Tough. Bellicose. Threatening. Explosive. . . .

As the social psychologist Jesse Graham has noted, Trump appeals to an ancient fear of contagion, which analogizes out-groups to parasites, poisons, and other impurities. In this regard, it is perhaps no psychological accident that Trump displays a phobia of germs, and seems repulsed by bodily fluids, especially women’s. . . . Disgust is a primal response to impurity. On a daily basis, Trump seems to experience more disgust, or at least to say he does, than most people do. . . .

For Trump, the concept of “the deal” represents what psychologists call a personal schema—a way of knowing the world that permeates his thoughts. . . . Trump’s focus on personal relationships and one-on-one negotiating pays respect to a venerable political tradition. . . . Amid the polarized political rhetoric of 2016, it is refreshing to hear a candidate invoke the concept of compromise and acknowledge that different voices need to be heard. Still, Trump’s image of a bunch of people in a room hashing things out connotes a neater and more self-contained process than political reality affords. It is possible that Trump could prove to be adept as the helmsman of an unwieldy government whose operation involves much more than striking deals—but that would require a set of schemata and skills that appear to lie outside his accustomed way of solving problems. . . .

People with strong narcissistic needs want to love themselves, and they desperately want others to love them too—or at least admire them, see them as brilliant and powerful and beautiful, even just see them, period. The fundamental life goal is to promote the greatness of the self, for all to see. . . . In a 2013 Psychological Science research article, behavioral scientists ranked U.S. presidents on characteristics of what the authors called “grandiose narcissism.” Lyndon Johnson scored the highest, followed closely by Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson. Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton were next. Millard Fillmore ranked the lowest. Correlating these ranks with objective indices of presidential performance, the researchers found that narcissism in presidents is something of a double-edged sword. On the positive side, grandiose narcissism is associated with initiating legislation, public persuasiveness, agenda setting, and historians’ ratings of “greatness.” On the negative side, it is also associated with unethical behavior and congressional impeachment resolutions. . . .

Like all of us, presidents create in their minds personal life stories—or what psychologists call narrative identities—to explain how they came to be who they are. . . . A growing body of research in personality, developmental, and social psychology demonstrates that a life story provides adults with a sense of coherence, purpose, and continuity over time. . . . the first chapter in Donald Trump’s story, as he tells it today, expresses nothing like Bush’s gentle nostalgia or Obama’s curiosity. Instead, it is saturated with a sense of danger and a need for toughness: The world cannot be trusted. . . . Trump has never forgotten the lesson he learned from his father and from his teachers at the academy: The world is a dangerous place. You have to be ready to fight. The same lesson was reinforced in the greatest tragedy that Trump has heretofore known—the death of his older brother at age 43. . . . Donald, who doesn’t drink, loved his brother and grieved when he died. “Freddy just wasn’t a killer,” he concluded.

In Trump’s own words from a 1981 People interview, the fundamental backdrop for his life narrative is this: “Man is the most vicious of all animals, and life is a series of battles ending in victory or defeat.” The protagonist of this story is akin to what the great 20th-century scholar and psychoanalyst Carl Jung identified in myth and folklore as the archetypal warrior. According to Jung, the warrior’s greatest gifts are courage, discipline, and skill; his central life task is to fight for what matters; his typical response to a problem is to slay it or otherwise defeat it; his greatest fear is weakness or impotence. The greatest risk for the warrior is that he incites gratuitous violence in others, and brings it upon himself. . . . The story here is not so much about making money. As Trump has written, “money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score.” The story instead is about coming out on top. . . .

But what broader purpose does winning the battle serve? What higher prize will victory secure? Here the story seems to go mute. You can listen all day to footage of Donald Trump on the campaign trail, you can read his books, you can watch his interviews—and you will rarely, if ever, witness his stepping back from the fray, coming home from the battlefront, to reflect upon the purpose of fighting to win—whether it is winning in his own life, or winning for America. . . . Donald Trump’s story—of himself and of America—tells us very little about what he might do as president, what philosophy of governing he might follow, what agenda he might lay out for the nation and the world, where he might direct his energy and anger. More important, Donald Trump’s story tells him very little about these same things.

Nearly two centuries ago, President Andrew Jackson displayed many of the same psychological characteristics we see in Donald Trump—the extroversion and social dominance, the volatile temper, the shades of narcissism, the populist authoritarian appeal. . . . What’s more, Jackson personified a narrative that inspired large parts of America and informed his presidential agenda. His life story appealed to the common man because Jackson himself was a common man—one who rose from abject poverty and privation to the most exalted political position in the land. Amid the early rumblings of Southern secession, Jackson mobilized Americans to believe in and work hard for the Union.

Who, really, is Donald Trump? What’s behind the actor’s mask? I can discern little more than narcissistic motivations and a complementary personal narrative about winning at any cost. It is as if Trump has invested so much of himself in developing and refining his socially dominant role that he has nothing left over to create a meaningful story for his life, or for the nation. It is always Donald Trump playing Donald Trump, fighting to win, but never knowing why.
Sorry for the extreme length.
posted by sallybrown at 2:41 PM on November 13, 2016 [40 favorites]


With his tirades against nonwhites and foreign others, he reopened the argument. In effect, he gave white voters a choice: They could continue down the path of multiracial democracy—which coincided with the end of an order in which white workers were the first priority of national leaders—or they could reject it in favor of someone who offered that presumptive treatment. Who promised to “make America great again,” to make it look like the America of Trump’s youth and their youths, where whites—and white men in particular—were the uncontested masters of the country.

In the same way it has always been possible for white Americans to love black individuals and vote for the subjugation of black people, it is also possible to like Barack Obama and also yearn for a return to this idealized past, especially in a world that is tenuous and unstable. Which means that, in the case of the Obama/Trump voter, all we have is a case of simple preference order. When the choice was between Obama and a conventional Republican, these voters chose Obama. But when the choice was between Obama’s flawed successor and a man who promised to restore their greatness, Trump won.

-Why did some white Obama voters go for Trump?
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 2:43 PM on November 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


The US Public Health Service is the uniformed health corps of the Department of Health and Human Services. Its head is the Surgeon General.

Fun fact: they have their own march and military band:
The mission of our service is known the world around
In research and in treatment no equal can be found
In the silent war against disease no truce is ever seen
We serve on the land and the sea for humanity
The Public Health Service Team
Funner fact: if you really want to freak out a Public Health Service officer, start playing the march when they walk into a room.
posted by zachlipton at 2:45 PM on November 13, 2016 [29 favorites]


But they've backed themselves into a corner where they have to repeal obamacare but don't dare repeal obamacare. It's going to be interesting watching them try to square that circle.

Maybe they could take a page from Trump's business practice and just keep it exactly the way it is but re-brand it as "Trump Care"?....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:47 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Whatever it was Comey, I hope it was worth it.

/spits
posted by adept256 at 2:51 PM on November 13, 2016 [29 favorites]


--I must stop thinking about Threads

Trump, being a businessman based in construction, is not going to want to risk having his gaudy properties getting blown up. And if we are unexpectedly ironically turning into a Russian client state, that makes nuclear war even less likely.

On the other hand there's trade war against China turning hot and/or Duterte mucking about and/or South Sea saber-rattling. But they have far fewer nuclear weapons than Russia. And he has business relations with them, too.

I think given the foreign intervention the U.S. has gotten into since 9/11, any sort of military adventurism would 1) need to be couched in actual justifications (i.e., anti-terrorism) and 2) against soft, unstable states. Trump could get us in trouble with fighting someone's proxy state, but I don't think even he will be willing to stare down another superpower.

I think freaking out about WWIII is premature when we have so many other things that we can be panicking about already.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:53 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Maybe they could take a page from Trump's business practice and just keep it exactly the way it is but re-brand it as "Trump Care"?....

I was thinking the same thing. Except I figured that they would at least have to do some cosmetic tinkering to show that they did something. Then they just sell it. 'President Trump studied this long and hard using his tremendous business experience and best brain. He has deemed it fit for you now.' Enjoy Trumpcare the best health care plan that has ever existed in the world ever.

Then all he has to do is go around and talk about it in his rallies like that and and there you go, it's a done deal.

Worked with his supporters during the election so why would that change now?
posted by Jalliah at 2:53 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


I doubt this is what conservative evangelicals were imagining.

@maggieNYT
Trump on gay marriage to 60 Mins: "These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They've been settled. And- I'm-- I'm fine with that."
posted by chris24 at 2:55 PM on November 13, 2016 [32 favorites]


If the EU was able to 'punish' Britain for Brexit it would have done so already.

a Brexit aside - The starting gun for Brexit, article 50, hasn't even been fired yet, largely because the British government doesn't know what it's post Brexit plans are, or even if it is legally able to invoke article 50 without further government approval. I have no doubt the rest of the EU isn't planning to give much quarter at the negotiating table, but other than that there isn't really much they can do until Britain actually starts the process of leaving.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 2:56 PM on November 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


@ChrisWarcraft
So the anti-Semitic guy is chief strategist. I wonder what his *strategy* might consist of. I'm guessing he has some solutions.
posted by chris24 at 2:58 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


[A couple comments removed. jeffburdges, stop looping back around to the pied piper thing, and in general we've had to talk to you before about not essentially linkbombing threads and I need you to start showing some more restraint there again.]
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:00 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


He did say in the 60 Minutes interview that he wanted to repeal Roe and leave it to the states to decide. So not all good news on the culture war front.
posted by chris24 at 3:02 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump is probably one of those horrible bosses who thinks it's a genius idea to have two people below him on the chain who hate each other and constantly fight; that this in some way hashes out ideas and keeps them both "honest." Oh and of course he gets more than double the flattery and brownnosing by keeping them set against each other. It's like Team of Rivals: Moron Version.
posted by sallybrown at 3:02 PM on November 13, 2016 [21 favorites]


If he is really going to make it clear that marriage equality should remain in place, which it looks like he will, I hope that those of us who benefitted from the hard work that was done for us between Windsor and Obergefell will show up for everyone else now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:04 PM on November 13, 2016 [45 favorites]


two people below him on the chain who hate each other and constantly fight; that this in some way hashes out ideas and keeps them both "honest."

Didn't Roosevelt operate like that? He really is the anti-FDR.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:04 PM on November 13, 2016


Trump on gay marriage to 60 Mins: "These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They've been settled. And- I'm-- I'm fine with that."

And that's fine as far as it goes, but how likely do you think that his SCOTUS appointments will feel the same way? Is he going to refuse to appointment someone who feels differently? Of course not.
posted by great_radio at 3:06 PM on November 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


Didn't Roosevelt operate like that? He really is the anti-FDR.

Lincoln famously appointed his Republican primary competitors to his Cabinet, saying "We need the strongest men of the party in the Cabinet. We needed to hold our own people together. I had looked the party over and concluded that these were the very strongest men. Then I had no right to deprive the country of their services."

I can't think of anyone more different from Trump than Lincoln. Ugh. Ugh ugh ugh anytime I pause and think about this it just makes me heartsick again.

This 4 years is going to be like that one season of Friday Night Lights that was awful and people pretend it didn't happen.
posted by sallybrown at 3:07 PM on November 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Trump is probably one of those horrible bosses who think it's a genius idea to have two people below him on the chain who hate each other and constantly fight; that this in some way hashes out ideas and keeps them both "honest."

Don't forget the role of his kids, especially Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner, who are probably going to be a real force acting between the advisers and Trump without any oversight. Just hope Kushner does lean towards some liberal positions as has been sometimes claimed.
posted by gusottertrout at 3:08 PM on November 13, 2016


Sometimes I'm so despondent about this that I just think over and over "Trump loves Ivanka and Ivanka and Jared must love their kids; he has at least those reasons for not wanting to risk blowing the world up in a nuclear holocaust."
posted by sallybrown at 3:09 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


So going forward into 2018 and 2020, who are the leading younger left/Democrats who will be national candidates? Maybe Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard? Who else? The leaders we have now are aging and may not be up for another run. Has all the gerrymandering not only kept Democrats from national office, but also prevented new faces from gaining prominence? (Maybe this should be a question on Ask but everyone here is pretty engaged with the subject).
posted by dilettante at 3:10 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


And that's fine as far as it goes, but how likely do you think that his SCOTUS appointments will feel the same way? Is he going to refuse to appointment someone who feels differently? Of course not.

Right now, he will just be replacing Scalia, who was on the losing side of that, anyway. Unless one of the liberal justices or Kennedy is replaced, and a case is brought, and goes all the way through the court system, which can take years, there was nothing that could be done anyway.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:10 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Meanwhile, over at Psephizo (a UK-based evangelical blog), they've been asking: why did Trump win? Alastair Roberts thinks he knows the answer. It was all MetaFilter's fault (yes, really).
posted by verstegan at 3:11 PM on November 13, 2016 [58 favorites]


So it appears that white nationalists and alt righters are working on their plans to show up at the inaugartion. They're calling for full regalia and encouraging people to bring their Confederate and other flags. I've seen post saying things along the lines of, 'don't worry, we have free speech and we're not only aloud to do this now, we need to do this now.'

Maybe it's bluster and very few will show up or they'll chicken out of the showing it outwardly part but what in the hell happens if they do? The Inauguration just turns into shitshow of people fighting each other? People just sitting there and taking it for the sake of civility of the country? And what the fuck happens if these dudes literally start heiling him as his motorcade goes by because if there is enough of them they sure as shit will.

This is an unbelievable but plausible potential horror show. I want to think that secret service or I dunno someone, anyone would step in and try to stop it somehow.
posted by Jalliah at 3:12 PM on November 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


I might also speculate that since Bannon is an asshole with serious anger problems and those kind of guys don't deal well with others of their ilk, he might be the first one to get the boot should a scapegoat be needed or serious conflict starts annoying Donnie. I mean, that's my hope anyway since that might spark an alt-right rebellion against Trump.
posted by gusottertrout at 3:14 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Reid not backing down after Kellyanne Conway's threat this morning.
“It only took five days for President-elect Trump to try to silence his critics with the threat of legal action. This should shock and concern all Americans.

“Trump has always used threats and intimidation to silence his critics. Now he wants to silence a discussion of the acts of hate and threats of violence being committed in his name across the country. Silencing this discussion normalizes hate and intimidates the victims.

“The facts are stark and shocking. Since Trump was elected, acts of hate against Muslims, Jews, women and people of color have spiked dramatically. The KKK is planning a parade to celebrate Trump’s victory because the KKK sees Trump as their champion. Today, a headline in one newspaper reads, ‘Popular neo-Nazi site urges readers to troll liberals into suicide,’ while another reads, ‘Post-election spate of hate crimes worse than 9-11.’

“But instead of rising to the responsibility of his office, Trump is hiding behind his Twitter account and sending his staff on TV to threaten his critics.

“If this is going to be a time of healing, Trump must take action immediately to stop the acts of hate and threats of violence that are being committed in his name across the country. Trump owes the nation leadership, not petty attempts to silence his critics.”
posted by chris24 at 3:14 PM on November 13, 2016 [122 favorites]


And Trump has supposedly picked Reince as Chief of Staff

None of these people are going to last. He's going to go through senior staff like kleenex.
posted by futz at 3:15 PM on November 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


If the Trump administration does get us into a war, it'd be something stupid and out of nowhere, against a state small enough to bully. Maybe his Minutemen Corps will get us into a shooting war with cartels who increasingly turn into coyote operations due to falling drug prices from legalization/decrminalization. Cyberwar with cartel IT teams hacking the Drone Wall. "Security intervention" in Central America against gangs to prevent immigration. Something brutish but localized.
We are literally living in cyberpunk now
posted by Apocryphon at 3:17 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


If the Trump administration does get us into a war, it'd be something stupid and out of nowhere, against a state small enough to bully. Maybe his Minutemen Corps will get us into a shooting war with cartels who increasingly turn into coyote operations due to falling drug prices from legalization/decrminalization. Cyberwar with cartel IT teams hacking the Drone Wall. "Security intervention" in Central America against gangs to prevent immigration. Something brutish but localized.
We are literally living in cyberpunk now


I'm calling it now. We'll be in Iran by 2020. But who knows, I predicted Hillary by 9pm.
posted by Talez at 3:19 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


We take the high road...they did not. They won. We look forward to winning things later on. But there is this: they are very likely to put a very conservative new member and possibly two on the Supreme Court...That will not be nice for changes we would like.
posted by Postroad at 3:19 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think RBG would put herself into cryostasis before she gave Trump the satisfaction of appointing her successor.
posted by corb at 3:23 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


@MerriamWebster
📈 Top lookups right now, in order:
fascism
bigot
xenophobe
racism
socialism
resurgence
xenophobia
misogyny
posted by chris24 at 3:24 PM on November 13, 2016 [28 favorites]


How on earth can Jared Kushner possibly tolerate Bannon? I just don't understand.
posted by TwoStride at 3:25 PM on November 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Bannon had better restrain his anti-semitic tendencies or he'll face the wrath of Jared Kushner, who as a family member is closer to Donald than any appointed advisor. Just having both of them as his ONLY connection to the Media is just adding to my expectation of internal White House conflict reaching the level of shitshow.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:26 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


With Iran, I'm going to go 'optimistic' that if Trump manages to steer foreign policy, and if he really is a closet Russophile, then there can't be conflict with Russian ally Iran. Already, we're seeing a slight alignment with Assad, or at least a removal of support for the anti-Assad rebels. My guess is that he's going to redo the Iran treaty into something that favors his business interests and those of his supporters; there's a lot of money to be made with reopening Iran back to the global economy.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:27 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Whatever it was Comey, I hope it was worth it.

Read his Wikipedia entry. He's been considered for SCOTUS before.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 3:28 PM on November 13, 2016




Hey guys, I thought of a new form of nightmare scenario. What if Trump decides on a whim to switch parties after Paul Ryan annoys him one too many times, and runs as a Democrat in 2020?
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 3:31 PM on November 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Read his Wikipedia entry. He's been considered for SCOTUS before.

Honestly, I'd take him over any of the extremists on Trump's list.
posted by chris24 at 3:32 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Meanwhile, over at Psephizo (a UK-based evangelical blog), they've been asking: why did Trump win? Alastair Roberts thinks he knows the answer. It was all MetaFilter's fault (yes, really).
Progressive liberals represent the enervated heart of a culture without deep civilizational confidence, energy, and vigour. As people, they are obsessed with discussing transgressive sex and sexuality, yet are increasingly struggling to reproduce themselves. While they expect the ever-continuing expansion of what they deem civilization, its conveniences, and its pleasures, they are afflicted by a deep and wasting decadence. They have failed to feed the hunger for meaning and purpose in the human soul, perhaps the most devastating failure of the movement of all. Despite its current cultural dominance and power, such a movement cannot survive indefinitely. The future of America and Europe belongs to peoples who have the cultural energy that liberalism lacks.
I don't know what to make of this criticism, which is aimed directly at Mefites. It seems to basically be trashing progressives for not believing in god (which is factually untrue, it's a big tent and he's clearly never heard of William Barber) and being sex-obsessed wastes of human life. His overwhelming narrative seems to be that we should find religion and stop worrying about the rights of marginalized groups because the real marginalized people are Christians, who face "cultural extinction" at our hands. Well, 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, 29% specifically as Evangelical.

His main point is that liberal progressive are bad and should feel bad, as he attacks us for engaging in generalizations about Trump voters and cherrypicks a handful of Mefi comments from 2am on election night to make sweeping conclusions.
posted by zachlipton at 3:32 PM on November 13, 2016 [52 favorites]


Bannon had better restrain his anti-semitic tendencies or he'll face the wrath of Jared Kushner, who as a family member is closer to Donald than any appointed advisor. Just having both of them as his ONLY connection to the Media is just adding to my expectation of internal White House conflict reaching the level of shitshow.

I assume you are joking about this. No?

I mean, just because Jared Kushner is Jewish doesn't mean we can rely on him to take a stand against anti-Semitism. Where has he been for the past year? Writing a column defending Trump against charges of anti-Semitism does not count, I think.
posted by grobstein at 3:34 PM on November 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


Where has he been for the past year?

I am not defending Kushner. I firmly believe for the past year, he gave not one thought to Trump actually winning.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:36 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm hoping Trump goes with self-interest and appoints his sister the federal judge to the Supreme Court. I'll take cronyism over someone who's definitely anti-Roe.
posted by sallybrown at 3:36 PM on November 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


I mean, just because Jared Kushner is Jewish doesn't mean we can rely on him to take a stand against anti-Semitism.

Yeah, I'll never find it now but Josh Marshall tweeted about Bannon and Kushner being thick as thieves and there were pix of them laughing together, being buds.
posted by chris24 at 3:37 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


There was a detail in a recent news article that says a lot about Kushner - when touring the West Wing post-election, he asked how many of the people there would be staying to work in the Trump Administration.
posted by sallybrown at 3:37 PM on November 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


NYC: Four New School Dormitory Doors Vandalized With Swastikas

And at Reed College, along with many racial slurs.
posted by zachlipton at 3:37 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't know what to make of this criticism, which is aimed directly at Mefites. It seems to basically be trashing progressives for not believing in god

I guess he missed our long discussion about Kaine throwing gospel shade at Pence.
posted by sallybrown at 3:38 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm hoping Trump goes with self-interest and appoints his sister the federal judge to the Supreme Court.

Yep, people need to start tweeting how great a pick she'd be and how he'd be so smart to choose her. Play to his ego and nepotism.
posted by chris24 at 3:39 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


His, ahem...79 year old sister...
posted by sallybrown at 3:40 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]




His overwhelming narrative seems to be that we should find religion and stop worrying about the rights of marginalized groups because the real marginalized people are Christians, who face 'cultural extinction' at our hands.

Worrying about the rights of marginalized groups comes directly from Jesus.
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’”
posted by kirkaracha at 3:44 PM on November 13, 2016 [32 favorites]


Medicare is dead.

Josh Marshall over at TPM.

Be prepared to fight, poison pill amendments etc. Also say good bye to the filibuster, so embrace the anonymous hold judicial vacancies.
posted by Max Power at 3:44 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


Questioning Safety Pin Solidarity Revealed Why I Can't Trust White People.

Oh, this. The reaction from people of color, and mostly women of color, to these damn safety pins, has been swift and vocal.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:45 PM on November 13, 2016 [20 favorites]


Meanwhile, over at Psephizo (a UK-based evangelical blog), they've been asking: why did Trump win? Alastair Roberts thinks he knows the answer. It was all MetaFilter's fault (yes, really).
They have wilfully ignored the evidence that high ethnic diversity often directly undermines the intangible communal values and meanings that many people most care about: trust, affinity, belonging, heritage, etc. They have failed to attend to the marked differences between cultures and to the much deeper affinities that certain groups have to America’s historic values and identities. While this definitely need not mean that diversity is undesirable, it should allow for a conversation about a more prudential immigration policy.
Hi, Psephizo. I am so pleased to be able to live up to your stereotype of a MeFite or failed progressive or whatever by noting that this is racist.
posted by FelliniBlank at 3:46 PM on November 13, 2016 [62 favorites]


More on Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who has both "architectural hair" and the distinction of being called a "radical pro-abortion extremist" by Ted Cruz.
posted by sallybrown at 3:46 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Honestly, I'd take him over any of the extremists on Trump's list.

On social issues (gay marriage and abortion) Comey's not an extremist. The fact that he left the State department for the private sector and returned to be appointed a ten-year position heading the FBI is dangerous. His unprecedented 11-day letter is a form of unilateral extremism. The drama of its insinuation could not have been engineered to be more damaging. The rationale was preposterous: My agents tell me these could be important, but we don't have a warrant yet...Explain myself? Oh, well, it was a matter of "secret" recordings made of witnesses and all I was doing was vouchsafing the agency's credibility and transparency.

He was not innocent of the FBI's culture war surrounding Hillary. Comey was read into Whitewater while at State.

In the future, a more cooperative State and ongoing FBI file can stage a coup d'état in these terms, if one doesn't consider meddling in an election that already.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 3:47 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


"Bannon had better restrain his anti-semitic tendencies or he'll face the wrath of Jared Kushner, who as a family member is closer to Donald than any appointed advisor. "

Ivanka Trump, whom you may have heard of, is also Jewish and is closer to him in every way. However, it is probably asking too much that her father remember this about her when nobody else can.

even if he does, we already know he remembers she's female and that has not done any other women any good, however wrathful she may get about it on her own time.
posted by queenofbithynia at 3:48 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


The safety pin thing is tough. I understand the articles I've read declaiming it. But there are also people of color in my life whom I love who have explicitly told me it makes them feel better. The lesson of the safety pins for me is wear them, and let the meaning of them guide both your thoughts and your actions. They should be just the beginning of your activism. And, as always, lashing out at someone who justifiably questions their utility and sincerity is not the answer.
posted by sallybrown at 3:51 PM on November 13, 2016 [22 favorites]


I can see the frustration with the safety pin thing, because in a lot of ways, it resembles the exact kind of slacktivism that people do where they embrace a symbol, feel good about it, and do precisely nothing else.

That's... not gonna move us forward. Symbols alone are not useful action.
posted by Archelaus at 3:54 PM on November 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


Medicare is dead.

Only for people yet to enter into the system.

Literally a fucking middle finger from the baby boomers to everyone else in the country.
posted by Talez at 3:54 PM on November 13, 2016 [34 favorites]


Trump is probably one of those horrible bosses who thinks it's a genius idea to have two people below him on the chain who hate each other and constantly fight; that this in some way hashes out ideas and keeps them both "honest."

They figure that if competition works among competing teams, then competition works within the team, essentially destroying cooperation and teamwork. Enron enshrined this philosophy, and I would guess that Wells-Fargo did so as well, since everyone there was incentivized to create fake accounts or lose their job. Worth noting that narcissists hate criticism and need a steady supply of flattery and approval. Trump will likely surround himself with yes-men, and in war and diplomacy, this leads to negative outcomes.
posted by Brian B. at 3:55 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


I know what I want to do in the days going forward: see what little part I can play in revitalizing the Democrats at the local and state level. I'm in California, which already has a robust Democratic party, and just sent Kamala Harris (a WOC!) to the Senate. But I think it's important to turn the purple states blue and at least some of the red states purple.

I believe that the Dems have really erred in prioritizing the big races over the local. The Republicans have been paying attention and have put their people in from the bottom up. Not only has this gotten us Trump, it has gotten us a Republican House and Senate who could obstruct Obama's policies. It's great to have a Democrat in the White House, but if Congress is going to obstruct them, there's little that a President can do but hold back the tide. I think "not sweating the small stuff" is the fatal error the Dems have made.

Two of our most prominent progressive politicians - Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren - are in their 70's. The Dems can't afford to die off. And sick, starving people aren't going to be doing much about climate change, because people stuck in survival mode aren't going to pay attention to larger issues. And I'm not ready to think of Doomsday Scenarios, but I don't like the idea of a majority Republican House, Senate, and state governors deciding to ratify some awful Constitutional amendments.

Time for a major, major local action push.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 3:55 PM on November 13, 2016 [31 favorites]


background to the safety pin thing.
posted by andrewcooke at 3:55 PM on November 13, 2016


Ivanka Trump, whom you may have heard of, is also Jewish and is closer to him in every way. ...even if he does, we already know he remembers she's female and that has not done any other women any good

Which is why I didn't mention her; she converted when she married Jared and Donald will just assume anything she says is under his influence. The current close relationship between Kushner and Bannon is weird, but it may just signify Bannon's ability to kiss the asses that need to be kissed.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:56 PM on November 13, 2016


I can see the frustration with the safety pin thing, because in a lot of ways, it resembles the exact kind of slacktivism that people do where they embrace a symbol, feel good about it, and do precisely nothing else.

That's... not gonna move us forward. Symbols alone are not useful action.


But haven't there also been studies showing that the choice to take a small easy step makes it more likely that the person also takes a bigger step in the same direction? In other words, wearing the safety pin could move people who otherwise wouldn't speak out toward a more active role?
posted by sallybrown at 3:57 PM on November 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


The next time I see somebody wearing a safety pin, I'm going to ask them to name their state's Senators and Representatives.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:58 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


I've also read on social media, pretty sure it was tumblr, that the alt-righters have found out about the safety pin thing and have encouraged each other to wear them. And I don't know how many of them would actually do that in real life but they take a distinct pleasure in hurting people, so, yeah, that's something to be aware of.
posted by Neronomius at 3:59 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


So going forward into 2018 and 2020, who are the leading younger left/Democrats who will be national candidates? Maybe Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard? Who else?

Some of the people on this list will be to the right of where metafilter would like them to be, but:

Kamala Harris
Antonio Villaraigosa
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar
O'Malley again
Andrew Cuomo
Kaine again
Tammy Duckworth
Chris Murphy
Martin Heinrich
Rahm Emanuel, ugh
Kate Brown?

Other people are older but would still be young enough for 2020, like:

Terry McAuliffe
Russ Feingold
Jay Nixon
Sherrod Brown
Al Franken
John Hickenlooper

And there are people who would probably be looking at 2024 or later, like Julian Castro
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:00 PM on November 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


The next time I see somebody wearing a safety pin, I'm going to ask them to name their state's Senators and Representatives.

I can only name the rep for my district (Newhouse), but the Senators are Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. Then again, I was on the phone for an hour with their offices the day they passed the stupid "sue the Saudis for 9/11" bill.
posted by Archelaus at 4:03 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


The next time I see somebody wearing a safety pin, I'm going to ask them to name their state's Senators and Representatives.

Can you let us know what other requirements you have for people to be allies that aren't, like, "be an ally"?
posted by Etrigan at 4:04 PM on November 13, 2016 [82 favorites]


The next time I see somebody wearing a safety pin, I'm going to ask them to name their state's Senators and Representatives.

How snide. Really. Snide. Sally Brown's speculation is one about study, not rhetoric or assertions about what's sufficient.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 4:04 PM on November 13, 2016 [27 favorites]


The next time I see somebody wearing a safety pin, I'm going to ask them to name their state's Senators and Representatives.

You might be joking...

But is that a good idea? I know my state politicians and I would think you were an ass if you asked me that. Especially if you were (well, anyone actually) a white dude. It's alienating and feels like you are asking if someone is stupid.
posted by futz at 4:04 PM on November 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


Hey guys, I thought of a new form of nightmare scenario. What if Trump decides on a whim to switch parties after Paul Ryan annoys him one too many times, and runs as a Democrat in 2020?

He'd get his ass kicked in the primary.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:05 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Which is why I didn't mention her

yeah, but it's not just you or just now or I wouldn't get commenty about it. nobody ever does mention her in this context although she's been talked about as the only person who can talk her dad around in plenty of other contexts. there was some widely-shared article a week or two back that explicitly categorized Kushner as "a Jew" and I. Trump as "a convert to Judaism." there is a very widespread attitude everywhere I look that she isn't real and doesn't count and isn't expected to personally object to Bannon et al. for herself, only possibly maybe on her husband's behalf. and it bothers me a lot. I am not specifically mad at or about your comment or even objecting much to it but I am very bothered by the general tone taken about the couple.

maybe I am reading the wrong things. I am certainly reading too much.
posted by queenofbithynia at 4:05 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


My senators are Tom Cotton and John Boozman. Don't make me say it.
posted by box at 4:08 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm not expecting Ivanka not to object to Bannon, but as Trump's daughter and somebody else's wife, she'd just be dismissed by the sexist pig.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:09 PM on November 13, 2016


My husband and I are already well known to our Rep (Mike Doyle-D). Also our city councilwoman, or at least her staffers. I canvassed to make sure Toomey was no longer or senator, but alas. Casey is in there until 2018.
posted by soren_lorensen at 4:10 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]




Starting to read through the writings of Vaclav Havel.

Dude had first hand experience with taking down a Russian-installed authoritarian regime, for starters.

I recommend starting with "The Power of Words."

That said, it's dated. In a world of pictorial communication (memes, emoji, selfies et cetera), words lose a lot of their power.
posted by ocschwar at 4:12 PM on November 13, 2016


More on Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who has both "architectural hair" and the distinction of being called a "radical pro-abortion extremist" by Ted Cruz.

She seemed pleasant, or at the least respectful; and gave a large donation to the main care home in the Hebrides.

Her brother, despite a high profile and politicized fly-in (some of the local councillors fawned in the hope of a large donation, while other councillors were ... less respectful), gave nothing.

Picture of them both, outside their mom's house.
posted by Wordshore at 4:14 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


My church passed out safety pins this morning. I know it's not perfect, but it's a first step. Our diocese as a whole is working on racial reconciliation,so there will be further conversation and action.
posted by Biblio at 4:18 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


The anti-Semitism thing, while important, feels like a bit of a derail to me, though, because for the first time in I don't know how many centuries, Jews only just barely make the top 5 of undesirables for this administration - after Muslims, Mexicans, other immigrants, journalists, and possibly LGBTQ people, depending on how much power Pence gets. Usually despots go after the Jews first, since we're enough of a minority to be the thin edge of the wedge to see how far you can go next. That we're mostly grandfathered in to this hatefest - only called out in dogwhistles so far where everyone else gets overt attacks - feels like progress to me. Thanks Ivanka!
posted by Mchelly at 4:19 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


This 4 years is going to be like that one season of Friday Night Lights that was awful and people pretend it didn't happen.

Can it maybe instead be like that one season of Dallas that ended with Bobby in the shower?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:19 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


In a world of pictorial communication (memes, emoji, selfies et cetera), words lose a lot of their power.

cite please
posted by lazycomputerkids at 4:20 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


cite please

TL:DR
posted by cashman at 4:21 PM on November 13, 2016 [14 favorites]



In a world of pictorial communication (memes, emoji, selfies et cetera), words lose a lot of their power.

cite please


Real Neal Postman's "Amusing Ourselves To Death."

No, really.

He was criticizing television's effect on society, but social media, especially micro-blogging-and-picture-based social media has amplified the effects television once had.
posted by ocschwar at 4:22 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


It is probably just a fantasy, but I can't help but hope that Obama has some kind of trick up his sleeve left between now and January. Just something to hold on to, some huge number of pardons or something.
posted by sallybrown at 4:24 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah, that's why nobody got mad at Comey since they had to read something for once.
posted by I-baLL at 4:25 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


It would be amazing if the White House could vet, say, a dozen people who have been subjected to racist attacks this week and bring them to meet President Obama soon.

Of course, that would only just make those individuals a target for even more attacks.
posted by zachlipton at 4:27 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


There's a whole other thread about safety pins. Could this derail go there?
posted by great_radio at 4:27 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's gonna be amusing seeing the far-far-right white nationalists have aneryusms once Prez Trump hosts the annual Happy Hanukkah and Passover Seder photo ops from the White House with Jared, Ivanka, and co.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:29 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Priebus? FFS. Now I'll never get this out of my head.
posted by homunculus at 4:29 PM on November 13, 2016


Oh goody: apparently Trump now says that he's going to let the pre-existing condition protections lapse and re-establish state high-risk pools. Because those worked great.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:33 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


at this point i kind of wish i had paid for express processing on my passport
posted by entropicamericana at 4:35 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


If somebody asks who my elected reps are, I can tell them easily:
My senators are Diane Feinstein (meh.) and currently Barbara Boxer (who was on my shortlist of who I'd prefer as the first Woman President to Hillary C.), soon to be replaced by Kamala Harris (who hasn't made my shortlist YET but probably will). My congresscritter (yes, I use the term even for those I like) is Lois Capps who retired this year after barely beating the Republican son of a celebrity two years ago and will be replaced by a dude named Salud* Carbajal who beat a more generic R more easily (pending some yet-counted absentee ballots; read anything you wish into that). Don't even get me into the state and county races; the oddities of district non-gerrymandering here make it two D majority and one R majority districts. Real Politics near me (without intrusion by outside celebrities or their sons) is entertaining enough for someone who's not an idiot or a hatemonster.

*yes, his first name is (direct translation) Health, (slang translation) Cheers!
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:38 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


as per Reuters, Trump U asks for a delay in proceedings until inauguration. I suppose it could be something reasonable like lawyers being too busy trying to hide things that could be the basis of future impeachment proceedings. As opposed to the fucking fascist move it looks like.
posted by angrycat at 4:38 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


So CBS News, which let Trump walk over them on 60 Minutes (seriously, if the man wants to speak to the American People without being asked anything resembling a tough question, let him do it with his own damn video camera) described Bannon as "former Goldman Sachs executive."
posted by zachlipton at 4:39 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Team Trump’s “New deal” for African-Americans
He’s not offering a two-for-one sale. At least not yet. But try to guess where Trump sent his proposed policy to improve the lives of African-Americans:

A. The NAACP.

B. Ebony.

C. Mediatakeout.com ‘The most visited urban website in the world.’

D. The Congressional Black Caucus.

E. President Barack Obama.

F. The National Museum of African American History & Culture.

Of course they did.

[...]

So, one could classify this as a standard empty political gesture. After all, if the Dick à l’Orange really wanted to make a show of good faith to African-Americans and other minorities he’d stand up in front of the cameras and tell his admiring goons to stop attacking and harassing people.

However, this isn’t an empty gesture, it’s a Fuck you and a muttered threat to African-Americans. As a bonus, it will allow Trump supporters and their pseudoliberal enablers to say See? He’s trying, and to become obnoxious because we don’t fall to our knees and thank him.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:39 PM on November 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


John Kasich's chief strategist continuing on his anti-Bannon tirade.

@JWGOP
Let's be clear here media. Stop using "Alt Right." It is the racist, anti-semitic, fascist extreme right. Please be clear & stop normalizing
posted by chris24 at 4:43 PM on November 13, 2016 [65 favorites]


Bannon should be called a white supremacist and neo-Nazi, because that is what he is.
posted by sallybrown at 4:45 PM on November 13, 2016 [21 favorites]


Let's be clear here media.

But it is the truth. Hmmm.
posted by futz at 4:45 PM on November 13, 2016


Doesn't Bannon refer to himself and his rag as alt right?
posted by futz at 4:47 PM on November 13, 2016


The "Liberal Media" has been "normalizing" Trump since he got his first building with his name on it. And anybody who kisses his ass enough will end up "normalized" with him.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:47 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm stunned to see THIS piece coming from Cosmopolitan magazine, but - there's some food for thought about that bit with Kate McKinnon singing "Hallelujiah" on SNL yesterday.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:47 PM on November 13, 2016 [39 favorites]


Oh goody: apparently Trump now says that he's going to let the pre-existing condition protections lapse and re-establish state high-risk pools. Because those worked great.

This is figuratively going to be throwing the last eight years out the window. Eight years of hard fought, extremely difficult negotiation is going to be wiped from the nation's history. I'd weep for the people who these changes are going to destroy but my tear ducts are dry from the past few days.
posted by Talez at 4:50 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


As far as I am aware Trump can't remove the pre-existing conditions protections without nuking the filibuster.
posted by Justinian at 4:53 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


(He can, however, completely blow up the entire insurance market to try to force Democrats to agree to removing the pre-existing conditions protections.)
posted by Justinian at 4:55 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


As far as I am aware Trump can't remove the pre-existing conditions protections without nuking the filibuster.


"Your terms are acceptable"
posted by ocschwar at 4:55 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


As far as I am aware Trump can't remove the pre-existing conditions protections without nuking the filibuster.

You do realize January 20th it's gone, right?
posted by Talez at 4:57 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Latest: Trump tells supporters to stop harassment

President-elect Donald Trump is demanding that any of his supporters who are harassing people or destroying property “stop it.”

He tells CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he is “saddened” to hear that is happening. He says, “I will say it right to the cameras: Stop it.”

posted by futz at 4:57 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


@JWGOP
Let's be clear here media. Stop using "Alt Right." It is the racist, anti-semitic, fascist extreme right. Please be clear & stop normalizing


If only actual elected Republicans had this same level of courage.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:58 PM on November 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


Oh, this. The reaction from people of color, and mostly women of color, to these damn safety pins, has been swift and vocal.

A bunch of my very left friends on the FB were all in on this and then the PoC were like 'um no'. Most have doubled down with 'but but I'm still gonna wear one!'
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 4:59 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


He tells CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he is “saddened” to hear that is happening. He says, “I will say it right to the cameras: Stop it.”

The 60 Minutes interview was taped two days ago. CBS released a clip of the Obamacare segment that day, but held this back until tonight. That's unconscionable.
posted by zachlipton at 5:02 PM on November 13, 2016 [63 favorites]


If there is evidence that confidential White House information was used in business decisions related to a Trump business, what kind of legal remedy is there other than impeachment? They aren't publicly traded companies so there wouldn't be an insider trading concern, right? And as far as I'm aware, a private citizen can't sue the President for, say, making a government decision that enriches him personally - isn't there some kind of immunity?
posted by sallybrown at 5:02 PM on November 13, 2016


You do realize January 20th it's gone, right?

They didn't remove the filibuster 10 years ago when they had both houses of Congress and the Presidency so it's not completely obvious they'll do it this time. Not out of genuine respect for tradition and process, mostly, but rather because McConnell knows that at some point in the not so distant future they will probably be in the minority and need the filibuster themselves.

It's possible they will make the calculation that it's worth paying that price. But like I said, last time they decided it wasn't worth it and that decision paid off when Obama had majorities. If the filibuster had not been in place in 2008/2009 Obama could have pushed through literally anything.
posted by Justinian at 5:07 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]






Ha ha ha. wtf?
Gingrich said Bannon cannot be an anti-semite because he worked in Goldman Sachs and with Hollywood.

This can't be real. It's just can't be real.
posted by Jalliah at 5:15 PM on November 13, 2016 [51 favorites]


@ROU_Xenophobe - I like your list, but if you're going to cal out Antonio Villaraigosa as a national candidate, you'd better add Gavin Newsom to that short list, too. Former mayor of San Francisco, current Lt. Governor of CA, unilaterally gave the green light to same sex marriage in SF before it was "legal", led the successful effort to legalize marijuana in CA. He has his flaws and enemies, but he is a young, successful, rising face in the progressive wing of the Democratic party.
posted by mosk at 5:17 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


Obama could have pushed through literally anything.

But he wouldn't have because all Americans etc.

I cancelled Thanksgiving today. Am considering a pre-emptive ban and media blackout for the holidays.
posted by petebest at 5:18 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


My guess is that McConnell and Schumer will work out a deal where the filibuster is preserved if the Democrats agree not to attempt to filibuster, say, Supreme Court nominees. That's more or less the deal they worked out last time under Obama.

As much as we'll hate the nominees it's a deal worth making. Because the alternative isn't preventing the nominee, it's the nominee being confirmed anyway and also losing the filibuster. Theoretically they could limit the nuclear option to judicial appointments but once the first domino falls it's a lot more likely the second one falls as well.
posted by Justinian at 5:19 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


This can't be real. It's just can't be real.

This stuff is going over like gangbusters for anyone who thinks political correctness is the most grave threat facing our nation.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:21 PM on November 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


Mosk: him too. I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. I thought of Villaraigosa because in 2020 he may well have been governor of California for two years.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:23 PM on November 13, 2016


Harvard Business Review: How to Build an Exit Ramp for Trump Supporters

For those who are interested, it was written before the election, but the rhetorical strategies are valid anyway.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 5:23 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


Upper West Side, New York:"I don't have to do anything for your kind anymore."

I think being prepared to stand up to people, like the kind man in this story did, is going to be really important.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:24 PM on November 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


You might be joking...

I am of course joking - of *course* I am not going to literally ask people that - but I happily stand by the point of my joke. If you (the general you) think that politics is important, then you are going to be reasonably informed when it comes to your state-level politics. And if you care about politics, then you are going to try to be in some way active when it comes to bringing people over to the better side of a vote, etc. If you (the general you, not you specifically) are comfortable with knowing little and doing less, then you do not really care about politics. You might have good intentions somewhere inside of you - you might *want* to be interested - but you do not *actually* care. You can't say "yeah, I really like soccer, but I don't know how to play it and I don't follow any games." Maybe the safety pin will lead to something else - that something else is the thing we're all waiting for. Until then, time wasted on pins annoys those of us who are *not* comfortable with Trump's America.

harumph harumph harumph
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:26 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ha ha ha. wtf?
Gingrich said Bannon cannot be an anti-semite because he worked in Goldman Sachs and with Hollywood.


Where are all the conservatives who happily go to AIPAC and take credit for being Israel-friendly? Warm weather friends? The kind of friend who pals around with you on the playground until the bully walks over?
posted by sallybrown at 5:26 PM on November 13, 2016


A lot of those guys don't actually like Jews, they just hate Muslims more.
posted by Justinian at 5:27 PM on November 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


Sticherbeast - genuinely asking this, not trying to bait you - isn't it more than possible to not give a shit about politics but be strongly committed to racial equality and justice? More than a few people feel that "both sides" work to oppress people of color.
posted by sallybrown at 5:28 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


They didn't remove the filibuster 10 years ago when they had both houses of Congress and the Presidency so it's not completely obvious they'll do it this time. Not out of genuine respect for tradition and process, mostly, but rather because McConnell knows that at some point in the not so distant future they will probably be in the minority and need the filibuster themselves.

It's an interesting question. A few days ago I was pretty convinced that the Republicans would nuke the filibuster as soon as they can -- they have the majority for now and they have things they want to be and they don't care about norms as long as they can maintain the appearance of them or can successfully explain them away.

I still think it may be a possibility but I wonder if Republican congressional leadership will decide they have more leverage with Trump if they keep it. They'll have to hope he doesn't make it a big issue between now and January. And that no one close to him explains to him that he really needs the filibuster to die if he doesn't want his power to be dissipated into the great time-suck that is Congressional Gridlock.

I imagine Ryan and McConnell and their staff are having furious conversations about how much they distrust or fear Trump / are worried about his erratic ability to derail their agenda. They were looking forward to a narrow Hillary victory that would let them maintain their comfortable (and profitable) position screaming from the sidelines while the Democratic President took the hits, made the tough calls and generally repudiated the right wing back into its lair so they could come back in 2018 as the New, Forward-Looking Middle American Party. Now they're fucked; not only are they concerned about the possibility for their country's or the world's general destruction* but they also do know this balancing act they've had to do for this whole campaign will be even harder during this four-year extension.

The norms that were the ligaments holding our system together are being cut. Without them, the bones and muscles theoretically have the power and structure to hold things up, but they won't be able to do so for long.

Party unity is still dead in the GOP. As someone linked above, this is 'Sultanism', rule by the person or group that has the ear of the autocrat.

*I am assuming they do have extant souls here
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:28 PM on November 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


A lot of those guys don't actually like Jews, they just hate Muslims more.

Not to mention that they need Israel for their eschatological fantasies.
posted by Slothrup at 5:29 PM on November 13, 2016 [20 favorites]


Maybe start using this ACLU app that records incidents of hate and directly uploads them to their server before your phone can be destroyed: https://www.aclu.org/feature/aclu-apps-record-police-conduct
posted by cynicalidealist at 5:31 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


Yeah some of us have long warned that people primarily interested in using Israel to further their end times scenarios aren't exactly stable long-term allies.
posted by zachlipton at 5:32 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


Where are all the conservatives who happily go to AIPAC and take credit for being Israel-friendly? Warm weather friends? The kind of friend who pals around with you on the playground until the bully walks over?
I think they tend to like a fairly specific kind of Jew, who mostly lives in their head. These Jews are very much like Evangelical Christians, except that they don't yet believe in Jesus. (And some of them do believe in Jesus. Republicans looooove Messianic Jews, who are Christians who keep kosher.) The Jews they like mostly live in Israel, and they certainly don't live anywhere near the conservatives. Good Jews don't expect anything from American society. They don't care if teachers recite the Lord's Prayer in public schools, because they live in Israel or else they send their kids to yeshivas where they don't bother any normal people. They vote Republican, which not very many real, actual, non-fantasy Jews do.

These folks tend to despise actual, real, living Jews, but they don't think they're anti-semites, because they are really very fond of the Jews who live in their heads.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:34 PM on November 13, 2016 [53 favorites]


There's a whole separate Safety Pin thread, btw.
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:34 PM on November 13, 2016


I'm really hoping my liberal friends stop talking about annoying self-important feel good gestures.

Ultimately, your influence on public affairs boils down to these questions:

1. What are you willing to give up? (Time. Money. Health)
2. What are you willing to endure?
3. What are you willing to inflict?

Feel good gestures just don't tip the scale. Neither does a few days of protesting in November. You have to be ready to do something sustained for four years.

More importantly, since the GOP is intent on entrenching its gerrymandered advantage and continue to win elections, popular vote be damned, you have to be willing to do something sustained to show that the GOP does not have legitimacy with such elections. Day. After. Day. And get others to follow suit.

Apropos, time to read more Vaclav Havel. back later.
posted by ocschwar at 5:35 PM on November 13, 2016 [26 favorites]


" The current close relationship between Kushner and Bannon is weird, but it may just signify Bannon's ability to kiss the asses that need to be kissed."

Nah, there are always people who have a favourite or pet Jew or two and say "oh, I didn't mean him", or "you're one of the good ones", or "I mean the other kind of Jew." This goes for all kinds of racism, of course.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 5:36 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sticherbeast - genuinely asking this, not trying to bait you - isn't it more than possible to not give a shit about politics but be strongly committed to racial equality and justice? More than a few people feel that "both sides" work to oppress people of color

If you feel that a Trump Presidency is literally every bit as good as a Clinton Presidency for racial equality, etc., then I will bid you good-day. Be well, we have nothing to talk about, I don't know why you're in this thread, but okay.

On the other hand, if you *do* think that a Trump Presidency is worse than a Clinton Presidency, then yes, since you asked, I really do believe that you really ought to start caring about politics.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:37 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Quite a few pet Jews survived all the way to VE Day.
posted by ocschwar at 5:38 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


The other thing I'm seeing a lot of is that you can't believe Bannon's ex since it was a divorce trial, so she was obvs making it up. After all, in Trump's America all women are liars (especially in court). It said so right in the campaign!
posted by Mchelly at 5:39 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


If you feel that a Trump Presidency is literally every bit as good as a Clinton Presidency for racial equality, etc., then I will bid you good-day. Be well, we have nothing to talk about, I don't know why you're in this thread, but okay.

Please don't make this about me. I'm not a person of color and was not talking about myself. I care deeply about politics. I gave the experience of having friends of color who felt comforted by the safety pin thing. You reacted by saying you wanted to ask people wearing safety pins if they knew their Representatives. I'm just saying I don't think everyone who does care about structural and personal racism in this country and acts to try and stop it is going to necessarily pass your test.
posted by sallybrown at 5:42 PM on November 13, 2016 [42 favorites]


I really do believe that you really ought to start caring about politics.

That's NOT what you and others are asserting. You're asserting what's sufficient.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 5:44 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't think you necessarily have to pass a trivia quiz on your elected representatives to prove you care, but if you really care about equality and justice, some participation in politics seems like a prerequisite.

As an example, take Colin Kaepernick, who says he didn't vote. Even if he truly somehow had no position on who should be President, did he also have no opinion on the death penalty in CA, weed legalization, funding for schools, or criminal justice reform? Because that stuff is at least as important, if not, you know, infinitely more impactful, than his physical position during the National Anthem.
posted by zachlipton at 5:47 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Feministing - Hey White People, You Need To Start Doing The Ugly Work That Isn't Safe For Us To:
But someone’s got to tackle this. We can’t sustain a country that visits systematic rural deprivation on a large swath of its population. We can’t keep actively fostering the conditions for social and economic unrest. We can’t — you can’t, especially, if you’re middle class, white, and from an urban area — use your #woke credentials as an excuse to blind yourself to the ugly truths of unequal distribution. You don’t have to hug a Trump supporter, or even understand their racism, to do the simple work of fixing socio-economic despair that is the breeding ground for fascism. You can’t hide behind your POC friends to hide away from how you’re the only people with the power, safety, and privilege to ensure this doesn’t happen again. That the politicians you spend so long Facebook posting celebrity endorsements in enthusiastic support for actually give a shit about demographics that aren’t you, whether poor folk or people of color. You’re the only people who can get through to other white people, and the only ones who can push your politicians to care about more expansive communities.

You don’t get to deflect anymore, or defer responsibility to someone less perfect than you for not having turned up to the polls and voted for Hillary. You have to fight the battles that aren’t safe for other people to fight, you have to show the empathy that other people can’t, you have to engage where only your voice will be heard. You have to shoulder the struggle. Anything less is complicity.
posted by corb at 5:48 PM on November 13, 2016 [55 favorites]


The safety pin thing doesn't feel like a super-meaningful gesture to me, but I guess I'm confused by the idea that the people doing it aren't otherwise invested in politics. That isn't what I'm seeing among people I know.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:49 PM on November 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


@blippoblappo (previously) critiques the notion that the white working class shifted massively to Trump:
Folks say rural "Obama-to-Trump" counties demonstrate how the white working class massively shifted to Trump. Be wary of that narrative.

Take rural, white Richland County, WI. Went for Obama (twice) & Trump. Looking at voting %, it seems to prove that WWC shifted from D to R:

Raw voting totals in Richland County tell a different story. Most WWC Obama voters didn't go to Trump. They went 3rd party or stayed home:

Same story in very white Columbia County, WI. Looking at the % masks that 2/3rds of Obama leavers likely went 3rd party or stayed home:

There's not a clear narrative, of course. Take rural, white Elk County, PA. Went for Obama in 2008, Romney in 2012, Trump in 2016:
@BobbyBigWheel (some guy) responds:
Be careful with small counties, statistically noisy
Which blappo acknowledges.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:56 PM on November 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


yeah, but [the erasure of Ivanka being Jewish] is not just you or just now or I wouldn't get commenty about it. nobody ever does mention her in this context although she's been talked about as the only person who can talk her dad around in plenty of other contexts. there was some widely-shared article a week or two back that explicitly categorized Kushner as "a Jew" and I. Trump as "a convert to Judaism." there is a very widespread attitude everywhere I look that she isn't real and doesn't count and isn't expected to personally object to Bannon et al. for herself, only possibly maybe on her husband's behalf. and it bothers me a lot. I am not specifically mad at or about your comment or even objecting much to it but I am very bothered by the general tone taken about the couple.

maybe I am reading the wrong things. I am certainly reading too much.


No, you're actually right on. This comment really made me rock back on my heels and think. It's very hard for me to think of Ivanka as "really Jewish" and hard to imagine her being the target of antisemitic hate. I'd had this sense that her converting to Jewish was just a formality for her marriage; and she could de-convert just as easily, like if she ever divorced him. As if the profound fakeness of Tromp himself reflected onto Ivanka's faith. That's profoundly insulting and disrespectful, and I'm glad you brought this up.

(And I'm sorry for laying it out in such hurtful terms.)
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 5:58 PM on November 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Well, here's one pre-election poll that got it right.

No way, he's busy playing first base.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:02 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


I just emailed 60 Minutes to ask why they held back tape for two days of Trump telling his supporters to stop harassing people during which time hundreds of people were harassed.

As far as I'm concerned, CBS News bears some responsibility for every single one of those incidents this weekend.
posted by zachlipton at 6:03 PM on November 13, 2016 [33 favorites]


Don't forget his own culpability. If he really cared about violence, he would have held a press conference himself.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:04 PM on November 13, 2016 [55 favorites]


"This stuff is going over like gangbusters for anyone who thinks political correctness is the most grave threat facing our nation."

It's not just them, it's a large majority of middle-aged white men. People I read every day and who I've trusted -- such as Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum -- these are white liberal guys in my age range who have always sort of, kind of, "gotten it" with regard to racism and sexism but I am very strongly reminded of the great MetaFilter Sexism Wars of 2007 -- the forgotten history of that time is that there was a huge contingent of people, all the way to the top, who thought the whole thing was overblown and that this was a bout of oversensitive people pushing their own special interests.

Which is to say that I'm increasingly hearing these little messages from people like Drum and Marshall and all sorts of other progressive white men who think, yeah, PCism really has perhaps run a little amok and that these young tumblr radicals and social justice warriors on places like MetaFilter and elsewhere are, possibly, part of the problem and not part of the solution. And you know why they think this? Because they have WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE and they haven't done even remotely the work they need to do to understand just how wrong about all this stuff they truly are. They are feeling some stirrings of defense of privilege, just like we see some surprising progressive people here on MeFi, and this is a big problem.

These people aren't going to go away. The die-hard misogynists and the KKK racists have been around a long time and they're not going anywhere, but the real issue facing the US and much of Europe is that white, male privilege is eroding and that motivates those who have taken that privilege for granted, those who don't even recognize they truly have it, to very slowly and without realizing it, empower people like Trump and the points of view that he represents. They normalize dialogue that should never be allowed to be normalized.

Josh Marshall has been all over the final ad that Trump made that hit all the antisemitic issues, which most of the rest of the press has ignored (even though the ADL condemned it) and that's because on that one issue alone, with Marshall being both Jewish and a historian, he hears those dogwhistles and sees those patterns clearly. But as a straight, white, cisgendered, middle-class male American, there's a whole hell of a lot that he's not recognizing or minimizing that's real and it's not going away. This is also why a lot of people on the farther left of the spectrum, who rightly admire many things about Sanders, were a bit blind to the Bernie Bros and some of the misogyny. Those of us who don't live this ever day, don't see many things for what they really are; we minimize the dangers that are being signaled. Susan Faludi wrote Backlash way back in 1991 and I think that other than the women feminists who recognized the truth of what she was saying, for many other people it seemed to be an overreaction and the thought that the tide of history was with us. And, sure, in the long run history is probably with us. But as Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead. In the meantime, we have to deal with the very powerful and angry backlash from the privileged discovering that their toys are slowly being taken away from them.

Marshall pointed out that Nate Cohn mentioned that whites have, for the first time, voted essentially as a minority, thinking in terms of their collective interests as a minority. This is not going to stop. And it's going to infect more people than we expect it to -- we've already seen friends and family and neighbors receptive to this rhetoric, and we're going to continue to see it because it's not until empowered, entrenched factions begins to really feel threatened -- but emboldened -- that things get truly ugly. This isn't going to get better, it's going to get worse.

And this is why wearing safety pins is insufficient. I just ordered BLM t-shirt that I plan to wear and, here in Kansas City, Missouri, may well be attacked for wearing it in public. So be it. This is the world we live in now.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:05 PM on November 13, 2016 [59 favorites]


Thanks for posting that link, corb, and for your other comment on helpfully engaging with friends/family/miscellaneous Trump supporters. It is very clear to me that having grown up among conservatives, and not cutting ties, now lights my path forward. It's so important that people not live in a media-social-community bubble anymore, and that those of us who can afford to take the time to be present and offer counterpoints.

My partner has a business relationship with a couple of wealthy Trump supporters, and today they invited us to watch the Army-Navy football game at their house. We had a good laugh, because holy hell there's no way we would go there. But I did take a minute to leave a nice RSVP about why we couldn't go. As much as I'm grossed out by their beliefs, I feel like I should engage as much as I can stomach it. It's literally the least I can do, to be a token Liberal In Their Midst (THAT'S a Lifetime movie I would watch!)

Also, corb, I've shared some of your advice with my coworkers. We've found it really helpful and encouraging in girding ourselves for the holidays. Thank you.
posted by witchen at 6:06 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


Don't forget his own culpability. If he really cared about violence, he would have held a press conference himself.

Oh absolutely. He professed to be basically unaware, and Leslie Stahl let him get away with saying it was "one or two instances." But I expect Trump to be terrible, I should expect CBS News to at least not sit on the footage for days as people are waking up to swastikas on their doors.

Not that I have any faith, of course, that Trump's words will lead to any reduction in harassment and violence in any way.
posted by zachlipton at 6:09 PM on November 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


I'm increasingly hearing these little messages from people like Drum and Marshall and all sorts of other progressive white men who think, yeah, PCism really has perhaps run a little amok and that these young tumblr radicals and social justice warriors on places like MetaFilter and elsewhere are, possibly, part of the problem and not part of the solution. And you know why they think this? Because they have WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE and they haven't done even remotely the work they need to do to understand just how wrong about all this stuff they truly are.

And because it's theoretical to them, they feel they can signal "ok guys we get it, but can't you be strategic and kind of give it a rest right now." And also "come on guys you're kind of embarrassing us with all this carry-on."

Which kind of thing is exactly what Martin Luther King was talking about in Letter from a Birmingham Jail: "Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was 'well timed' in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never.'"
posted by sallybrown at 6:11 PM on November 13, 2016 [45 favorites]


As far as I'm concerned, CBS News bears some responsibility

CBS News takes no responsibility, and upholds no social ties with its viewers. Les Moonvees crapped his pants with joy and is rolling in his celebration cash pen now.
posted by petebest at 6:12 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


these chances are even better if a recession hits between now and 2018.

the keynesian party is just going to get rolling then.

expect overseas corporate profits to be repatriated, everybody paying half the income taxes they are now (tax credits to the 47%), federal spending boosted noticeably after being frozen since 2011.

Don't ask how they're going to pay for this; they're not.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:13 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Republicans are run by a bunch of cowards but I don't think they are complete idiots. Yeah there might be a desire to swing for the fences but I think Ryan is really just posturing so that Democrats will be willing to give up something less important.

McConnell knows that without the filibuster the power of the minority party goes down significantly and the reality is that the Republican party is more often than not the minority party.

Nuke the filibuster and then try to pass a massive rollback of the Great Society or even New Deal entitlement programs and the pushback from the public would be massive. Even with their current structural advantage in the House and to a lesser extent the Senate trying to rollback SS or Medicare without bipartisan cover would be suicidal for Republicans especially with a narcissistic asshole as President who is already incredibly unpopular. They might be desperate enough to try it but it's a bad move because the 2020 census is not that far away and between reapportionment and the possibility that Democrats would be willing to engage in lots of gerrymandering it's quite possible that Republicans could lose Congress and the Presidency and really only have the SCOTUS to help them.

Between the Republican demographic challenges and the increasing difficulties with creating an effective caucus with their various largely incompatible interest groups I think it would be a very short sided strategy on their part because without the need for a supermajority in the senate (which is very difficult to achieve in the modern era) Democrats could literally slam just about anything through when they inevitably get power back. If Republicans find the programs of FDR and Johnson problematic even though they are generally quite popular I can only imagine their horror in the sort of progressive agenda that Democrats could push through if they get the Trifecta anytime soon.

It's much safer for Republicans to play the long game and shore up their structural advantages around the judiciary rather than go for the big phyrric victory.
posted by vuron at 6:20 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


If you don't like
The world you're livin in
Take a look around
At least you got friends


"Let's Go Crazy" in Black Sabbath mode is sort of perfect right now.
posted by petebest at 6:20 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Don't ask how they're going to pay for this; they're not.

Hyperinflation. By the time Donald's done the debt will be a mere 50 euros.
posted by Talez at 6:21 PM on November 13, 2016


yeah, but [the erasure of Ivanka being Jewish] is not just you or just now or I wouldn't get commenty about it. nobody ever does mention her in this context although she's been talked about as the only person who can talk her dad around in plenty of other contexts.

I think this is a really interesting point because in the Orthodox Jewish community, the opposite is sort of true. A significant percentage of Orthodox Jews voted for Trump, and when asked if they're worried about all the anti-Semitic rhetoric, they almost all point to Ivanka as why it can't be real or something to worry about. For the most part no one mentions Jared (the Kushners in general aren't all that beloved outside of their philanthropic work, because of all the family issues). She's completely accepted as one of us, though. Rabbi Lookstein (who oversaw her conversion and is still their rabbi) is well respected. She had sleeves on her wedding dress? She's in.

But at the same time, while I don't think anyone in the religious Jewish community (Orthodox or not) sees Ivanka as not really Jewish, I also don't think most of us think that she would be able to spot a dogwhistle the way someone raised religious all their life might be. Plenty of American Jews - especially young Jews, both religious and not - have literally never seen anti-Semitism here outside of movies and the occasional anti-Israel protest that crosses the line. We've even had talks about it here on Metafilter. Jews fit in - until they don't. So when you see anti-Semitism, your first reaction is shock. That you didn't really hear that, that they didn't really mean that, that it's a coincidence. I do not know how Jared - and even more so, his parents - is not able to see that there's a real problem here. But I wouldn't blame Ivanka for not seeing it, or seeing it and not believing it, the same way. It's not that she's not sufficiently Jewish. It's that belonging-but-not-really-belonging isn't something that's that easy to feel when you haven't experienced it firsthand. And especially not when you grow up always belonging. At least that's my take on it.
posted by Mchelly at 6:24 PM on November 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


President-elect Donald Trump is demanding that any of his supporters who are harassing people or destroying property “stop it.”

He tells CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he is “saddened” to hear that is happening. He says, “I will say it right to the cameras: Stop it.”

The president-elect was asked in the interview conducted Friday if he’s going to use the same, sometimes divisive rhetoric he used during the campaign. He replied that “sometimes you need a certain rhetoric to get people motivated.”


So then the basic message is: "Hey! Stop being incited by the inflammatory hateful rhetoric I fully intend to keep spewing." Lovely.
posted by FelliniBlank at 6:26 PM on November 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


I should expect CBS News to at least not sit on the footage for days

This is 60 Minutes, remember. It stopped being responsible journalism years ago.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 6:26 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


I just emailed 60 Minutes to ask why they held back tape for two days of Trump telling his supporters to stop harassing people during which time hundreds of people were harassed.

I might email them to ask why they didn't mention that Trump's senior advisor runs a very popular website that claims the hate crimes are fake.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:27 PM on November 13, 2016 [35 favorites]


The ADL put out a statement opposing the appointment of Steve Bannon, while AIPAC leadership is reported to be privately apoplectic, which really just makes them chickenshit for not saying anything.
posted by zachlipton at 6:30 PM on November 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


It's much safer for Republicans to play the long game and shore up their structural advantages around the judiciary rather than go for the big phyrric victory.

This is what Democrats said in 2010, and 2014, and 2016. The Republicans kept going for broke and winning big, then blaming any repercussions on Democratic fiscal irresponsibility and just enough people bought it. They own two (and soon, three) branches of government now. They can do what they want, if they stick together -- we have to hope they can't.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:33 PM on November 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


Yeah, at this point, having been so wrong in thinking "the GOP won't really do [thing that should hurt them politically but probably won't]" and watching them do it, I think I'm going to adjust my expectations and try being wrong the other way for a change. Put me down for "filibuster nuked entirely" come January.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:37 PM on November 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


privately apoplectic = afraid if they take a moral stance they won't get any support after all.

I imagine that's how Christie's feeling right now too.
posted by Mchelly at 6:38 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


As people, they are obsessed with discussing transgressive sex and sexuality, yet are increasingly struggling to reproduce themselves. While they expect the ever-continuing expansion of what they deem civilization, its conveniences, and its pleasures, they are afflicted by a deep and wasting decadence.

something something "precious bodily fluids" something something
posted by soundguy99 at 6:40 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


I definitely think the desire expressed by white liberal men for PoC and LGBT and Feminist activists to chill with the Social Justice agenda because it's just not the right time dammit is incredibly dangerous and incredibly off-putting.

The reality is that the White Majority has typically done whatever it takes to reestablish their majority status even it means adopting various minority groups into a concept of Whiteness.

Concepts of whiteness have continually expanded as necessary, such as allowing Southern European and Irish Americans into whiteness, or giving honorary whiteness to model minorities, etc. The Republican party is currently at war with itself about whether to extend the concept of whiteness to the Latinx community because it's useful for replenishing declining demographics but there is also a desire by many in the nativist faction of the Republican party to deny whiteness to the Latinx community because so many low income Whites feel intensely threatened by that community.

I suspect there is also attempts to segment the LGBT community by accepting white gay men and white lesbian women as acceptable as long as they don't rock the boat too much and they assimilate to the dominant social norms.

So yeah if I'm a member of a historical disadvantaged community and I start hearing white males tell me to chill out or engage in tone policing I'm pretty sure that I'd get nervous too because even among well educated white liberals there is a conscious/unconscious desire to maintain a concept of whiteness that in some ways privileges those social, racial, cultural norms that are of value to the dominant (white) majority.
posted by vuron at 6:40 PM on November 13, 2016 [43 favorites]




Day. After. Day. And get others to follow suit.

I was thinking today about a passage in the introduction to Studs Terkels' memoir. He talks about two men who worked for civil rights. One was the president of the NAACP in 1954. The other was a former KKK member who, late in life, eventually changed his ways.
E.D. Nixon, former Pullman car porter, president of the NAACP, Montgomery, Alabama. It was he who chose Rosa Parks, his secretary, to do what she did one afternoon. It was he who chose a young pastor from Atlanta, Martin Luther King, Jr., to head the Montgomery Improvement Association and drum-major the bus boycott in 1954. The rest, as they say, is history.

C.P. Ellis, former Grand Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan, Durham, North Carolina. A poor white; all his life having a hard time of it. One piece of bad luck after another; barely making it from one day to the next.

"I began to get bitter. I didn't know who to blame. I had to hate somebody. Hatin' America is hard to do because you can't see it to hate it. You gotta have somethin' to look at to hate. So I joined the Klan. My father told me it was the savior of the white race."

It was one daily revelation after another. He'd worked as a janitor at Duke University; member of the union; 80 percent black, mostly women. He ran for the full-time job of business agent; his opponent, a black man. As he began his campaign speech, the women shouted him down. "Sit down, Claiborne Ellis. We know all about you." He took a long pause in recounting the moment. It was almost a whisper. "They elected me, four to one." He sobbed softly. "Those women. They knew my heart. You feel so good to go to a plant with those black women and butt heads with professional union busters, college men. And we hold our own against them. Now I feel like somebody for real."

In neither of these cases was there that one overwhelming moment of epiphany. It was no Damascan road they traveled; nor was any one of them struck by a blinding light. It was an accretion of daily revelations and the discovery of where the body was hid. Moments of daily astonishments...

My moment of ultimate astonishment happened about thirty years ago. It was at a public housing project. A young mother. I don’t remember whether she was white or black. The place was mixed. She was pretty, skinny, with bad teeth. It was the first time she had encountered a tape recorder. Her little kids, about four of them, demanded a replay. They insisted on hearing mama's voice. I pressed the button. They howled with delight. She put her hands to her mouth and gasped. "I never knew I felt that way."
No Damascan road. No blinding light. Daily revelations, moments of daily astonishment. Day after day, for a very long time, we are going to have to work for the world we want to see.

There is a book of prayers from the mid-60s called Are You Running With Me, Jesus? It was a popular book and it was a product of its time. I'm not religious, but there is one prayer in there that I heard somewhere and that has stuck with me:
What was Hiroshima like, Jesus, when the bomb fell?

What went through the minds of mothers, what happened to the lives of children, what stabbed at the hearts of men when they were caught up in a sea of flame?

What was Auschwitz like, Jesus, when the crematoriums belched the stinking smoke from the burned bodies of people? When families were separated, the weak perished, the strong faced inhuman tortures of the spirit and the body. What was the concentration camp like, Jesus?

Tell us, Christ, that we, the living, are capable of the same cruelty, the same horror, if we turn our back on you, our brother, and our other sisters and brothers. Save us from ourselves; spare us the evil of our hearts' good intentions, unbridled and mad. Turn us from our perversions of love, especially when these are perpetrated in your name. Speak to us about war, and about peace, and about the possibilities for both in our very human hearts.
Donald Trump is our president-elect precisely because we have that capacity for darkness in our hearts. His supporters need to see, for a very long time, daily revelations and astonishment, until they find their capacity for peace. Until, like the woman astonished at her own voice, they say, "I didn't know I felt that way."

(Also we need to get out the vote in midterms and four years from now and beyond, and a million other very important things. I don't mean to diminish the importance of the real and tangible major goals that need to be met.)
posted by compartment at 6:51 PM on November 13, 2016 [30 favorites]


Compartment: it's my feeling that Trump's supporters having those daily revelations and astonishment is part of what WILL tip the balance for the midterms.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:56 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


So yeah if I'm a member of a historical disadvantaged community and I start hearing white males tell me to chill out or engage in tone policing I'm pretty sure that I'd get nervous too because even among well educated white liberals there is a conscious/unconscious desire to maintain a concept of whiteness that in some ways privileges those social, racial, cultural norms that are of value to the dominant (white) majority.

It's tricky because we're all stumbling around here trying to find the balance between a racist accommodation with the resurgent white nationalism that's taken over the government, on the one hand; and contradiction-heightening accelerationism, on the other. Both will hurt those of us who are most in need or in danger.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:00 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


privately apoplectic = afraid if they take a moral stance they won't get any support after all.

I will support them, and so will many other Americans of all faiths. My friend and her family who attend AIPAC every single year will support them, and so will many of their other members.

If not now, when? A neo-Nazi literally just got appointed the chief advisor to the President of the United States.
posted by sallybrown at 7:02 PM on November 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


The various disparate groups that make up the Republican party are all going to converge on the Trump White House thinking they have dominance.

The Social Conservatives think they finally have a guy that will allow them to win the various culture war battles. Of course that's nonsense because if the culture wars are ever actually won by social conservatives they would stop turning out as heavily. No easier to do the Charlie Brown football trick although I think Evangelicals are starting to realize they've been taken for fools.

The White Nationalists think they finally have their guy in office but will quickly be pushed back into the dark corners because explicit racism is really really bad for business.

The small C conservatives will be hoping that they've finally got someone who will allow them to drown the government in the proverbial bathtub. While this is possible I actually see the primary focus of a Trump presidency doing something along the lines of a spoils system where all sorts of monetary benefits go to Trump and Trump supporters.

I think the Authoritarians are actually getting what they want but most of the guys that are being talked about as leading that deep state are more or less utterly incompetent.

So yeah lots of competing factions and lots of them are going to have hurt feelings about how Trump isn't giving them what they want.
posted by vuron at 7:07 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


I'm calling it now. We'll be in Iran by 2020.

Nope. Iran is a Russian ally. He is going to do what Bush did with North Korea: Renege on the nuclear deal, allow Iran to get a nuke, then blame Obama for Iran having nukes.

Here's another fun thought: We already know 2018 will be a bloodbath for Democrats in the Senate. Who's taking bets that, should the Republicans get a 2/3 majority they impeach and remove Ruth Bader Ginsburg for saying mean things about Trump?
posted by dirigibleman at 7:09 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Republicans kept going for broke and winning big, then blaming any repercussions on Democratic fiscal irresponsibility and just enough people bought it.

That doesn't disprove vuron's point however. They didn't have to actually do anything that would really stick. If you're looking at recent history, 2005 provides a good example. First thing Dubya does in his new term is push for SS privatization. He fails so badly, he sets the stage for losing Congress in 2006.

If Ryan et al really try to end Medicare, the pushback will be deafening. AARP will mobilize and go to a war footing, like they did for SS. The campaign ads will write themselves in 2018. And not just for Democratic candidates, but also from Republican primary challengers who will vow: "I will protect your Medicare from those fat cats in Washington."

We're already seeing something very similar playing out in Kansas. People might be happy to vote in a far-right guy because he says all the right things about God, guns, abortion, evil liberals, etc. But when that guy's plans start to actively hurt the services used by the average voter (schools and roads in this case), there's a rebellion. Several moderate Republicans here defeated the incumbents in the primaries by promising full funding for those services. And in a year when Trump won the state overwhelmingly, 13 Democrats took the seats of Brownback supporters. There's enough votes in the legislature now for the anti-Brownback coalition to have a majority. Brownback's push to pack the Kansas courts also failed on election day.
posted by honestcoyote at 7:12 PM on November 13, 2016 [35 favorites]


Here's another fun thought: We already know 2018 will be a bloodbath for Democrats in the Senate. Who's taking bets that, should the Republicans get a 2/3 majority they impeach and remove Ruth Bader Ginsburg for saying mean things about Trump?

By my reckoning, they shouldn't hit 60. Maybe 55.
posted by Talez at 7:13 PM on November 13, 2016


Who's taking bets that, should the Republicans get a 2/3 majority they impeach and remove Ruth Bader Ginsburg for saying mean things about Trump?

I'm so tired of comments that are just "hey here's a shitty thing I just imagined". If I had to guess, these threads would be 20% shorter without them.
posted by great_radio at 7:15 PM on November 13, 2016 [70 favorites]


Our collective powers of prognostication aren't that good lately anyway. :/
posted by ian1977 at 7:18 PM on November 13, 2016 [22 favorites]


Have the Republicans ever gotten remotely close to 66 Senators in this century?

Those levels of party dominance have pretty much just happened twice in somewhat recent memory and Democrats have been the dominant party during those time periods. Around the New Deal coalition and the Great Society coalition.

Even during periods of relatively great strength for Republicans they've struggled to get anywhere close to 60 Senators.
posted by vuron at 7:19 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Man, I just keep looking at this map of state legislatures after the election and getting angry.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:21 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


the keynesian party is just going to get rolling then

I remember joking back when Obama first got elected that one of the key differences between an Obama and McCain administration is that McCain's stimulus program would have been bigger and had full support of Congress.

Anybody else read this column in the NY Times by Ross Douthat? I recommend it.

Imagines Trump's first term being successful enough to get him easily re-elected. Of course, he gets there by breaking key campaign promises (stimulus program, soaring deficits, keeping Obamacare around). How else could he succeed? Chilling but plausible.

I like to think it won't happen. I want to believe that the deficit scolds in Congress will only let Trump have his tax cuts and a little extra military spending and that Trump's not Caesar enough to out-maneuver the Cato Institute and... well, then, when I start to imagine the ways Trump will fail, I end up thinking of that scene in The Big Short when Brad Pitt snaps at his two buddies in Vegas for celebrating the great deals they just made shorting the American economy and all the suffering that will entail.

I hope Trump's popularity quickly ends up on the rocks kinda like Schwarzenegger's did here in California as he lets the cronies he's rounding up for his staff drive him hard to the right, alienating casual suburban voters who thought they were just tuning in for a bit of reality television and minor tax breaks, before turning his hardcore alt-right base against him as he tries to tack back toward the center. This all assumes his survival instincts are sufficient to keep armageddon at bay.

Still, to root against Trump now is basically to root against the American economy, because that's probably where his fate lies. I don't want to cheer on the suffering of others (maybe even myself, though it does again say something about privilege that I see myself effectively a spectator). But I do want to make sure people are keeping score. And I want to convince them to vote in 2018.
posted by bunbury at 7:21 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Brownback's push to pack the Kansas courts also failed on election day.

Thank you, I had been meaning to follow what happened with this and lost track after the, ya know, apocolypse. A glimmer of good news.
posted by sallybrown at 7:22 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


A moment of levity, or maybe hope, from nearly 10 years ago: Clowns Kicked KKK Asses
“White Power!” the Nazi’s tried once again in a doomed and somewhat funny attempt to clarify their message, “ohhhhhh!” the clowns yelled “Tight Shower!” and held a solar shower in the air and all tried to crowd under to get clean as per the Klan’s directions.
They hate being mocked. They want to be taken seriously, to be the threat we all fear. We need to keep pointing out that they're acting like spoiled little boys throwing temper tantrums, even as we take whatever actions we can to protect the vulnerable among us.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 7:23 PM on November 13, 2016 [29 favorites]


I'm so tired of comments that are just "hey here's a shitty thing I just imagined"

Me too. There's enough real nightmare fuel happening that needs to be dealt with and faught against. The "what if " shit is just needlessly agitating.
posted by _Mona_ at 7:24 PM on November 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


@HeerJeet:
Now in storify form, my twitter essay on why opposition should pick a fight with Trump over medicare:
https://storify.com/1nformalis/how-to-pick-a-fight-with-the-gop
posted by chris24 at 7:25 PM on November 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


We need to keep pointing out that they're acting like spoiled little boys throwing temper tantrums,

They've also lynched a number of American citizens, is the other thing they're historically known for
posted by Greg Nog at 7:26 PM on November 13, 2016 [32 favorites]


So going forward into 2018 and 2020, who are the leading younger left/Democrats

Maybe add Eric Garcetti for 2020 if he isn't elected Governor of California.
posted by Gotanda at 7:28 PM on November 13, 2016


WaPo: “Bannon is going to be keeper of the image of Trump as a fighter against the status quo, and Reince is going to utilize his personal connections with the speaker and others, to make the trains run on time,” said Ken Blackwell, a former Ohio state official and a member of the Trump transition team.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:32 PM on November 13, 2016 [41 favorites]


Dissecting a Trump Presidency
Betsy Reed, Jeremy Scahill, Glenn Greenwald podcast & transcript
posted by Golem XIV at 7:33 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Maybe add Eric Garcetti for 2020 if he isn't elected Governor of California.

or him! the point being mostly that the stable of future candidates seems pretty okay.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:35 PM on November 13, 2016


We already know 2018 will be a bloodbath for Democrats in the Senate.

We don't know anything like that! We know it would have been a bloodbath if Clinton were elected. We don't know that it will be a bloodbath with Trump in office. I would say quite the opposite, actually.
posted by corb at 7:35 PM on November 13, 2016 [28 favorites]


Trump will help but the best the Democrats can do in 2018 is minimize losses. The conditions you'd need for D gains would be please don't talk about it bad.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:38 PM on November 13, 2016


Harry Reid spitting bullets still.

@mkraju:
Reid spox: Trump selection of Bannon "signals that White Supremacists will be represented at the highest levels in Trump's White House."
posted by chris24 at 7:38 PM on November 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


Dissecting a Trump Presidency
Betsy Reed, Jeremy Scahill, Glenn Greenwald podcast & transcript


Those guys want to destroy America, right? So they're all elated?
posted by grobstein at 7:39 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Literally a fucking middle finger from the baby boomers to everyone else in the country.

Could we please not with the baby boomers? I am a baby boomer & there are others here too and I stand to be as fucked by this as anyone with the added bonus of having paid into it my whole work life. Plus this is Ryan, boomers didn't do this to give you a middle finder. Not a single one of my boomer-aged friends supported Trump and any one of them with kids would cut off their middle finger to give it to their kids.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:40 PM on November 13, 2016 [34 favorites]


We're already seeing something very similar playing out in Kansas.

I've been thinking a lot about Kansas today. Democrats and moderate Republicans looking towards the next couple elections really need to look long and hard at the kind of messaging used to highlight Brownback's failings and help to hopefully walk the state back from the edge, and work on getting that message out nationwide when Trump's promised economy doesn't appear. Something like a national version of the Save Kansas Coalition might be a very effective thing for the NeverTrumpers to pursue, a vision of a better conservatism that offers clear goals and solutions.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:42 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


Trump will help but the best the Democrats can do in 2018 is minimize losses. The conditions you'd need for D gains would be please don't talk about it bad.

Conditions for D gains, huh. Like...improving our messaging? Being scrappier than our opponents? Effectively reaching out without anyone feeling like we're talking down to them?

We can get gains in a legitimate way, it doesn't have to be a "bloodbath" (Jesus, can we not?), and it might not require a Trumpian catastrophe to get there. We have to have faith.
posted by witchen at 7:42 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


And, looks like one place that really needs some serious work and investment that has potential to pay off is the North Carolina House of Representatives. Also, Ballotpedia. Hope that the DJT kleptocracy goes into effect early enough rather than too late to motivate people to throw out the GOP in 2018 and then ungerrymander the state in 2020.
posted by Gotanda at 7:43 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


That's the problem with labeling a generation and not having a hard line on when that generation starts and ends. All the Baby boomers I know, personally are already retired and several years on Medicare.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:45 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Think of if Pantsuit Nation divided among the 33 midterm Senate races. Over 3.5 million Pantsuiters. That's 100,000 people working to give to and volunteer for each Democratic candidate. Obviously that's fantasy, but if we spend the next two years organizing, we could be incredibly powerful.
posted by sallybrown at 7:48 PM on November 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


In which a WaPo reporter describes "using anti-immigrant language" as a he said/she said situation and responds "you're an idiot" when called out on it.
posted by zachlipton at 7:49 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Donald Trump is at the older range of the "Baby Boomer" generation (whose fathers came home from WWII and started impregnating their wives)... to be a full generation, it would be those 51-71 years of age.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:52 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


I keep coming back to the darkly humorous idea that this collection of egomaniacal assclowns will utterly fail to replicate the efficiency and discipline of Nazi Germany (however much they embrace or are ok with their principles) and so their incompetence creates opportunities for hope.

This is not much to reassure me, but after this week, I will cling to what I can.
posted by emjaybee at 7:54 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


it would be those 51-71 years of age

See I thought it ended a year after my youngest uncle was born. He's on Medicare these days.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:56 PM on November 13, 2016


Conditions for D gains, huh. Like...improving our messaging? Being scrappier than our opponents? Effectively reaching out without anyone feeling like we're talking down to them?

Senate gains in 2018 would require more than that. All those and a 1932 scale depression maybe.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:56 PM on November 13, 2016


2016 is just a repeat of 1922 now isn't it?
posted by Talez at 7:59 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


As we enter the holiday season, consider looking up your relatives' political donations. If you have relatives who supported Trump or the RNC, don't let them forget it. Let's make Thanksgiving dinner uncomfortable for them for once. And if they express regret or remorse for Trump, challenge them to donate at least as much to the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc.
posted by jedicus at 8:00 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


egomaniacal assclowns will utterly fail to replicate the efficiency and discipline of Nazi Germany

Nazi Germany was neither efficient nor disciplined; in fact, it was rife with cronyism, overlapping and uncertain spheres of authority, etc. There would often be 2 or 3 different agencies (some party, some governmental, others sui generis) charged with ostensibly doing the same task. Hitler would then choose between those who sucked up the most or who did the most "Nazi" (=radical/outlandish) job of it. This drastically cut down checks on radicalization.
posted by dhens at 8:01 PM on November 13, 2016 [34 favorites]


"this collection of egomaniacal assclowns will utterly fail to replicate the efficiency and discipline of Nazi Germany"

I'm sorry to tell you that Nazi Germany was marked by gross inefficiency as Hitler and the Nazi party, perhaps deliberately, set up competing agencies and personal fiefdoms that conflicted and fought. The actual German military might have been efficient and ordentlich but government was not. Its lack of predictability was actually yet another source of problems for its unfortunate citizens.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:01 PM on November 13, 2016 [34 favorites]


The problem as I've always understood it, is not that the boomers per se were good or bad, but that the years after the boom, saw such a drop in birth rates that anything that depended on a large population to sustain it was going to not work.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:01 PM on November 13, 2016


snap, dhens.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:02 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Republicans control as much as they did after the 1928 election... and you know what happened in 1929 (I don't like seeing it called "a 1932 scale depression" - it started before then)
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:02 PM on November 13, 2016


Bannon looks to want to team up with Le Pen.

I think I need to go throw up now.
posted by Talez at 8:06 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


2016 is just a repeat of 1922 now isn't it?

In more ways than one. (Inequality for All)
The Graphics package (.pdf)

Boehner surrendering the house was enormous. The old boy network essentially walked away in 2008 because the contraction was historic (literally ;) This is old news to anyone deep into 1% documentation, but it bears repeating.

For a time, the executive office matters little to capital.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 8:11 PM on November 13, 2016


The Republicans control as much as they did after the 1928 election...

Just to note because I've seen the related meme wandering around the nets: the last time the Republicans controlled House, Senate, and Presidency was January 2007, not 1928.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:13 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


have relatives who supported Trump or the RNC, don't let them forget

Before you assume anything about these donations, let me tell you these are not always indicative. Most #NeverTrumpers show significant donations to the Party this year, as well - because attending the caucuses and trying to snipe Trump at various levels cost money, and in an attempt to pump up their numbers, they report those as straight "donations". When I check myself, for example, it says I "donated" a few grand to the RNC, while it's more like "even as an elected delegate, they wouldn't let me in unless I paid."
posted by corb at 8:14 PM on November 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


I also don't think most of us think that she would be able to spot a dogwhistle the way someone raised religious all their life might be.

Possibly not. My assumption is that she could, if it mattered to her, because I think she's got enough basic intelligence and education for it, but I doubt that it does matter to her much more than it matters to her husband. I think she has no group loyalty to any group but Trumps. She made some feeble gestures towards making her dad less offensive to women during the campaign, so she is fully aware of his offenses, but she's on his team and she's as culpable for supporting his bigotry as any other Trump voter.

but she's still Jewish. And I'm not, even though my dad was and all the blood relatives I care to speak to are, and even though I was brought up celebrating the major holidays and thinking of myself as 'half Jewish' until I was old enough to realize that wasn't actually a thing. it bugs me, but that's how it works and it's real.

I think what bothers me most is the idea that having a close Jewish relative, either daughter or son-in-law, would matter to Trump even though we already know that having a close female relative means less than nothing to him. We already know he doesn't make those connections, he doesn't think those thoughts, he doesn't extend that kind of human recognition to groups he despises. We already know how he changes when he has a close connection to someone with membership in a reviled group, which is not at all. he does not have the intellectual capacity for cognitive dissonance so it does not trouble him enough to need to reconcile it. he is like that about women; he is like that about Jews. It is a lesson that should have been well learned by everybody already.

I am also edgy because the sudden prevalence of white rose imagery amongst earnest secret Facebookers and other well-meaning liberal types and I have the profoundest of doubts that each and every one of them are willing to go to the guillotine for me, for the truth, or for anybody.
posted by queenofbithynia at 8:14 PM on November 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


In which a WaPo reporter describes "using anti-immigrant language" as a he said/she said situation and responds "you're an idiot" when called out on it.

Wow. There's a nice rhetorical bait and switch there.
WaPo reporter: Throughout the campaign, Trump's critics regularly accused him of using anti-immigrant language and racial grievances to motivate his supporters, charges that he denied and dismissed.

Justin Elliott: Trump's using using anti-immigrant language has now become a charge that he denied [...] You're presenting a basic fact inaccurately as a he said she said.

WaPo reporter: The sentence is about the charges that he used racial grievances to intentionally incite white voters; he denies that. [my emphasis]
Yes, technically one must concede that Trump's motive for using racist terms is something that he alone can know for sure. But if you write "Bill Smith denied killing his neighbour in a fit of passion", you'd be omitting a crucial detail if you didn't mention that Smith admitted killing his neighbour and only objected to the implication that he was angry at the time.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:17 PM on November 13, 2016 [20 favorites]


I did not intend to inaccurately reflect the history; 1928 was ANOTHER time, not the ONLY time.

Another historical tidbit (and correct me if I'm wrong), I don't know of any other despot/dictator who gained/seized power at such an advanced age as Trump (70) AND without any previous governmental experience. Just a factor working against him. Giuliani and Newt are both even older, Jeff Sessions almost as old. But Mike Pence is only 57, his pure white hair is just ... being Pure White.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:17 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Before you assume anything about these donations, let me tell you these are not always indicative.

I suspect that's a minority of people who donated to the RNC, especially if the donations came after Trump became the nominee in July. But if they are a party-activist nevertrumper, then that's fair enough, and they can talk about how they're working to support anti-Trump Republicans elsewhere in government. I'm not suggesting launching straight into an accusatory tirade over turkey and stuffing.
posted by jedicus at 8:20 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


The problem as I've always understood it, is not that the boomers per se were good or bad, but that the years after the boom, saw such a drop in birth rates that anything that depended on a large population to sustain it was going to not work.

*sigh* Sure, another thing to blame Generation X for....

(I'm kidding, I'm kidding.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:22 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


Welp, back to finding new dim hopes, it is then.
posted by emjaybee at 8:24 PM on November 13, 2016


Well, this made my jaw actually drop.

"Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term.....After meeting with Mr. Trump, the only person to be elected president without having held a government or military position, Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said."

May God bless President Obama.
posted by mynameisluka at 8:25 PM on November 13, 2016 [114 favorites]


Giuliani and Newt are both even older,...

Google search (gingrich gettysburg trump speech)

The first 1/3 of that speech ignores social issues altogether. It's term limits and lobby regulation (and regulation regulation). It was Contract with America redux and effective.

Welp, back to finding new dim hopes, it is then.
Warren and Franken will provide so much because they're rational.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 8:28 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Next week will be full of "politics at the Thanksgiving table" stories. Some of them will be done as human interest "oh, but families get over it" puffery -- my local rag had one today -- but some of them will may actually engage with why the "racist uncle Joe" stereotype exists, and why many tables will have unset places.
posted by holgate at 8:29 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


I feel like Obama is taking one for the team* to do the best he can to prevent a nuclear apocalypse or global economic collapse.

*people living on Earth
posted by sallybrown at 8:30 PM on November 13, 2016 [60 favorites]


Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term

"Yeah...they're all...totally going to stay. Definitely."
[fake]
Isn't it all fake now?
posted by kirkaracha at 8:33 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


This has been said before but if you're male, no matter won you're married to, you're married to somebody from a group that Trump insulted and demeaned at some point.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:38 PM on November 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


I can just see it, Trump waving dismissively, "All of these servants, they will be reporting to me of course. Make sure to tell the cook I like fried chicken and french fries."

"Umm... I think we should meet again, Donald."
posted by Meatbomb at 8:39 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said.

(Man, I thought I was done weeping.) Of course, this is assuming that Trump wishes to participate.
posted by FelliniBlank at 8:40 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


The more i think about that WSJ quote, the more I wonder what's going on with that. It clearly wasn't planted by the Trump people - Trump will be angry to be described as Obama's pupil. If the Obama folks planted it, they would have known it would make Trump angry, thus frustrating their purpose...
posted by sallybrown at 8:41 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


This picture of the current WH staff listening to news of Clinton's concession is still giving me life. Those expressions say what we are all thinking.
posted by emjaybee at 8:43 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


HBO posted tonight's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver early (Youtube). It's all about the President-Elect, the effects of his taking office, and a call to stand up for one another and support people now under threat and the organizations that support them. He provides a few prominent examples & URLs. It's the last episode for the season, and the show returns in February.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:45 PM on November 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


I don't think I can live without Last Week Tonight for the next few months.
posted by zachlipton at 8:47 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


Conditions for D gains, huh. Like...improving our messaging? Being scrappier than our opponents? Effectively reaching out without anyone feeling like we're talking down to them?

Nope, I don't buy into that narrative. Clinton lost because of Comey's letter.

Lesson 1. Democrats should appoint Democrats, not Republicans. Obama appointed Comey to run the FBI in 2013, thereby giving him the power to ratfuck Clinton and America 3 years later. Has anyone asked Obama how he feels about this? I'd love to know his response. Bipartisanship needs to be a dirtier word than "liberal" in our political lexicon.

Lesson 2. Cut damaged people out of campaigns. Anthony Weiner had three sex scandals: 2011, 2013, and 2016. The first cost him his House seat. The second derailed his mayoral campaign. We don't yet have any idea of the full cost of the third one. But at some point Clinton should have said I don't need an advisor with a personal life this fucked up. This may be a particularly Clintonesque problem. They sure are great at picking advisers who are hot fucking messes (Dick Morris, Mark Penn). I get that the Metafilter consensus is probably "you don't know what kind of marriage they have" and if they were anybody else, I would agree!!!! But she was Clinton's longest serving and closest advisor, the head of her election campaign! And he was a sex addict whose eventual texting of a 15-year old lead to an FBI investigation that resulted in Comey's letter.

No more Republican appointments. No more hot fucking messes.
posted by great_radio at 8:52 PM on November 13, 2016 [47 favorites]


Before you assume anything about these donations, let me tell you these are not always indicative.

That's nice but now I know my in-laws gave $1000 directly to this asshole who literally believes that I am "worthy of death" for sleeping with women and now I have to ask my husband to call his parents and tell them this is not okay while I stare at the ceiling and scream wordlessly for the next four years.
posted by deludingmyself at 8:53 PM on November 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


I am also edgy because the sudden prevalence of white rose imagery amongst earnest secret Facebookers and other well-meaning liberal types and I have the profoundest of doubts that each and every one of them are willing to go to the guillotine for me, for the truth, or for anybody.

I keep thinking: maybe I should have been a louder Clinton supporter prior to the election. Maybe I should have shouted down the Bernie bros instead of remaining quiet; maybe I should have left Clinton signs around regardless of the danger.

I'm already annoyed, because the third-party voters I know are claiming they didn't single-handedly hand the victory to Trump, while I'm racking my brains trying to think of ways I could have done more.

I feel like safety pins and white rose are about three weeks too late.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 8:54 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said.

If anyone was still wondering why Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize when he hadn't done anything yet…
posted by morspin at 8:59 PM on November 13, 2016 [55 favorites]


>Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance.

FFS. Trump is just the face of a 10,000,000 person strong group of people that is The Right.
Sure, they can't govern for crap, but that's intentional.

Any hand-holding to be done, they have somebody to do it.

Obama was the junior senator from Illinois in 2008, the people he trusted were a mixed bag.

[the thought did strike me this weekend that it would have been strategically better to have Clinton win in 2008, saving Obama for 2016, sigh]
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:04 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


the sudden prevalence of white rose imagery amongst earnest secret Facebookers and other well-meaning liberal types

The White Rose, as in, the super-intellectual, totally-ineffective Nazi resistance student org? Well that...fits.
posted by corb at 9:05 PM on November 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


the third-party voters I know are claiming they didn't single-handedly hand the victory to Trump

the analogy came to me this week that our elections are like tug-of-war contests, if you're not pulling against the GOP, you're not helping.

The Green/Libertarian voters were like orthogonal directions to the D/R fight.

These third-party voters can say, 'look at us, you didn't have us this time so you lost, so think about what you can do to get us on your team.'

Ds can say there were millions more people standing around not voting at all, and of course all the people on the (R) side of the rope to get back on our side.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:07 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


The White Rose, as in, the super-intellectual, totally-ineffective Nazi resistance student org? Well that...fits.

It made me think about how completely barren my public-school education was of any actual exploration of resistance as a concept. It almost seems like no wonder people can't come up with any good symbols of rebellion, because honestly, even when we talked about the Revolutionary War, it seemed like it was always a version that was sanitized of anything that was particularly subversive. We seem to have covered symbolic but largely useless stuff far more than we covered things that actually made a difference.
posted by Sequence at 9:14 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


The White Rose, as in, the super-intellectual, totally-ineffective Nazi resistance student org? Well that...fits.

several of them did die bravely though! and anybody hearkening back to them in the present day is declaring their willingness to fight, however (in)effectually, to the very point of death. and I don't even know that they don't mean it, but I kind of feel like this iconography is serious business and they need to know for sure if they mean it or not.

People like to smugly say that nobody knows what they would have done in a situation like Nazi Germany and anybody could be just the absolute worst, given the opportunity, be they never so liberal and in never so many super secret facebook groups . but the thing is you can know what you would do, you just have to think it all through and decide first, in a moment of calmness, and then stick to it later so that you don't have to have your decision point under pressure.

like me personally I am just painfully eager to join a Resistance that will lose me friends, absolutely prepared to lose clients, and 100 percent ready to go to jail but anything beyond that I really do have to think on a little more. and I have thought about this very thing for years.
posted by queenofbithynia at 9:15 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


Great analogy, HMIII, esp. considering the muddy field included in your basic tug-of-war contest.
posted by furtive_jackanapes at 9:16 PM on November 13, 2016


Well in all fairness, the White Rose was both super intellectual and super ineffective, but also existed in a time where political speech such as theirs could be—and was—punished by execution. Much resistance in Nazi Germany was relatively ineffective and only made its way to small groups of people, but it was something. That said, we are not in that position yet so I hope we're able to do more than posture and actually act while we can.
posted by mynameisluka at 9:20 PM on November 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


Hard to say it was completely ineffective when we're sitting around talking about it in the next century, in another country, on these internet machine things.
posted by sallybrown at 9:21 PM on November 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


Jedicus, just FYI, I looked myself up on that donor info site and only a partial list of my contributions came up. None of my contributions to Hillary were there.
posted by Mayra in L.A. at 9:23 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


“Bannon is going to be keeper of the image of Trump as a fighter against the status quo, and Reince is going to utilize his personal connections with the speaker and others, to make the trains run on time,” said Ken Blackwell, a former Ohio state official and a member of the Trump transition team.

In their ongoing effort to normalize Trump, the media will report this as "Donald Trump's America to have two or more trains."
posted by tonycpsu at 9:27 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


For the dude blaming Metafilter, I want to mention that I'm sure he's right that there are a significant number of Trump voters who are not explicitly racist. I'm going to argue that they are still racist even if they had no over racist intentions.

To whit, Trump made explicit racism and mysogyny part of his campaign. I don't think at this point I need to point out examples but if you've not been following that, I can show you some.

Trump voters heard this and either agreed with it or thought "this racism doesn't matter to me because this other thing is more important." To the latter group, the well being - indeed, the lives - of people who are impacted by institutional (and overt) racism are less important than other issues.

In other words, those lives don't matter (as much) to them.

This could, with justification, lead a group of people to need to remind them that, yes, their lives do matter.

By voting for an overt racist and misogynist, they are voting to support a continuation of the oppression of those groups of people. I'm not seeing a whole lot of hope for positive gains for opposed Americans under the this man's leadership. I've not even seen many specific and consistent plans on any subject, but that's outside the scope of this comment.

Anyhow, man who blames Metafilter, you're a Christian and I'm sure you believe in loving your neighbor. I believe in this concept passionately. I think voting for a person whose words and actions and stated policy goals treat our neighbors with disrespect and cause them harm is a poor way of demonstrating love for one's neighbors. Perhaps you can explain how Trump, through his words and actions, is actually going to lift everyone up. I see no evidence that suggests this is even a remote possibility.
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:27 PM on November 13, 2016 [45 favorites]


Trump et al. will try to manufacture a war/threat in around 2 years to repeat Bush Jr.'s re-election success. It took the Bush voters 6 years to finally turn on him after it was evident to anyone paying attention that his administration was a disaster; I really hope we don't have to wait that long now. Giuliani is probably praying for another terrorist attack now, or plotting to manufacture one.
posted by benzenedream at 9:35 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


He doesn't need to manufacture a war. We're currently in Yemen.
posted by I-baLL at 9:41 PM on November 13, 2016


because the third-party voters I know are claiming they didn't single-handedly hand the victory to Trump

They didn't, unless a bunch more votes showed up (not snark, actual disclaimer). There weren't enough Stein votes to swing it for Clinton, AFAIK.

And while there were enough Johnson votes, I expect they were mostly real-life libertarians or nevertrumpers. Switching from D to L would be... Puzzling behavior. I don't doubt that it happened, but those are the sorts of low constraint voters whose votes are basically random anyhow.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:44 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


Daughter & I were commiserating/brainstorming, and pondering how unhappy and unprepared the pres-elect seems to be. We were thinking he's gotta be looking for a way out that still appeases his ego. And I thought, what about appealing to his greed?

Can we get Warren Buffett to offer him a billion dollars to step down and not take the job - before the electoral college votes? He could then declare, ha ha, I got mine - I won, I got paid, and I didn't have to do any of the actual work; that's good business.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 9:46 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Even if you don't usually watch John Oliver you can skip to 23:18 for a truly cathartic 2016 blowout. like, I didn't realize how much I needed that
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 9:47 PM on November 13, 2016 [21 favorites]


"Can we get Warren Buffett to offer him a billion dollars to step down and not take the job - before the electoral college votes?"

Why? Do you think that Pence will be better?
posted by I-baLL at 9:49 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Can we get Warren Buffett to offer him a billion dollars to step down and not take the job - before the electoral college votes? He could then declare, ha ha, I got mine - I won, I got paid, and I didn't have to do any of the actual work; that's good business.

Then we've got Mike fucking "convert your gay sons and daughters and fetuses need funerals" Pence as president.

I don't know which is worse honestly.
posted by Talez at 9:49 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


the last time the Republicans controlled House, Senate, and Presidency was January 2007

I dearly hope the Democratic party has developed a bit more spine since that era

Quite a bit
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:52 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Electoral college is not required to vote for Pence; they'd have a much clearer option to vote for Hillary.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 9:52 PM on November 13, 2016


I dearly hope the Democratic party has developed a bit more spine since that era

Four words: Freshman Senator Tammy Duckworth
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 9:54 PM on November 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


Oliver/Stewart/Colbert

Ya know...one generational marker I don't see discussed much is what portion of Americans prefer news programs that don't say fuck and those that do. Brokaw held together the Cronkite magog, but when Stewart and O'Reilly divvied up the ratings...

And while there were enough Johnson votes, I expect they were mostly real-life libertarians or nevertrumpers. Switching from D to L would be... Puzzling behavior. I don't doubt that it happened, but those are the sorts of low constraint voters whose votes are basically random anyhow.

That kinda talk...that kind of poll-based yak? Yeah. What people did/do in the privacy of a booth ain't what they say with just one other person in the room.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 9:55 PM on November 13, 2016


but the thing is you can know what you would do, you just have to think it all through and decide first, in a moment of calmness, and then stick to it later so that you don't have to have your decision point under pressure.

I've spent lots of time thinking about this sort of stuff too, and there are lots of plans that seem easy to make: for example if there's a Muslim registry, I will register as a Muslim, even though I've been an atheist of my own accord my whole life. But I don't have any kids and I don't think I could honestly say what I'd do, or even comprehensively plan out what I'd do, if I had kids and pressure was applied to me by threatening them.

Or, even if you concluded that a Thích Quảng Đức/Mohamed Bouazizi self-immolation protest would be effective and worthwhile, it seems difficult to me, coming from American culture where that is extremely uncommon, to be certain that I'd go through with it.
posted by XMLicious at 10:00 PM on November 13, 2016


So, when's Malik Obama getting a cabinet position?
posted by Apocryphon at 10:11 PM on November 13, 2016


mynameisluka: Well, this made my jaw actually drop.

WSJ: RNC Chair Reince Priebus Is Named Donald Trump’s Chief of Staff (Nov. 13, 2016) (open in incognito tab or search for that phrase normally and follow the search result link to WSJ.com)

You missed the line before your pullquote:
During their private White House meeting on Thursday, Mr. Obama walked his successor through the duties of running the country, and Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope, said people familiar with the meeting.
Remember, this was the meeting that had originally been scheduled for 10 minutes and went on for 90.

Which makes me think that Donald is like an armchair quarterback, who somehow gets the chance to take the place of a real QB and realizes he has no idea what it takes to do that job. He kicked ass in those Madden games, but on the field, he gets that deer in the headlights look, and soon he feels like the deer after the headlights have passed under him, due to a speeding truck launching his body into the air.

Or he's a pro at playing some Toby Keith on Rockband and doesn't see what's the fuss about the guy, and somehow manages to bluff his way into being an opening act for Toby, only to realize he doesn't really know how to play guitar.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:13 PM on November 13, 2016 [36 favorites]


A shot of joviality with Joe: Biden's plots to prank Donald [FAKE]
"I left a Kenyan passport in your desk, just to fuck with him"
"Joe"
"Oh and a prayer rug in your bedroom. He's gonna lose it!"
"Dammit Joe"

Biden: Hillary was saying they took the W's off the keyboards when Bush won!
Obama: Joe put-
Biden: I TOOK THE T'S, THEY CAN ONLY TYPE RUMP
posted by filthy light thief at 10:17 PM on November 13, 2016 [30 favorites]


and there are lots of plans that seem easy to make: for example if there's a Muslim registry, I will register as a Muslim

Before there is a Muslim registry, there would be public registries of non-citizens, an increased push for ID cards for all citizens, and attempts to remove the rights of citizenship from people found guilty of certain crimes.

As one Twitter thread pointed out, expect the Black Lives Matter movement to be declared a terrorist group. Expect Gitmo to be expanded, and for citizens suspected of "terrorism" to be sent there to await a trial that will never happen.

The time to fight back is before they start restricting normal, everyday, lawful activities - it's when they start unconstitutional crackdowns on groups that many would like to see stopped anyway. They'll start with the violent edge of protest groups, and hey, if they don't get fair quick trials, well, they were hurting both local businesses and The Movement, so who's going to speak out for them? They'll start with those who lash out at "deplorables," and if they vanish into new "isolation prisons" (let's not call them "camps;" of course we don't have "camps" for undesirables), well, they were committing some serious crimes; nevermind that people committing crimes the other direction don't seem to get the same treatment.

In short: they'll start by going after those we all agree are horrible criminals - and they'll take actions against them that we would never have allowed a few years ago, but many people will just say, "at least we're safer now." Then they'll tighten "security" and start restricting people's activities... curfews during "times of unrest," no protest groups larger than a couple dozen without a permit, no non-citizens in "sensitive" jobs, and many people will grumble but say, "at least we're safer now."

The time for the frog to jump out of the pot isn't when it reaches simmer; it's when the pilot light is turned on. Push back against encroachment on anyone's rights, starting NOW. Speak up if it's safe for you; when you see people being picked on for race or gender or orientation or lifestyle, call the bully "un-American." Say it loud and clear, whether you're speaking to the victim or the bully. Don't let them redefine our identity any more than they already have.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:22 PM on November 13, 2016 [83 favorites]


Remember, this was the meeting that had originally been scheduled for 10 minutes and went on for 90.

There are reports that Trump lied about this as one of the first things he said in the Oval Office. The reporters set to cover their joint appearance after the meeting weren't even told to assemble until 30 minutes after it started, which makes no sense if it was really a 10 minute meeting. It's possible someone told him it was only going to be a 10 minute meeting, but that was never true.
posted by zachlipton at 10:31 PM on November 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


Hard to say it was completely ineffective when we're sitting around talking about it in the next century, in another country, on these internet machine things.

The 12 million dead to genocide say it was ineffective.
posted by sideshow at 10:34 PM on November 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


Trump is that meme dog that doesn't know what it is doing
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:35 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Say it loud and clear, whether you're speaking to the victim or the bully.

And wrap it tightly in the American flag, because the worst have already ceded it to wave other flags that better express their sentiments.
posted by holgate at 10:38 PM on November 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Remember, this was the meeting that had originally been scheduled for 10 minutes and went on for 90.

This was a total lie and he did it while sitting with Obama. I shouldn't be astounded any more but I was. He shapes his own reality.
posted by futz at 10:41 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


filthy light thief: "You missed the line before your pullquote:
During their private White House meeting on Thursday, Mr. Obama walked his successor through the duties of running the country, and Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope, said people familiar with the meeting.
Remember, this was the meeting that had originally been scheduled for 10 minutes and went on for 90.
"

I'm having Game Change flashbacks:

"A great relationship with the Queen..."

"Governor, do you know what the Fed is?"

"This is Germany..."
posted by Rhaomi at 10:46 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Infowars' Alex Jones says Trump called him personally to thank him for his election support.

So we have a crazy man claiming a serial liar called him, so who (besides the NSA) will ever know what really happened here?
posted by zachlipton at 10:47 PM on November 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Sorry but this really pisses me off. There is no way that the meeting was scheduled for 15 minutes or less. It involved all of trumpeter's entourage and a tour of the WH. He lied so it made it look like he and Obama (two equals?) got along so well (which is very very odd) and had soooo much to talk about. He is fucking nuts. It's another lie that is easily debunked and the truth would have been fine but he had to lie anyway.
posted by futz at 10:49 PM on November 13, 2016 [22 favorites]


Before there is a Muslim registry, there would be public registries of non-citizens, an increased push for ID cards for all citizens, and attempts to remove the rights of citizenship from people found guilty of certain crimes.

I agree with all of your points about resistance, but just for the record wanted to say that I don't even think there will ever actually be a Muslim registry, unless publicity about such a thing were to eventually serve some propaganda purpose, because commercial Big Data can probably tell them all of that stuff without even assistance from the surveillance state. In that respect, the pot has already been at a rolling boil for some time now.
posted by XMLicious at 10:51 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


I don't even think there will ever actually be a Muslim registry, unless publicity about such a thing were to eventually serve some propaganda purpose, because commercial Big Data can probably tell them all of that stuff

They'd need a registry because they need public participation - if they just hand out Muslim ID Cards to the Muslims they have on file, they'll botch enough of them that the public will reject it. So instead they'd send out "Muslim registration cards" to everyone identified as Muslim, and also have a tv-based drive to register those not caught by big data (small percentage; visible number).

Restricting Muslim activities like air travel and driving in some neighborhoods and property purchases would be done quietly with big data support, without formally stating that "Muslim" is the reason so that it's hard for them to drum up support. But to start creating "Muslim neighborhoods" they'd need the propaganda push.

(Gods this is bleak thinking. I can't even tell if I'm trying to plan for actual possibilities or just spiraling down into dystopian fantasy.) (I don't need any reminders that those aren't mutually exclusive.)
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:00 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


I can't even tell...

Yeah ya can.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 11:04 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


@gabrielsherman: NYT: On election night, Breitbart’s Facebook page received the fourth-highest number of user interactions..beating Fox News, CNN and NYT
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:17 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


That says more to me about Facebook than it does about Breitbart.

I say we take off and nuke the entire Facebook from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:22 PM on November 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


> a call to stand up for one another and support people now under threat and the organizations that support them

Hmm.
The summer before I started law school, 15 years ago, I read a little book by Karl Llewellyn called "The Bramble Bush." It's basically a "Law School for Dummies" type thing from 1930, full of somewhat outdated advice on how to ace your classes and impress your professors. But Llewellyn was a leading thinker of the school of thought known as "legal realism," and "The Bramble Bush" is also a major statement of that philosophy. In a famous passage, Llewellyn wrote:
This doing of something about disputes, this doing of it reasonably, is the business of the law. And the people who have the doing of it in charge, whether they be judges or sheriffs or clerks or jailers or lawyers, are officials of the law. What these officials do about disputes is, to my mind, the law itself.
He went on:
And rules, in all of this, are important to you so far as they help you see or predict what judges will do or so far as they help you to get judges to do something. That is their importance. That is all their importance, except as pretty playthings.
And then I went to law school. And I took the first-year course in Constitutional Law, and I learned about the fundamental principles that rule the United States. And I learned -- or at least was given the general impression -- that, while the country has not always lived up to those principles, in the long run, the Constitution has served as a wise guide and constraint on the power of our rulers, and the foundation of our system of government.

But in the back of my mind I thought about Llewellyn. I thought about the fact that those principles can't automatically enact themselves, that they only work if the human actors in the system choose to follow them and to demand that others follow them. They persist because the people constrained by them believe themselves to be constrained by them. The Constitution, separation of powers, religious liberty, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, equality of all citizens: There is a complacent sense in America that these things are independent self-operative checks on power. But they aren't. They are checks on power only as far as they command the collective loyalty of those in power; they require a governing class that cares about law and government and American tradition, rather than personal power and revenge. Their magic is fragile, and can disappear if people who don't believe in it gain power.
posted by kliuless at 11:26 PM on November 13, 2016 [71 favorites]


A shot of joviality with Joe: Biden's plots to prank Donald [FAKE]

Der Spiegel has a bunch of them too (while the article is in German, it's mostly translating the jokes, which are in English.)

I keep desperately trying to laugh because the alternative is too awful.
posted by ubersturm at 11:30 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


I see you are all going to be fine America. Reading the BBC this morning

A former naval officer, investment banker and Hollywood producer, Mr Bannon took over at Breitbart in 2012, when he promised to make it the "Huffington Post of the right".

That guys doesn't sound bad at all! (What is going on with the BBC, surely we can call these guys out for what they are across the Atlantic!)
posted by twistedonion at 11:55 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


I posted in the other thread not realizing this was here. I'm extra crabby right now about the filter bubble and especially facebook. I was taking about it for weeks and shocked no one else was. They are now.

Along with the other problem. Fake news on Facebook. Some just made up as click bait.

This is how our election was decided.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 12:04 AM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


@ Kliuless

Going back to when we were children, I think most of us in this courtroom thought justice came automatically. That virtue was its own reward. That good triumphs over evil. But as we get older we know this isn't true. Individual human beings have to create justice, and this is not easy because the truth often poses a threat to power and one often has to fight power at great risk to themselves.
-- Oliver Stone & Zachary Sklar, JFK, 1991
posted by lazycomputerkids at 12:05 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


This is how our election was decided.

Same with Brexit. Shout anything into that echo chamber. the more absurd the lie the more effective.

They might not even need to burn books this time. No one reads anymore

.
posted by twistedonion at 12:22 AM on November 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


about the filter bubble and especially facebook. I was taking about it for weeks and shocked no one else was. They are now.

Along with the other problem. Fake news on Facebook. Some just made up as click bait.

This is how our election was decided.


so basically, Marshall McLuhan called it almost fifty years ago. "World War III is a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation."
posted by philip-random at 12:27 AM on November 14, 2016 [22 favorites]


Speaking of fake news, [insert clever name here], the URI of your first (NYT) link has "/2016/11/14/" in it—even though the byline says "November 12, 2016" and there's no explicitly-marked update—which successfully influenced me to load and read the article thinking there was fresh information in it. Don't hate the player, hate the game, I guess.
posted by XMLicious at 12:39 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


> the URI of your first (NYT) link has "/2016/11/14/" in it—even though the byline says "November 12, 2016" and there's no explicitly-marked update

There is a simple explanation for that. The NYT URI scheme is based on when the article was published in their print edition. The footer of all of their articles should say what day it was printed, which should match the URI, what page number, which edition and what headline was used.
posted by papercrane at 12:54 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


So yeah lots of competing factions and lots of them are going to have hurt feelings about how Trump isn't giving them what they want.

They'll have hurt feelings, but they won't blame Trump. He's very explicitly campaigned on a message of incorrectly attributed blame, and direct lies about his failures. I expect blame of Obama, flat denial of failures, and punitive firings to figure fairly prominently in the first 2 years.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 1:04 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]




Woman Who Voted For Flesh-Eating Virus Hopes It Decides Not To Eat Any Flesh
posted by porn in the woods at 4:26 AM on November 14 [2 favorites +] [!]


The schadenfreude would be exquisite were it not for the many others fucked over by people voting like this.
posted by dazed_one at 1:33 AM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


The pub was silent for a moment longer, and then, embarrassingly enough, the man with the raucous laugh did it again. The girl he had dragged along to the pub with him had grown to loathe him dearly over the last hour or so, and it would probably have been a great satisfaction to her to know that in a minute and a half or so he would suddenly evaporate into a whiff of hydrogen, ozone and carbon monoxide. However, when the moment came she would be too busy evaporating herself to notice it.
This bit from Hitchhiker's Guide comes to mind when having schadenfreude about Trump voters. Sums up my feelings.
posted by honestcoyote at 2:01 AM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


Before this meeting both had insulted each other extensively.

That was the news article that made me stop paying money to the BBC. I'm going to substitute some of that £140 a year in spending on media that's reliably free of the balance fallacy. Probably a mix of The Economist and The Guardian.
posted by ambrosen at 2:10 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ambrosen: I'm seeking to do the same. The Guardian wears its bias very clearly on its sleeve though.
posted by wingless_angel at 2:18 AM on November 14, 2016


The Guardian wears its bias very clearly on its sleeve though.

Bias and good reporting are quite compatible. What you have to watch out for are the organizations that pretend they have ascended to a higher plane of objectivity, free from the distracting inconveniences of human bodies and frailty and particularity. No good journalistic edifice can ever be built over that foundation of self-deception.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:51 AM on November 14, 2016 [23 favorites]


Anyone have a go to link detailing why Bannon is a white supremacist/ neo-nazi?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:17 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


In normalization news, NPR posts L vs R economist interview with wingnut who's been been published in Brietbart.
posted by klarck at 3:20 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh, but hey guys, he's "drawn sharp rebuke" for his choice of strategist, so I'm sure we'll be okay. He responds really thoughtfully to criticism, as we all know.
Bannon will assume a similar role to that of Karl Rove during George W. Bush’s administration and recently by longtime strategist John Podesta under President Obama. He and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who will become White House chief of staff, will be among Trump's top advisers.
I mean, it's not like Karl Rove did any actual damage, right?
Sob.
posted by Superplin at 4:16 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Misantropic Painforest - I found an article from the most mainstream source I could find, NBC News: Analysis: Breitbart's Steve Bannon Leads the 'Alt Right' to the White House

As president of Breitbart News, he made his views clear.
posted by maggiemaggie at 4:46 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


They (Greens) didn't, unless a bunch more votes showed up (not snark, actual disclaimer). There weren't enough Stein votes to swing it for Clinton, AFAIK.

I'm aware of this.

I'm just stunned at how many people I used to be friends with are the type of people who would stand back and insist they alone didn't light the world on fire, rather than desperately wondering what they could have done to stop it. (I suspect their rhetoric alone reached ten times as many people as those who voted for Stein. God knows, a few holier-than-thous were the reason I wasn't verbal about my support for Clinton.)

"Used to be," is, of course, the key word here. It's not the Republicans in my extended family that I am planning on not speaking to this Christmas.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 5:22 AM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Hard to say it was completely ineffective when we're sitting around talking about it in the next century,

We're really good at romanticizing failed and flawed movements. See the enormous amount of paper and film devoted to the Scottish rebellion for Bonnie Prince Charlie. But it'd be really nice if we chose to take our inspiration not from failed movements but successful ones.

"Rhaegar fought valiantly. Rhaegar fought nobly. Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died."
posted by corb at 5:24 AM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Anyone have a go to link detailing why Bannon is a white supremacist/ neo-nazi?

Why? I have no idea why.

Be that as it may, since Bannon took over Breitbart News and that website has become what it has become -- a safe haven for, among others, white supremacists/neo nazis -- he appears to have passed the Duck Test.

How Donald Trump's New Campaign Chief Created an Online Haven for White Nationalists
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:32 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Bannon's backstory on why he became a white power asshole is irrelevant to me. He's just an orc general born in a slimy pit.
posted by Burhanistan at 5:41 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Then we've got Mike fucking "convert your gay sons and daughters and fetuses need funerals" Pence as president.

I don't know which is worse honestly.


Pence is going to be running policy anyway. We're probably better off with him as actual instead of de facto President if that means Trump isn't starting WWIII because Justin Trudeau make a snide remark about him.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:54 AM on November 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


hey, why settle for one when you can have both? Pence turning the U.S. into The Handmaid's Tale while Trump casually lobs some nukes?
posted by angrycat at 5:55 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I was unfamiliar with the White Rose movement until its mention here, so I may have not gotten a comprehensive understanding in the bit of reading I've done, but I feel compelled to note that for anyone who doesn't believe in the supernatural bits, the entirety of Christianity would appear to be the veneration and romanticizing of an unsuccessful campaign of defiance against oppression.

An entirely admirable campaign, as far as I'm concerned; my point being that taking inspiration from such movements and acts is probably so inextirpably embedded in Western culture that there will be no getting rid of the habit.
posted by XMLicious at 5:56 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


In normalization news, NPR posts L vs R economist interview with wingnut who's been been published in Brietbart.

I listened to this while getting ready for work today. Appalling. The Trump-favoring economist trotted out the "well, people say a lot of stuff during elections ..." canard over and over with no challenge from the interviewer. The press and everyone else get so pearl-clutchy about broken campaign promises on the Dem side if it's as much as a gradual evolution of views. But if Dumper says "I promise X" and then the next day "I will never do X" it's somehow excusable. Let me lay some truth down:

* people who will do whatever it takes to win are the worst of all people
* "speaks his mind" doesn't mean "makes random conflicting/nonsensical statements at all times" - it means making a plain-spoken, thoughtful and principled stand for something of importance
posted by freecellwizard at 6:07 AM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Damn! Thanks Blue Jello Elf!

I dearly hope the Democratic party has developed a bit more spine since that era
Four words: Freshman Senator Tammy Duckworth


Did you people see that? I am very excited to see what Senator Tammy Duckworth is going to do.
posted by Gotanda at 6:07 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Does anyone have any idea what happens if Trump ends up not eligible before either the electoral college meeting or the inauguration? He's old, he's not in the best of health, he's under investigation for serious charges including ties to foreign enemies which seem like they'd be disqualifying, and he doesn't actually want the job anyways as far as anyone can tell. Does it all fall to Pence, or free agency on the part of the EC, or what?
posted by jackbishop at 6:10 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think his electors would probably be freed, for all practical purposes. Presumably most of them would switch to Pence. Maybe some of them would be persuaded to vote for some other Republican.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:14 AM on November 14, 2016


I'm currently attending my company's annual international meeting of country management. Last night, we had an informal group dinner and as is kind of our tradition, business leaders stand when the spirit moves them and give the light- hearted off-the-record version of their business update. There's no requirement to do so, but many do and as the wine bottles get emptied they tend to get funnier and more affectionate.

Last night, close to the end of the evening, the country manager for Turkey stood up. To everyone's horror, instead of a business update, he launched into a long apology/explanation regarding politics in Turkey. After what felt like a forever of frozen embarrassment, he finally finished by assuring us that all the arrests of journalists and opposition party members were necessary to clean the country of the taint of CIA and foreign extremist influence. He really wanted to assure us that now that this necessary steps had been taken, everything should be good again.

My company is roughly as left-leaning as a big company gets, so he sat down to silence and the evening soon afterwards broke up.

As we were leaving, I thought My God, this will be the US team in 3 years. This will be us, If we can talk at all. My thought must have shown on my face, because a colleague from Taiwan patted my arm. "I'm so sorry," he said, "I hope you know we're all praying for you."
posted by frumiousb at 6:16 AM on November 14, 2016 [103 favorites]


In the very unlikely event Trump were to resign the nomination ahead of the Electoral College, the RNC would be entitled to make a new nomination in his place, to whom Elector pledges would transfer (at least according the rules).

I wouldn't see the RNC having any option other than nominating Pence for President and Pence's choice for VP. The risk of rogue Electors, or those who construe a state law obligation or moral obligation to vote for Trump despite his resignation, is obviously higher -- but 25 would have to defect not for the RNC's new choice to be elected outright, and even then it just goes to the House of Representatives and Senate where the Republicans control the necessary majorities to elect the RNC's choices anyway. Pence is much more popular than Donald Trump among the Republican establishment types who make up the Electors and Congressional caucuses, so it would be a done deal even if there were quite a few dissents.
posted by MattD at 6:27 AM on November 14, 2016


he's under investigation for serious charges including ties to foreign enemies which seem like they'd be disqualifying

First, good luck getting anything out of the FBI. Second, I am completely flummoxed that people are still coddling him by entertaining the idea of pushing his existing court dates back beyond inauguration because he's "too overwhelmed."
posted by C'est la D.C. at 6:28 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


...including ties to foreign enemies...

PC or Mac?
-- Joel & Ethan Coen, Burn After Reading, 2008
posted by lazycomputerkids at 6:36 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


From way upthread: 2018 will be a difficult year for Democrats.

Sure. Democrats might not be able to take back the Senate or the House. But mid-term elections traditionally go against the President's party, and I have no doubt that two years of Republican policies will prove unpopular with voters.

On top of that, look at the success of the so-called Tea Party. They were nothing but rebranded conservative Republicans who wanted to disassociate themselves with the miserable failure of George W. Bush, but they were incredibly successful in that rebranding, and convinced the media that they represented a genuine grassroots movement. Democrats, by contrast, have eight years of much better policies under Barack Obama to be proud of, and no one need apologize for standing against Serious, Honest Conservative Paul Ryan's longstanding ambition to dismantle the New Deal.

Democrats might not take back Congress in 2018, but there will be plenty of elections they can win, and it will create a narrative that many Real Americans oppose Trump. Republicans' actual policies are not popular. In two years, I expect the American people will be ready to hear that message.
posted by Gelatin at 6:44 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


I wonder what the CIA is going through right now, I mean with Trump's friendliness with Putin, both the agenda of the agency and the names of their operatives now might feel a lot less secure, so...?
posted by gusottertrout at 6:46 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


If there's one thing we need to learn from the current situation, it is that there is a faction in this country who will take any excuse to start rioting, looting and pillaging, and if law and order are lenient they will run amok over decent society.

This faction is known as Congressional Republicans.
posted by delfin at 6:53 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Fearing Trump, two legislators press for update of state abortion law: “With the upcoming Trump Presidency and conservative U.S. Supreme Court, the need for New York to take real steps to guarantee women's rights has never been more pressing,” said Stewart-Cousins, the Senate minority leader.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:56 AM on November 14, 2016 [16 favorites]




What I'm finding troubling is how quickly so many people who were really loud about "they're both awful" and "struggling to vote for the one I think is the lesser evil" and "holding my nose and voting for him" are now sounding actively happy about him being President.

I know that we saw this during the campaign - the more he stays out of the public eye, the more people forget all the reasons he's unpalatable. But I still thought I'd see more of a wait-and-see calm, and less of a gleeful "suck it up crybabies" narrative aimed at people who are upset.

The man was called dangerously unfit to be President by every major news organization and most US leaders - Democrat and Republican. This should be a sobering moment.

All the comments about how the electorate won't let Trump be too crazy? I don't think I buy it anymore. It's like there are no grownups left.
posted by Mchelly at 7:03 AM on November 14, 2016 [49 favorites]


On Obergefell and 60 Minutes, anything he says on the matter is not worth the air passing his lips until:

1. He uses his power as Chief Executive to protect the marriage rights of federal employees.
2. He puts his name on a veto of anti-marriage legislation coming from Congress.

Which is the minimum I expect of a President who considers Obergefell to be precedent.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:12 AM on November 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


What I'm finding troubling is how quickly so many people who were really loud about "they're both awful" and "struggling to vote for the one I think is the lesser evil" and "holding my nose and voting for him" are now sounding actively happy about him being President.
I'm actually not seeing very much of that, but it may be that people who know me know that I would punch them.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:13 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Kevin Drum points out that one thing Trump's campaign and Hillary Clinton agree on is that FBI Director James Comey cost her the election.

I will say again that I hope Obama fires him.
posted by Gelatin at 7:16 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


And as I've been pointing out for a while, the marriage fight wasn't just about marriage, it was about discrimination. Conservatives have already pivoted their rationale for discrimination to religious liberty.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:17 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh I see thanks to Bannon my student has been writing why abortions are equivalent to genocide. Nice to know
posted by angrycat at 7:24 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I will say again that I hope Obama fires him.

Hope implies doubt. I'll say again: Comey has been considered for SCOTUS in the past. Firing him is a perfect storm for the leap.

What I'm finding troubling is how quickly so many people who were really loud about "they're both awful" and "struggling to vote for the one I think is the lesser evil" and "holding my nose and voting for him" are now sounding actively happy about him being President.

Secret ballots: No better audit of privately held convictions. Polling consultancy really should be dismissed as a legitimate career. Or at least incessantly mocked as religious evangelicals.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 7:26 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Comey has been considered for SCOTUS in the past. Firing him is a perfect storm for the leap.

Senate Democrats would have fun with those hearings.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 7:27 AM on November 14, 2016


Long term the idea that it's someone's right to discriminate against marginalized groups based upon religious liberty is going to fail dramatically. Yeah it's probably going to win some short term battles but for conservatives this one is definitely a loser.

I understand while they feel the need to give some sort of victory to social conservatives but business owners that like to mask their bigotry behind religious freedom are already starting to lose the fight. The ideal that Christians are a hated minority is laughable outside of the most bubble secure communities and most churches are hemorhaging members at a high rate in part based upon the institutionalized bigotry condoned by these religious communities.
posted by vuron at 7:29 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


GQ: Donald Trump's 60 Minutes Interview Is the Wrong Way to Cover the Trump Presidency: Call me crazy, but I'm not willing to pat President-elect Trump on the back for courageously disavowing the violence perpetrated in his name, when in the same breath he dismisses it all as a hoax fueled by the liberal media.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:30 AM on November 14, 2016 [36 favorites]


But I still thought I'd see more of a wait-and-see calm, and less of a gleeful "suck it up crybabies" narrative aimed at people who are upset.

Yeah when I see that I assume someone is doubling down in order to drown out their conscience telling them "you fucked up." This is the motivation that drives victim-blaming; unable to deal with their own involvement in Terrible Thing, people lash out at the victims for making them feel bad about it.
posted by emjaybee at 7:34 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]




Senate Democrats would have fun with those hearings.

That reads as overconfidence to me: As in, the hypothetical wouldn't succeed. But the context is a Congress and an unprecedented duration Obama's been blocked from appointee hearings. Am I incorrect about that? Sincerely. Given the commitment to negotiation Obama has extended throughout his terms, the bitterness, the recklessness, across the aisle is absurd.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 7:37 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I expect a "states' rights" reversal of Obergefell would mean reversing the, "all states must perform these marriages" part, but leaving in the "full faith and credit" section, wherein all states have to acknowledge marriages performed in other states.

Marriages of first cousins are permitted in California. They're a crime in Nevada--but a pair of cousins who marry in CA and visit NV are (1) not locked up and (2) not un-married while they're in Vegas. Likewise, marriage age with parental consent is 15 in Idaho and 16 in Oregon - a couple of 15-year-olds married in Idaho is not un-married when they go to Portland for their honeymoon.

Erasing existing marriages is, I hope, beyond the scope of even SCOTUS. (Not that they absolutely couldn't, but I think even the most conservative wouldn't stretch things that far.) And not requiring federal recognition not only puts the couples at risk, it puts the federal government in the weird condition of having to do bizarre double paperwork in a lot of cases. It also would result in telling armed forces personnel that they're only married during some assignments and not others.

That's not only ridiculous - it's extra paperwork. SCOTUS is not going to saddle every federal agency with the responsibility of tracking which people are married when, nor is it going to inflict the bureaucratic nightmare of mass annullments or divorces, each of which would need to be legally negotiated as shared assets suddenly become non-shared assets. As much as the bigots want to get rid of Obergefell, the most they can hope for is states being allowed to set their own rules on who can get married, not on which marriages they have to recognize.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 7:39 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Talking Points Memo: WSJ: Team Trump 'Unaware' That They'd Have To Replace West Wing Staff
After meeting with Mr. Trump, the only person to be elected president without having held a government or military position, Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said.
I hope that Obama realizes that he may be setting himself up to get blamed for Trump's inevitable fuckups this way.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:40 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


I hope that Obama realizes that he may be setting himself up to get blamed for Trump's inevitable fuckups this way.

If he didn't, he would be blamed for maliciously not explaining these things to Trump, who of course can't be expected to know anything.

Get used to the double-bind.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:42 AM on November 14, 2016 [31 favorites]


#NeverTrump GOP: If You Want Peace, Prepare For War:
The war will come if President Trump follows in the footsteps of candidate Trump with the same vicious language of bigotry and division; the same ad hominem attacks on individuals who do not support him; the same policies of exclusion, bias, and nationalism; the same secrecy around his taxes and business dealings; the same promotion of hostile foreign regimes; the same hiring of venal, incompetent, and bigoted cronies; and the same efforts to undermine our Constitution and institutions of government.

If and when that war comes, the resistance will continue to be led by the hundreds of leaders from across the political spectrum who spoke out against Trump during the campaign, but that army will be joined by a huge new force of Republicans and conscientious independents who reluctantly chose Trump due to deep concerns about his opponent but are now liberated to speak their minds and join the loyal opposition.

Our forces will use every tool at our disposal to protect our country and its residents from Trump and his actions.

We will mobilize battalions of pro bono attorneys to defeat him in the courts.

We will build and support institutions that defend rational conservative policies.

We will recruit anti-Trump conservative candidates at every level to throw his sycophantic supporters out of office.

We will work with like-minded Republicans and Democrats to block his agenda in Congress and defund it in the agencies.

We will march in the streets, we will speak through the media, and we will bring his presidency to its knees.
posted by corb at 7:43 AM on November 14, 2016 [58 favorites]


Countdown to hearing that the "O" keys have been pried off the keyboards?
posted by mikelieman at 7:43 AM on November 14, 2016


So...apparently 47% of the US did not vote because they found neither of the two candidates compelling enough. Ugh.
posted by asra at 7:44 AM on November 14, 2016


I hope that Obama realizes that he may be setting himself up to get blamed for Trump's inevitable fuckups this way.

Given that Trump came out of his meeting with Obama wishy washy on ending Obamacare, having Obama in his kitchen cabinet wouldn't be a terrible thing. Though I wonder how much Bannon & Co. are going to let him see Obama after this.
posted by chris24 at 7:44 AM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


More than one-quarter of Trump's bio refers to his business properties around the world.

It's interesting how the active military isn't allowed to run for office, but business people are.

President Elect Cheeto paused while during his campaign to go to one of his hotel's opening. But emails Hillary received and Clinton foundation ties were so much more important.

I hope that Obama realizes that he may be setting himself up to get blamed for Trump's inevitable fuckups this way.

There's zero reason that Obama should give two fucks about that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:46 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


>I hope that Obama realizes that he may be setting himself up to get blamed for Trump's inevitable fuckups this way

In addition to what was already said, at this point he probably cares more about doing what he can do ensure that his kids inherent a working country than getting wrongly blamed for stuff. Lesser people wouldn't be doing what he's doing.
posted by beau jackson at 7:49 AM on November 14, 2016 [38 favorites]


> a huge new force of Republicans and conscientious independents who reluctantly chose Trump due to deep concerns about his opponent but are now liberated to speak their minds and join the loyal opposition.

I think it seems more likely that those "reluctant choosers" will now be "vocal winners" but I hope I'm proved wrong.
posted by Tevin at 7:49 AM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think President Obama is pretty used to being blamed for stuff he's not responsible for.
posted by zachlipton at 7:51 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Ugh. I work close to the Indiana Statehouse, and a huge motorcade just pulled up in front of it, with men in black suits everywhere.

Vice President Elect Pence has returned.

I feel sick just typing those words.
posted by Gelatin at 7:51 AM on November 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


Countdown to hearing that the "O" keys have been pried off the keyboards?

Or the "T"s
posted by drezdn at 7:56 AM on November 14, 2016


Huh a member of the GOP was all prepare for war, I nodded and tweeted it.
posted by angrycat at 7:57 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I hope that Obama realizes that he may be setting himself up to get blamed for Trump's inevitable fuckups this way.

I'm sure that occurred to him. I'm also sure that he's used to it after 8 years and also thinks the well-being of the country is more important. Because he's an actual leader and patriot.
posted by FelliniBlank at 8:00 AM on November 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


>So...apparently 47% of the US did not vote because they found neither of the two candidates compelling enough. Ugh.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that 47% of the US would not have voted if Abraham Lincoln was running against Jack The Ripper, because they just can't be fucking bothered.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 8:00 AM on November 14, 2016 [59 favorites]


47% of the US would not have voted if Abraham Lincoln was running against Jack The Ripper, because they just can't be fucking bothered

"Oh, I don't care about politics"
posted by thelonius at 8:04 AM on November 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that 47% of the US would not have voted if Abraham Lincoln was running against Jack The Ripper, because they just can't be fucking bothered.

Or don't have the proper ID, or think they don't have the proper ID, or work three shifts and can maybeget the time off but it's unpaid and the polling place is all the way back home and that's another ten bucks of gas, or have two kids who have to be fed right goddammit now and one of them has a book report due tomorrow and doesn't know where the book is, or or or...

There are a lot of apathetic people. There are also a lot of people for whom voting is a privilege to which they aspire.
posted by Etrigan at 8:04 AM on November 14, 2016 [75 favorites]


We're into the first day of presentations at the very international and fairly progressive professional scientific conference I attend annually. So far the presentations have been very business as usual - the genetics of insecticide resistance is not inherently political - but I was a little surprised when, for example, the director of PAHO did not mention any concerns the potential of reduction or elimination of the US commitment to fighting zika virus.

There are a few thousand people here whose careers rely on the support of the US government through university employment, NIH/NSF funding, USAID, the Department of Defense, and so on. On the one hand, I admire their professionalism in forging ahead on presenting their vaccine research or whatever, but on the other, is it all that professional to ignore the elephant in the room? For us American researchers and development workers, what could we even say to our international colleagues?
posted by palindromic at 8:08 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


The next time I see somebody wearing a safety pin, I'm going to ask them to name their state's Senators and Representatives.

Just so you know, if you happen to run into me, my state's Senators and my district's Representative's staff can name me.

Along with my state-level legislators, and all of my city and county commissioners.

And I encourage everyone who is able to meet with their public servants as often as possible, so that we can drown out the voices of the lobbyists.

It's not enough to know your Congress Member's name. They need to know yours.
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:08 AM on November 14, 2016 [43 favorites]


47% not voting is pretty much par for the course for modern American history, per the stats I looked up (keeping in mind the percentages are of eligible voters, the make-up of which has changed over time). The Obama wave of 2008 still had 43% not voting.

People don't care, or they are in groups that feel so disenfranchised that they believe that there's not much point. I have sympathy for the latter, but pretty much nothing but ex-Civics teacher scorn for the former.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:09 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


The next time I see somebody wearing a safety pin, I'm going to ask them to name their state's Senators and Representatives.

Do that to me and I'll ask how you think being a dick is going to help.
posted by maxsparber at 8:11 AM on November 14, 2016 [48 favorites]


i think they best way we can join together to improve the situation is by making ever-smaller circles of who is really helping
posted by beerperson at 8:12 AM on November 14, 2016 [36 favorites]


I personally frog-marched my habitual non-voter friends to the polls. They are a) all white dudes and b) convinced that Clinton would handily win Michigan, so there was no point in their voting.

Their response to her loss suggests they may be more enthusiastic political participants going forward. I am hopeful anyway.
posted by palindromic at 8:14 AM on November 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


NPR's Master Class in Whitewashing the Steve Bannon Appointment
If you're going to cover Donald Trump's decision to make Steve Bannon his chief White House strategist, you at least have to explain why that choice makes a lot of people very nervous. The Washington Post's Jose DelReal, for instance, gets to the point: [...]

Now consider the disgracefully incomplete report that appeared on NPR's All Things Considered yesterday. Host Michel Martin talked with Domenico Montanaro, NPR's lead politcal editor, about Bannon's appointment and the appointment of Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus as Trump's chief of staff. Here's what Martin and Montanaro said about Bannon: [...]
MONTANARO: Yeah. Unquestionably, he's a take-no-prisoners operative. You know, a former Hollywood producer, a Goldman Sachs managing director as well. He ran the website Breitbart, as you said, which has, you know, become kind of synonymous with the alt-right and certainly, like I said, no fan of the establishment Republicans. And establishment Republicans are no fan of them, so they're going to have to figure out a way to get along.
Um, there's going to be more about that alt-right business, isn't there?

Nope. Martin and Montanaro are through with that. All they can focus on is the possible political infighting: [...]

NPR's coverage of the election and its aftermath has been awful in recent days -- endless interviews with see-no-evil flacks and loyalists (on both sides), supplemented by voter-in-the-street interviews that repeat the same points you already know from the media's other voter-in-the-street interviews. The belief on NPR seems to be that the media should just let advocates for each side talk, and never seriously interrogate them. I'd compare it to the CNN strategy of hiring loyalist operatives like Corey Lewandowski (and Donna Brazile) for commentary, but on CNN at least those operatives argue with one another. NPR's preferred approach seems to be letting loyalists come on one at a time, and allowing them to spin and spin and spin.

At a time when basic American freedoms are under threat, and unfavored groups are at serious risk, I want to be told about the dangers. I want to hear about more than political power games -- and I don't want to hear one spin doctor after another telling me that everything's going to be all right.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:16 AM on November 14, 2016 [44 favorites]


I did enough frog-marching of my husband early in our relationship that now I just give him The Look and he goes. He LARPS as an anarchist but he knows he'd be sleeping on the couch if he just peaced out of the actual system of government that we actually have in this actual moment.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:17 AM on November 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


If you want peace prepare for war

Although true and a good plan the vast majority of its historical proponents were at least as interested in the latter as the former. If you are on top war is mostly good business. Would anybody care to taboo war zealotry and terminology in every day matters?

Chappelle was great. Link to the monologue.
posted by bukvich at 8:18 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Pope Guilty: Get used to the double-bind.

Oh, you mean how Republicans treat Democrats every day? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, because you're damned dirty liberal hippie commie scum who hates America and kills babies for science.

But Obama doesn't strike me as "let's sit back and see how this plays out" or "they made this bed, let them sleep in it" kind of guy. I'd like to think he realizes that things will get shitty for people who don't have the access to power that he still does, even if his words fall on deaf ears.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:20 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm going to ask them to name their state's Senators and Representatives.

Do that to me and I'll ask how you think being a dick is going to help.


Yes, this. My state's Senators and local Reps are solid Democrats (although I am increasingly hoping that someone, anyone can knock DiFi off her pedestal), and whether someone can name them has absolutely nothing to do with recognizing that violent bigots across the country believe they've just gotten permission to live out all their cruelest fantasies.

A safety pin isn't activism, and people who wear it thinking it absolves them of a damn thing are delusional--but it is a statement of, "I want a country where everyone feels safe." The bullies don't. And it doesn't take any particular awareness of current political leaders to understand that difference.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 8:23 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


IOIYAR: Pence pushes for email privacy
Vice President-elect Mike Pence is seeking to keep secret the contents of an email relating to Indiana’s participation, at his behest, in a lawsuit to block President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:24 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


although I am increasingly hoping that someone, anyone can knock DiFi off her pedestal

from your mouth to god's ears
posted by murphy slaw at 8:24 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


So, I've decided, among many other things, that I'm going to make a call sheet of my senators, reps, and state and key local officials and every morning, I'll take a short coffee break and call them to discuss Important Issue. Every day. The issues will change depending on what's on the agenda, but they will hear my voice. Every. Single. Day. Phonebanking for Clinton was great practice - making a handful of calls everyday is trivially easy.
posted by melissasaurus at 8:25 AM on November 14, 2016 [60 favorites]


I wonder what the CIA is going through right now

Presumably, their vote was probably about the same split as the popular vote, if not actually more for trump. It's not hard to see the average analyst who voted Clinton or 3rd party as having the same suspicion and animus towards trump voting colleagues as anyone else in this thread. So, upshot is there will probably be more factionalization taking place at Langley as this shit oozes out. Thanks, trump!
posted by Burhanistan at 8:26 AM on November 14, 2016


I'm just continuing to wear my "Love Trumps Hate" pin. Every single day people come up to me and tell me they like it. I need to come up with a better response than just "thanks." Maybe I just need to buy them by the gross and give them out.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:27 AM on November 14, 2016 [23 favorites]




Trump Says Women May ‘Have To Go To Another State’ To Get Abortions (VIDEO)
The President-elect said women may have to leave the states in which they reside to get an abortion in his administration, hinting at an overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Donald Trump said the “pro-life” judges he appoints to the Supreme Court may well overturn the landmark decision legalizing abortion.
...
The President-elect said that he would allow the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage to stand because “it’s law.”

“It was settled in the Supreme Court,” he told Stahl. “I mean it’s done.”

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and has been the law of the land for over forty years.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:27 AM on November 14, 2016 [17 favorites]


By the way, I don't just know my state senators, I live next door to Al Franken. But that has nothing to do with with the fact that I want everybody in the building I live in -- which is largely immigrant -- and everybody in the neighborhood I live in -- which is largely refugee -- to have a visible sign that I am an ally.
posted by maxsparber at 8:28 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Raphael Bob-Waksberg on Twitter:
First he came for the Muslims, and I said "Guys, let's take a wait-and-see approach here."
Then he came for the Mexican Americans, and I said, "Let's not be sore losers just because the other guy won."
Then he came for the press, and I said, "What makes this country great is our peaceful transitions of power."
Then he came for the women, and I said, "Try to have some compassion for the frustrations of the other side."
Then he came for the black community, and I said, "I know it sucks, but wait four years."
Then he came for me, and I said, "How could this have happened? I did everything I could."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:30 AM on November 14, 2016 [118 favorites]


The President-elect said women may have to leave the states in which they reside to get an abortion in his administration, hinting at an overturn of Roe v. Wade.


naturally the dude with the personal 747 doesn't see this as an undue burden *gnash gnash fume*

also this seems like a poor way to appease the pro-forced-birth crowd? roll back roe v. wade but imply that you're fine with women crossing state lines to get abortion services?
posted by murphy slaw at 8:31 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


So, is it illegal to campaign for your electors to be faithless? I know that in some (most?) states they must follow the state vote. They're the last step before this nightmare is codified. Somebody out there has to be looking at just the Bannon appointment and is getting cold feet.

I mean, isn't stopping con artists like Trump the whole fucking reason for the EC's existence? Even if they threw the thing to the House, just anything to avoid Trump/Pence.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:31 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh, you mean how Republicans treat Democrats every day? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, because you're damned dirty liberal hippie commie scum who hates America and kills babies for science.

That is 100% what I mean, yes.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:32 AM on November 14, 2016


Vice President-elect Mike Pence is seeking to keep secret the contents of an email relating to Indiana’s participation, at his behest, in a lawsuit to block President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

May our 46th president appoint judges who recognize a constitutional right to kick Mike Pence in the balls.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:32 AM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


murphy slaw: also this seems like a poor way to appease the pro-forced-birth crowd? roll back roe v. wade but imply that you're fine with women crossing state lines to get abortion services?

It's a shitty olive branch to states rights + "abortion isn't banned everywhere."
posted by filthy light thief at 8:32 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm still using my Chillary Clinton beer cozie, like excessively, for any beverage irrespective of the necessity or appropriateness of the cozie for the drinking vessel. It's been well-received in the Atlanta cabs, bars, and restaurants I've visited over the past few days. Its main purpose is to let workers know that they can safely vent about the bags of assholes our countrymen have foisted on us. AND VENT THEY HAVE
posted by palindromic at 8:34 AM on November 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


Vice President-elect Mike Pence is seeking to keep secret the contents of an email relating to Indiana’s participation, at his behest, in a lawsuit to block President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

RELEASE THE EMAILS

LOCK HIM UP

etc
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:35 AM on November 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


how does that even work with the "full faith and credit" clause?

if roe is overturned and state A declares second trimester abortion to be first degree murder and makes the pregnant woman an accessory to homicide, what happens to the woman who goes to state B for abortion services?
posted by murphy slaw at 8:36 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


If Putin and/or the Kremlin was in contact with the Trump campaign it actually would be a good move on their part to begin providing that evidence to western journalists. Now that the primary antagonist has been sidelined it's useful to expose the patsy because it would be much more effective than assuming that Trump will disband NATO or that the FSB will be getting direct intelligence from the CIA.

The Kremlin seems focused primarily at undermining western belief in the sanctity of elections and the fundamental underpinnings of the post-WWII social order. A social order that has been extremely effective at preventing European wars but also explicitly designed at containing Russian hegemony.

If they can also provide proof that the FBI knew about the connections it would be a two for one deal because it would undermine confidence in both the Executive and also the Law Enforcement community which seems like it would be ideal for distracting the US with internal struggles while leaving the Kremlin free to reclaim former Republics.

The Kremlin's hand in the rise of right-wing parties in the EU also seems designed at distracting the EU from maintaining a firm grip on the noose around Russia's neck.
posted by vuron at 8:38 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


I did enough frog-marching of my husband early in our relationship that now I just give him The Look and he goes. He LARPS as an anarchist but he knows he'd be sleeping on the couch if he just peaced out of the actual system of government that we actually have in this actual moment.

If he's an anarchist, he should discard bourgeois morality and stop being so bought into the system that he regards the consent of the governed as relevant to capitalism and vote for harm reduction.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:41 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Countdown to hearing that the "O" keys have been pried off the keyboards?

In case you are hazy on the details this was a canard perpetuated by the Bush staffers taking over in 2000. They claimed that the Clinton people pried off all the "W's" just because Liberals are assholes or something. The also claimed that the "hillbilly Clintons and their staffers" looted and vandalized the White House before leaving, cutting phone lines and filling drawers with glue. All bullshit. I wonder what bullshit stories we will be hearing about the Obamas?

I am mindful that we don't want to go all dystopian and tell each other scary stories-- I'm wound up enough that I have to keep reminding myself not to grind my teeth-- but one thing I have not heard talked about is where Trump/Pence are going to go with the War on Drugs. Pence signed into law an Indiana House bill imposing 10-year mandatory minimum prison terms for people convicted of second offenses for crimes involving methamphetamine or heroin. I'm mostly concerned about whether the Feds will continue to turn a blind eye to legal distribution of marijuana by certain states.


Trump Says Women May ‘Have To Go To Another State’ To Get Abortions (VIDEO)


When my husband read this to me last night, I started crying. It means that our new President doesn't give a shit about abortions themselves nor does he care that many women living in the wrong state will be forced to give birth no matter the circumstances. He has no convictions, he has no empathy. He is not even President yet and I could not possibly hate him more than I do now.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:41 AM on November 14, 2016 [34 favorites]


Today in Mighty Girl history, six-year-old Ruby Bridges became the first African American child to desegregate an all-white elementary school in the South. When the 1st grader arrived at William Frantz Elementary School in New Orleans on this day in 1960 surrounded by a team of U.S. Marshals, she was met by a vicious mob shouting and throwing objects at her. This event was commemorated by Norman Rockwell in his famous painting, "The Problem We All Live With."

One of the federal marshals, Charles Burks, who served on her escort team, recalls Bridges' courage in the face of such hatred: "For a little girl six years old going into a strange school with four strange deputy marshals, a place she had never been before, she showed a lot of courage. She never cried. She didn't whimper. She just marched along like a little soldier. We were all very proud of her."


If you don't have the courage of this little girl
If you're not willing to be threatened when you do the right thing
If you can't press on through fear
Don't post safety pin pictures

Walk the Walk
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:42 AM on November 14, 2016 [23 favorites]


Call your elected representatives' local offices. Ask the staffers to relay a message to your senator/congressperson. Request they go on record opposing Steve Bannon's appointment. Tell them why you want them to oppose it (hint: he is a white nationalist). This takes hardly any time at all. Be succinct and polite. It takes less than thirty seconds to make your point. Get used to doing this a lot over the next four years.

Here is how and why this works, from a former congressional staffer.

I don't know the absolute best place to begin fighting, but for me, this is step one. If you haven't yet made step one, this is a good place to start. I called Jeff Flake and John McCain's offices today; it was easy and took very little time. I am interested in hearing about other peoples' experiences if you care to post about it here.

If Trump receives insufficient pushback, very bad things will become normalized. Push back.
posted by compartment at 8:44 AM on November 14, 2016 [51 favorites]


Oh, and cheat. They don't have a record of how you vote, but can tell if you're a constituent or not by your address. (That's why they ask). If it's an R legislator, tell him you're an R. If D, then D. They will (sadly) care more.
posted by corb at 8:48 AM on November 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


So, I've decided, among many other things, that I'm going to make a call sheet of my senators, reps, and state and key local officials and every morning, I'll take a short coffee break and call them to discuss Important Issue. Every day. The issues will change depending on what's on the agenda, but they will hear my voice. Every. Single. Day. Phonebanking for Clinton was great practice - making a handful of calls everyday is trivially easy.

I've been wondering about this. Upthread or possibly in the previous thread, someone talked about campaigns arranging shifts of callers throughout the day, because if you don't, everyone will just call at lunch. I want to start urging people to call their congresspeople - maybe about DAPL? - but is this one of those things that's only worth doing if it's organized?
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 8:48 AM on November 14, 2016


> Trump Says Women May ‘Have To Go To Another State’ To Get Abortions (VIDEO)

Abortion's Underground Railroad: That’s the impetus behind CASN, which was founded last summer in response to the new law, and aims to help Houston-area women clear the growing hurdles to abortion access.

Riding the Rails of the Underground Abortion Railroad from Texas to New Mexico: Together, these organizations create a type of underground abortion railroad for women facing life altering events if they can't come up with the money for a standard, safe medical procedure.

History: Jane: An Abortion Service: a fascinating documentary about a secret, women-run abortion service that flourished in the midwest in the late '60s and early '70s during a time of illegal, and often deadly abortions. (Article about the documentary)

Fiction: ILU-486: Summary: In the not-so-distant future of Virginia, the Personhood Act has outlawed abortion and chemical birth control. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, though.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 8:48 AM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Democrats look to exploit Trump divisions with GOP Congress
Schumer will be under intense pressure from liberals to oppose any conservative nominee. But moderate Democrats and those up for reelection in Rust Belt states that Trump won could conceivably help McConnell get 60 votes. At least eight Democrats will be needed to break a filibuster.

“He won the White House and that is part of the deal. He’s going to restore the balance,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who was in strong opposition to Trump during the election. “When you look at the number of Democrats that are up, I think we’ll get cooperation.”

Flake wouldn’t say how Republicans would react to such a filibuster, and McConnell declined to entertain a possible rules change, saying Friday that Democrats are “going to want to be cooperative with us.” For now, the GOP seems to be leaning toward keeping the legislative filibuster and the required cooperation with Democrats that comes with it.

“Republicans ought to be consistent here,” Flake said. “The legislative filibuster is something that has helped maintain limited government.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:49 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


As a Jewish woman, the Bannon appointment makes me very uneasy.
posted by SisterHavana at 8:49 AM on November 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


I'm just stunned at how many people I used to be friends with are the type of people who would stand back and insist they alone didn't light the world on fire, rather than desperately wondering what they could have done to stop it.

I don't know about ceasing to be friends with ...

but there are way too many people I know (and some who I merely sort of know, ie: they're commenting in these threads) who I wish would own their piece of Tuesday's f***up rather than angle it all on to other people/groups who shoulda-woulda-coulda done differently. Or as I commented in the previous thread -- the problem with such a narrow margin of loss is you can attribute it to any number of single causes.

Bottom line: the anti-Trump vote fragmented just barely enough in just barely enough places to give him victory. And now here we are.
posted by philip-random at 8:51 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Glaubst du etwa an die Evolution?​ (Do you believe in Evolution?)
This (linked upthread) was absolutely awful. I thought I had a bit of a grasp on the differences between the US and western Europe (in as much as there is such a thing as western Europe) but this is so much worse than I expected. I knew that many Americans are against abortion and don't believe in evolution. But I somehow still missed the extent of that, apparently. And then there was "Be careful, there are lesbians in Minneapolis". Surely this is not "real America"?!

I don't understand it too. From reading Metafilter I got the impression that the anger of people did have some roots in economics. A dollar doesn't stretch as far as it used too, college is unaffordable, health care is unaffordable, buying a house is unaffordable, so, no wonder people feel crappy. That they then either blame immigrants or at least don't care if immigrants get blamed is problematic, that they don't see that it are republican policies that hurt them most too, but that this economic uncertainty exists, I thought that was a given. But I don't see that anywhere in this article. And I get the impression that if that was a big issue, she would have written about it.
posted by blub at 8:57 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Looks like Republican Senators are already realizing that undoing the legislative filibuster would be incredibly dumb on their part. Getting 60 Senators for the Republicans is extremely challenging and while Democrats have been able to achieve that mark more often getting 51 Senators is not really challenging at all.

Republican Senators also understand that if they give up the Legislative Filibuster they become subservient to the House.

I'm not sure that McConnell could even get the votes necessary to nuke the legislative filibuster as several of his colleagues understand that the legislative filibuster is a very useful way for "moderate" senators to extract all sorts of concessions for their constituents.
posted by vuron at 8:58 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


As a resident of DC, I would second the call to contact your senators and representatives whenever you see this administration doing something dangerous, wrong, or harmful. Not all of us have the opportunity. Many of the people in this city (not myself, to be clear, I'm an actual coastal urban elite*) are vulnerable people made more so by lacking a voice in the national government.**

*You know how Trump's going to stick it to me? He wants to cut my tax bill by about $6,000 while raising taxes on some single mothers who make a lot less than I do.
**Apart from Eleanor Holmes Norton who is obviously awesome, but limited in what she can do.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:58 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


The blaming is counterproductive as fuck when it's about slicing and dicing 1% of the population of three states. I blame anyone who pushed that "Trump" button. No one forced them to do that. No one held a gun to their head. They saw a dangerously unhinged racist, misogynist, anti-semite denounced widely by the national security apparatus, basically every newspaper that exists in the country, uncomfortably sidled away from by half of his own party, and went "Sure, sounds legit."

Next on my To Blame list: Every single disgusting low-life R cadre who helped disenfranchise voters knowing exactly what they were doing.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:01 AM on November 14, 2016 [40 favorites]


> Looks like Republican Senators are already realizing that undoing the legislative filibuster would be incredibly dumb on their part. Getting 60 Senators for the Republicans is extremely challenging and while Democrats have been able to achieve that mark more often getting 51 Senators is not really challenging at all.

Republican Senators also understand that if they give up the Legislative Filibuster they become subservient to the House.

I'm not sure that McConnell could even get the votes necessary to nuke the legislative filibuster as several of his colleagues understand that the legislative filibuster is a very useful way for "moderate" senators to extract all sorts of concessions for their constituents.


links plz plz give me links let this be real. I've been working under the assumption that the filibuster would be gone immediately no questions asked.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:02 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


AIPAC will not comment on appointment of Steve Bannon due to "long-standing policy of not taking positions on presidential appointments"

Meanwhile, the American Jewish Committee and the Islamic Society of North America have launched a Muslim-Jewish Council, which will work to address anti-Muslim hatred and antisemitism in the US.

And this: "On MSNBC, Reince Priebus defends Steve Bannon, calling him "a force for good" and a "generous, hospitable, wise person to work with."
posted by zachlipton at 9:03 AM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


“The legislative filibuster is something that has helped maintain limited government.”

And it maintains it by blocking legislation that is abhorrent to a substantial-but-minority portion of the legislature. Democrats should be using it constantly - after all, that's how you get "limited government."

By the way, I am fascinated the the concept of, "for every new regulation, two need to be removed" part of the platform. I have no idea how you could even phrase that... what counts as "a regulation?" A line of text in a law somewhere? Will we see Democrats proposing three-for-one laws where"One: Emissions are limited by X amount in Y conditions; Bonus Removal A: Remove the REAL-ID requirement for air travel; Bonus Removal B: Remove Sec 102(b) of the Copyright Extension Act and put copyrights back to the length they used to be.

(I know that Dems don't have the voting power to put this through, and that instead Repubs are going to use it to push multiple extras through. Let me have my fantasies so I don't collapse into a sobbing heap.)
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 9:03 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Someone needs to market whatever it is that Reince Priebus takes to sleep at night.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:04 AM on November 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


If Trump receives insufficient pushback, very bad things will become normalized. Push back.

John Oliver said as much.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:05 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


links plz plz give me links let this be real. I've been working under the assumption that the filibuster would be gone immediately no questions asked.

I don't have links, but Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) is a strong believer in the existence of the filibuster, which means they would only have to peel off one more senator. Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse would both be pretty good targets for that. I really, really don't see the filibuster being gone.
posted by corb at 9:08 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


And on the pushback front, remember how many people handwaved away the Tea Party astroturfing the electorate by having dozens of protests over silly stuff like birth certificates that, nevertheless, got that FUD on the news? Or how the Religious Right had big culture-war actions like Chick-Fil-A appreciation day?
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:09 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


And this: "On MSNBC, Reince Priebus defends Steve Bannon, calling him "a force for good" and a "generous, hospitable, wise person to work with."

I wonder what Bill Kristol, Renegade Jew, thinks about that.

Oh. Really? Lol. [Twitter]
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:10 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse would both be pretty good targets for that.

Murkowski and Collins too. Here's a piece on Why the Filibuster Might Survive.
posted by lalex at 9:10 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


From reading Metafilter I got the impression that the anger of people did have some roots in economics. A dollar doesn't stretch as far as it used too, college is unaffordable, health care is unaffordable, buying a house is unaffordable, so, no wonder people feel crappy.

All that is true - and for much of the country, they've decided that the reason they can't afford a house and health care is that brown people are taking all the good stuff away from them, that liberal elites are trying to abolish their communities and their families, and atheist scientists are making up a bunch of babble about the way the world works in order to steal the money they've earned for stupid projects like "save the whales;" don't they know that real people need that money?

They believe the money will come rolling back in as soon as America kicks out all the people who don't belong here (starting with, everyone whose skin is darker than theirs), shuts down the Gay Agenda, and stops listening to fearmongering wackos who don't realize that God created the world and will keep it safe for His Chosen. Also, they'd like the chance to punish all those people who've been pushing their horrible "political correctness" on the country and ruining it for good hardworking Christians.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 9:11 AM on November 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


Sen. Merkley (D-Oregon) put out a statement calling it like it is:
There should be no sugarcoating the truth here: Donald Trump just invited a white nationalist into the highest reaches of the government. Bannon has boasted that he made Breitbart News ‘the platform for the alt-right,’ which is the politically correct term for the resurrection of white nationalism.

“Under Bannon’s leadership, Breitbart News created news sections such as ‘Black Crime’ and compared the work of Planned Parenthood to the Holocaust. Under his leadership, Breitbart News ran this headline following the massacre of nine church-goers at an African American church in Charleston: ‘Hoist it high and proud: The Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage.’ He called conservative commentator Bill Kristol a ‘renegade Jew.’ Steve Bannon bears substantial responsibility for the open and disgusting acts of hatred that are sweeping across our nation.
posted by zachlipton at 9:19 AM on November 14, 2016 [62 favorites]


Just a nice reminder of what Ben Carson would do as Secretary of Education

“I actually have something I would use the Department of Education to do,” Carson explained. “It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists.”
posted by CarolynG at 9:20 AM on November 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


they've decided that the reason they can't afford a house and health care is that brown people are taking all the good stuff away from them

It's a correlation vs. causation problem. The most prosperous time in US history was immediately post WW2. Anyone thinking about it for a sec can figure out why. There was a big honking war involving many major industrial powers. The US was pretty much the only country that came out of it with its capacity fully intact. It does not take a genius to understand that the real economic anomaly isn't that times are tough (for middle class white Americans) now, it's that times weren't tough (for middle class white Americans) for a couple decades during and immediately after a World War.

Other things that have happened between 1945 and today: civil rights for black Americans, women's liberation, increased immigration from the global South.

Occam's Racist and Sexist Razor says that the real correlation here has nothing to do with a post-war boom creating an unsustainable unilateral economic hegemony but instead is between harder times for the white middle class and civil rights, immigration and women's rights.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:20 AM on November 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


“It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists.”

Come at me, bro.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:20 AM on November 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


“It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias other than my own, and deny federal funding if it exists.”

FTFY
posted by Sing Or Swim at 9:24 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, FFS.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 9:25 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't know if this has popped up elsewhere yet, but from my Facebook regarding the protester who was shot in Portland:

just a heads up because the media is not really making this clear outside of Oregon...the person who shot the protester was not anti-Trump; he was pissed he was being inconvenienced by traffic being blocked/was in a hurry and had to be somewhere. He was an African American 18 year old male. He, sadly, was a former student of mine. He would have been a 12th grader this year if he hadn't been expelled. I have some ideas of why he may have done it, but I can pretty much guarantee you it wasn't because he agreed with Donald's policies at all.
posted by philip-random at 9:26 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Assuming that the republicans do not in fact do away with the filibuster at the start of the session, they wouldn't be able to do away with it in the middle of the term, would they? I mean this question is predicated on fascists following rules, and rules don't exist anymore, but if we pretend that rules exist and might be honored, those rules say that they couldn't get rid of the filibuster in the middle of the legislative session, right?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:26 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also toxic masculinity leading white men to feel like anything that doesn't involve hulking out and using their manly man powers is emasculating. How many exurban office drones have perfectly good salaries and health care but voted for Trump because he's going to bring factories back and that sounds superduper manly and awesome?

I also have a little theory going about emotional labor and how Trump inspired middle aged white dudes to give a shit. He gave them a way to make emotional labor manly. American men have much lower numbers for civic engagement than women. They vote less and they engage in the groundwork of political campaigns less. They go to church less. They volunteer less. They have fewer friends. All of these activities require a certain degree of emotional labor that many men consider feminine and emasculating. So here comes Trump, and he gives men a script for participating in a political campaign that is ultra manly! Be confrontational! Yell and scream! Spit on people! Don't be a namby-pamby knocking on doors and asking people politely for their vote--go out there and harass and intimidate the other guy! It's war! GRRRRR! He gave them permission to care but still retain their masculinity.

It's a hell of a drug, apparently.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:29 AM on November 14, 2016 [37 favorites]


Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse would both be pretty good targets for that. I really, really don't see the filibuster being gone.

Awesome, thanks corb; I know what tomorrow's call is going to be about.
posted by compartment at 9:30 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I expect a "states' rights" reversal of Obergefell would mean reversing the, "all states must perform these marriages" part, but leaving in the "full faith and credit" section, wherein all states have to acknowledge marriages performed in other states.

Ironically, a Made In Mexico solution...
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:32 AM on November 14, 2016


What I'm finding troubling is how quickly so many people who were really loud about "they're both awful" and "struggling to vote for the one I think is the lesser evil" and "holding my nose and voting for him" are now sounding actively happy about him being President.

I always understood that as code for "I'm voting for Trump but I'm a bit embarrassed about it/think he's going to lose and want you to think that I'm actually being thoughtful about my vote".
posted by gaspode at 9:34 AM on November 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


That's not only ridiculous - it's extra paperwork. SCOTUS is not going to saddle every federal agency with the responsibility of tracking which people are married when, nor is it going to inflict the bureaucratic nightmare of mass annullments or divorces, each of which would need to be legally negotiated as shared assets suddenly become non-shared assets. As much as the bigots want to get rid of Obergefell, the most they can hope for is states being allowed to set their own rules on who can get married, not on which marriages they have to recognize.

Compare the relative paperwork burden of single-payer on the payer, the providers and the insureds with the paperwork burden of Obamacare.

When conservatives complain about socialist red tape, I just laugh until I start to choke on my own vomit.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:34 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


compartment: I was intending to write letters, but your comment was the push I needed to just call instead. I wrote out what I wanted to say and made three calls, and it was very easy. Thank you for the suggestion -- now I've done it once I can do it again, social anxiety be damned.
posted by shirobara at 9:36 AM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


It's just, like, the only way I can see the Democrats holding off any part of the disaster that's coming is if 40+ Democrats in the Senate establish themselves as the NO TO EVERYTHING caucus, like the Republicans did under Obama, and I could see "moderate" Republican Senators deciding they'd prefer total Trumpism over Democrats establishing a successful roadblock.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:36 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Reince Priebus defends Steve Bannon, calling him "a force for good"

A FORCE FOR GOOD?! A FORCE FOR GOOD?! WTF?! So we are going to have a NeoNazi in the White House but we going to be told he is a good guy. JFC. I can't take much more of this shit. What possible 'good' can Bannon bring? He is a sexist, racist, anti-Semetic Xenophobe who thinks the symbols of the KKK are just fine. Where is the good? Show me the good?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:37 AM on November 14, 2016 [24 favorites]


because, well, no matter how bleak I make my worldview, the actual world always manages to outbleak me.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:38 AM on November 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


Compare the relative paperwork burden of single-payer on the payer, the providers and the insureds with the paperwork burden of Obamacare.

I have no idea how anyone who been through the process of selecting an insurance plan is against single-payer. For all that "you'll start voting Republican once you have a paycheck, yuk yuk" stuff you hear, any opposition to single-payer that might have existed in me would have evaporated at my first job with benefits.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:39 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


The thing to remember about making calls (though I haven't done it yet--I need to find a place in my building that is a) quiet and b) has good cell reception) is that it's not like making campaigning calls. The people answering aren't going to potentially pepper you with 20 questions or challenge you to support your case (some maybe rude, but answering your call is literally their job--you're not interrupting anyone in the middle of dinner or waking their baby up from a nap). Write a monologue down and read it. You don't have to prep a legal brief. Make your bullet points, read them out, give your name, fin. IMO a much easier task than cold-calling randos for Hillary on a Saturday night.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:40 AM on November 14, 2016 [30 favorites]


I am sure plenty has been said about Steven Bannon. On the surface he is well educated, well experienced, and his statements make sense. But his three marriages, two ending in domestic violence, then charges dropped; mean bad times ahead for women. His red face and dazed look in the last few portraits indicate a hardened and vicious drunk. Any talented young woman who goes to work for this administration should realize that victimization is straight ahead. There are some things women should not have to do to get ahead, and helping creeps get it without the a is not one of them. Any woman who goes to work for a man who supported Ailes, or who supports Bannon, should be aware of what their duties will come around to.
posted by Oyéah at 9:44 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


those rules say that they couldn't get rid of the filibuster in the middle of the legislative session, right?

They have to do it when the rules are adopted at the beginning of the years' session.

That said, the wisest path forward for Democrats on this would be to use the filibuster wisely - if they filibuster literally everything it might be harder for people to successfully keep it on the next go round. But even a 2/3 filibuster would probably leave it intact, imho.
posted by corb at 9:45 AM on November 14, 2016


The Uphill Struggle Continues for Transgender America: This week is Transgender Awareness Week. It is a time when we remember those we have lost. We shine a light on the struggles we face as a community. We celebrate what we have achieved. I hope we reflect on just how precious our rights are. I hope all those who are oppressed in this world realize that they can never get complacent and that they cannot go it alone. Even though rights can be achieved, we all have to keep fighting for them to remain. We have to keep fighting for those who come after us. We all have to work together. No one group owns oppression. No one is the authority on what it means to be transgender. We are all a collection of our experiences. They all matter.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:46 AM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


That said, the wisest path forward for Democrats on this would be to use the filibuster wisely - if they filibuster literally everything it might be harder for people to successfully keep it on the next go round.

Like the Republicans did?
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:46 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


All that is true - and for much of the country, they've decided that the reason they can't afford a house and health care is that brown people are taking all the good stuff away from them, that liberal elites are trying to abolish their communities

How many exurban office drones have perfectly good salaries and health care but voted for Trump because he's going to bring factories back and that sounds superduper manly and awesome?

I don't know, some of these statements sound like guesses and wild supposition. Obama won states that Clinton (barely) lost, wouldn't the anti-brown people have turned out in force against him more than anyone? Racism is endemic, no doubt about that, but it's been that way in every election in this country's history. Trump did offer an easy solution, but he didn't seem to turn out more voters than Romney.
posted by cell divide at 9:50 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


yeah, I think the disaster of 11/8 indicates that "judicious" behavior is at this point in time actually wildly irresponsible.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:51 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


He may very well have turned out different voters, though.

(Also, I think Obama also did a pretty good--though obviously far more pro-social--job of making civic engagement seem, if not manly then at least really cool.)
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:52 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


AP: Trump considering woman, openly gay man for leadership posts: IThe incoming president is considering Richard Grenell as United States ambassador to the United Nations. If picked and ultimately confirmed by the Senate, he would be the first openly gay person to fill a Cabinet-level foreign policy post. Grenell previously served as U.S. spokesman at the U.N. under former President George W. Bush's administration.

At the same time, Trump is weighing whether to select Michigan GOP chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel, a niece of Trump critic and 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney. She would be the first woman in decades to run the Republican National Committee.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:56 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Assuming that the republicans do not in fact do away with the filibuster at the start of the session, they wouldn't be able to do away with it in the middle of the term, would they?

The primary method for eliminating the filibuster could happen at any point, and it being able to happen at any point is an inherent part of that method.

Okay, so this next bit can be summarized as just meow meow parliamentary procedure meow, but for anyone interested:

It's a basic fact of parliamentary procedures that while there are written rules, what those rules actually mean on the ground is , in fact, whatever a majority of those present says that they mean. This is so because there's no higher authority to appeal to at that point. So Primary Way #1 you'd get rid of the filibuster looks like this:

(1) Someone does something dilatory (time-wasting) or follows current procedure for the virtual filibuster we've had since the 70s. This is what the written rules actually allow.
(2) Someone in the majority is recognized by the presiding officer and says "Hey, that dude can't do that, because that's dilatory and the rules forbid it" or "You can't filibuster that! The rules say so!" The important point being that the majority member's objection is entirely made-up and, by the text of the rules, false.
(3) A minority member objects and appeals to the presiding officer for a ruling. Someone then objects to the presiding officer's ruling, at which point the Senate votes on it. This would effectively enact the new rule.

Primary Method #2 is similar:

(1) A majority member moves the previous question, which is parliamentary for "Oh FFS let's just vote." This would be wholly made up; the Senate's written rules do not allow a motion on the previous question.
(2) Objection by minority member.
(3) Ruling by presiding officer and vote on that ruling, PQ now established.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:57 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


(Steve Smith or Sarah Binder probably have better summaries than that but I am too lazy to go find them now)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:58 AM on November 14, 2016


I have no idea how anyone who been through the process of selecting an insurance plan is against single-payer. For all that "you'll start voting Republican once you have a paycheck, yuk yuk" stuff you hear, any opposition to single-payer that might have existed in me would have evaporated at my first job with benefits.

And with employer-offered coverage your employer does lots of the heavy lifting for you. Typically people have the choice of a couple plans, maybe one HMO and one PPO.

The Health Insurance Marketplaces have dozens of plans in most areas (fewer in rural areas) and you have to slog through them unless you know what you're doing and can whittle them down, balancing the multiple variables of premium cost, networks, deductibles, coinsurance, covered medications, copay amounts, plan designs... Freedom! Choice! America! It's a thing only Ezra Klein could truly love.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:58 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


(or Greg Koger)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:59 AM on November 14, 2016


Compare the relative paperwork burden of single-payer on the payer, the providers and the insureds with the paperwork burden of Obamacare.

Obamacare: Here's 47 different plans you can choose from! Aren't you excited to weigh the costs and benefits of each one so you get a plan that's exactly right for YOU?

Me: no
posted by Greg Nog at 9:59 AM on November 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


Trump Says Women May ‘Have To Go To Another State’ To Get Abortions

This is what it's like now, this is what does happen. Women already have to, in a lot of places. Or, because these are often places where few desperate women would live if they had a better choice, women already have to daydream about having the funds to go to another state to get an abortion, but can't. I know Trump doesn't know that, but I hope everybody else does. Access for patients and medical training for medical students has been the issue of issues for as long as I've been a pro-choice adult. keeping the laws we've got are the rallying point because all the rest of the problem is even worse.
posted by queenofbithynia at 9:59 AM on November 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


At the same time, Trump is weighing whether to select Michigan GOP chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel, a niece of Trump critic and 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney. She would be the first woman in decades to run the Republican National Committee.

McDaniel booted a vice-chair for being a #nevertrumper. Personal loyalty wins again.
posted by Etrigan at 10:00 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I always choose whatever HMO is offered by my employer, even though they're always more expensive, because I cannot be fucked to deal with the paperwork, out of pocket limits, coinsurance, etc.... involved in even employer-sponsored PPOs. I'd cry if I had to buy on an open marketplace.
posted by soren_lorensen at 10:01 AM on November 14, 2016


the politically correct term for the resurrection of white nationalism.

I will be fully delighted if the left co-opts political correctness to rid us of the doublespeak the GOP has been dropping for the last two decades or so.
posted by palindromic at 10:10 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Obamacare: Here's 47 different plans you can choose from! Aren't you excited to weigh the costs and benefits of each one so you get a plan that's exactly right for YOU?

Even more fun for Paul Ryan's "Medicare"...your 82 year old Mom who can't remember if she took her pills today or not today is gonna be really empowered
posted by thelonius at 10:15 AM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]




@BernieSanders
I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from.
What the actual fuck Bernie. I am deeply humiliated that someone with so much influence is trying to tear the left apart when we need to pull together now more than ever.

I could never really get into the rage against Bernie before, but this? ARGH.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 10:17 AM on November 14, 2016 [60 favorites]


I wonder if a sufficiently ham-handed deregulation of the health insurance markets would allow interested states to roll their own multi-state single-payer program. Which could then eventually suck the other states in by being better and cheaper.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:20 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sad to see Sanders back in white brocialist mode.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:20 AM on November 14, 2016 [23 favorites]


So stop whining Bernie, join the damn party again, and start doing the hard work, ideally not just talking to white people.
posted by zachlipton at 10:20 AM on November 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


@BernieSanders
I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from.


Well Bernie, thanks for confirming my dislike and distrust for your statement about working with Trump even at the possible expense of PoC.
posted by chris24 at 10:22 AM on November 14, 2016 [13 favorites]




people where I came from

Brooklyn?
posted by soren_lorensen at 10:25 AM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


This is a serious question rather than a provocation: why is that Sanders tweet so rage-inducing? is it because it is worded in negative terms ("the Democratic Party cannot"), or is it the content as a whole? for me I think the "learn to talk to the white working class" narrative is bullshit, but it's tolerable bullshit because it might give Trump voters who don't like thinking of themselves as white supremacists cover to vote for Democrats in the future — cover to say nonsense like "gosh, I didn't like them before they learned to talk to the white working class, but now I think they're okay!"
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:25 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


One minute he's a white brocialist, the next he's too Jewish to elect. One thing's for sure, though: Bernard Sanders sucks huge turd's
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:26 AM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


like that particular tweet doesn't seem like it's throwing PoC under the bus to me — but maybe I've got ideological blinders on that I didn't realize I was wearing.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:27 AM on November 14, 2016


people where I came from

Brooklyn?
No, apparently Bernie doesn't think of himself as coming from Brooklyn, and he doesn't see himself as being affiliated with the multiracial working class of New York City. He thinks of himself as coming from white people. That's his fundamental affiliation.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:29 AM on November 14, 2016 [20 favorites]




This is a serious question rather than a provocation: why is that Sanders tweet so rage-inducing?



Welll....a big part of "talking to" the white working class involves being racist...
posted by zutalors! at 10:32 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Given that 78% of Brooklyn voted Hillary, I think the Dems talked to people where he came from pretty well.
posted by soren_lorensen at 10:32 AM on November 14, 2016 [28 favorites]


why is that Sanders tweet so rage-inducing?

Because he's not from a white community, he's from a multi-racial community, NYC, but seems to be identifying with the whites.

Also, by saying he's humiliated by the Democratic Party, he's saying we did something wrong, that it's our fault, a party dominated by PoC, that WWC just voted to oppress PoC. He's literally victim blaming.
posted by chris24 at 10:32 AM on November 14, 2016 [41 favorites]


Buick, a lot of the post-election blame battle has been over whether we're here today because Clinton failed to reach the WWC who turned out for Trump instead (revealing themselves as racist or at least racist fellow travelers), with the implication that a turn toward the WWC in future must also mean a turn away from anti-racist Dem constituencies.

If Sanders had left it at "Working Class," it would have been better received.
posted by notyou at 10:34 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sanders has been representing Vermont in Congress since 1991. Before which he was the Mayor of Burlington from '81 to '89.

He isn't from Brooklyn.

Vermont went for Hillary 61% vs. 33% for Trump too, but still.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:34 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


As a PoC, I am quite used to the victim blaming since Tuesday. I've been asked several times to just politely explain my existence to racists so the Democrats can win again.
posted by zutalors! at 10:34 AM on November 14, 2016 [30 favorites]


why is that Sanders tweet so rage-inducing?

try to think of a way to talk to white working class people that wouldn't work just as well for talking to not-white working class people but also isn't racist

head-scratcher, innit?

(if you come up with something, don't post it here, just send it straight along to the DNC)
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:36 AM on November 14, 2016 [27 favorites]


Sanders has been representing Vermont in Congress since 1991. Before which he was the Mayor of Burlington from '81 to '89. He isn't from Brooklyn.

Fine, then he's identifying more with the whites of Vermont than the multi-racial coalition of the Democratic Party and the USA.

And he's still victim blaming.
posted by chris24 at 10:36 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Fine, then he's identifying more with the whites of Vermont than the multi-racial coalition of the Democratic Party and the USA.

Yes. That's 'why the tweet is so rage-inducing.' IMO.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:37 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's wild that you can endorse a black Muslim for DNC chair, tweet stuff like this for months, gain a significant following among youth of color, and still get called a lackey for white supremacists:
Mr. Trump, you talked about being the champion of working families. Now produce. But we won't accept racism, sexism or xenophobia.
And I don't even like the "white working class" frame for this debate, for the same reason as prize bull octorok said.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:40 AM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sanders has been representing Vermont in Congress since 1991. Before which he was the Mayor of Burlington from '81 to '89.

He isn't from Brooklyn.
In that case, he also isn't working class, because at that point he was a powerful politician with a University of Chicago degree.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:40 AM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]



It's wild that you can endorse a black Muslim for DNC chair, tweet stuff like this for months, gain a significant following among youth of color, and still get called a lackey for white supremacists
:

Yes, people are still allowed to be upset about this shitty thing that he said!
posted by zutalors! at 10:41 AM on November 14, 2016 [21 favorites]


The tweet also ignores the fact that Clinton received like a million more votes than Trump. Her message DID work. He's implying that everyone who voted against Clinton or stayed home is "working class" and everyone who voted for Clinton is not. I'd like to ask him how he defines working class and see how that differs, if at all, from the demographics that Clinton actually won.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:41 AM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


It's wild that you can endorse a black Muslim for DNC chair, tweet stuff like this for months, gain a significant following among youth of color, and still get called a lackey for white supremacists:

You can be good on some things and in some areas and still have room for growth and understanding.
posted by chris24 at 10:42 AM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]




As a side note, the language-scrambling part of my brain sometimes sees the title of this post as "the nation that destroys itself soils itself" which is also true.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 10:45 AM on November 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


Personally, what I dislike about that Bernie tweet is "personal humiliation" angle. It's right there with Trump's "the world is laughing at us" rhetoric.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 10:47 AM on November 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


Outrage grows over Bannon appointment from both parties, SPLC warns against Bannon appointment; Kellyanne Conway vigorously defends him, calling him a "brilliant tactician."

This is really frightening.
posted by stillmoving at 10:49 AM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


I feel so embarrassed that this is my only contribution, but I am not familiar with the acronym WWC. While I can take a pretty educated guess, I can't find anything through a few minutes of googling... can someone enlighten me?

These election threads have been a huge part of my day since Tuesday. Normally when I have a few spare moments I would look at Google News or the NYT, and I listen to NPR from the time I wake up to the time I go to bed, but now I feel sick to my stomach knowing that people are normalizing the sexism coming from the top down. I can't handle any of that yet, maybe not ever. So thank you, everyone here, for posting relevant links and providing commentary and analysis.
posted by the thorn bushes have roses at 10:50 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


About all we need to hear from Bernie right now is support for Ellison as RNC chair (assuming he's going to go ahead with running for it). He should keep focused on the opposition, otherwise.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:50 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


but I am not familiar with the acronym WWC.

White Working Class.
posted by Talez at 10:51 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm pretty sure WWC = white working class
posted by kirkaracha at 10:52 AM on November 14, 2016


Thanks Talez! I've assumed something along those lines, but couldn't find a single source to confirm that.
posted by the thorn bushes have roses at 10:53 AM on November 14, 2016


I would feel better about Sanders if he would remain a member of the Democratic Party. I'm weary of his remaining above it all as an independent but being a de facto/de jure Democrat when convenient. His behavior feeds into an unhelpful narrative about the Democratic Party's legitimacy or lack thereof.
posted by palindromic at 10:54 AM on November 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


After meeting with Mr. Trump, the only person to be elected president without having held a government or military position, Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said.

OBAMA: Look, Donald, this is my private cell number. What I want you to do is, if you get in a situation where all the shit's about to hit the fan, call this number, day or night.

TRUMP: And you'll give me advice on what to do?

OBAMA: Hell no. I just want enough warning time to get my family to a lead-lined bunker.
posted by delfin at 10:55 AM on November 14, 2016 [35 favorites]


Hillary Clinton's corporate-backed leadership is not winning over the working class. Working people in this country have been getting fucked over for decades.

This election was the final death of the Clinton DNC. The idea that we can have a leader taking millions of dollars from corporate shills *and* advocating for the working class is simple false. It's time for the clearly ineffective political leadership in the DNC to step aside.

The alternative is to strngthen the hand of populist Nazis like Bannon.
posted by kuatto at 10:56 AM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Trump walked into the Oval Office like a two-pump-chump freshman thinking it was syllabus day, and what he got was the first day of law school, and he hadn’t done the reading like everyone else had, and Professor Obama decided to put him in the hot seat.
From an essay that is wall-to-wall gold at Brimful of Asha
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:57 AM on November 14, 2016 [25 favorites]


Gwen Ifill Dead at 61

2016 WHAT THE EFF.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:58 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


The story of "Oh this is all about the white working class" seems awfully self serving for the party coming to power. That it was some wholly populist revolt is propaganda. The bottom line is that this was conservative media machine vs. Democratic Party get out the vote machine, and the media machine won.
posted by Zalzidrax at 10:59 AM on November 14, 2016 [37 favorites]


It wasn't a well-framed quote, but "victim-blaming"? Fuck that. Sanders should have been specific when he said "Democratic Party" and referred it as "Democratic Party leadership." Because the party upper echelons are victims only in the sense that they thought they could manufacture homemade fireworks and it blew up in their faces.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:59 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


try to think of a way to talk to white working class people that wouldn't work just as well for talking to not-white working class people but also isn't racist

Hey, I know you've taken it hard these past few years. The rich are getting richer and you're just treading water, even as you work harder.

We all grew up believing that if we worked hard and smart, we'd get ahead, be able to take care of ourselves and our families, put something away for when we retire. But somewhere along the way that stopped working so well. Like I said, the rich are getting richer and too many people are going the other direction.

That's just flat out wrong, unfair and it that needs to end. Too many of our jobs are ending up overseas, while terrorists are busy taking potshots at us. That's why I want to focus on America, rebuilding our roads and bridges, putting people to work to rebuilding what made us great and maintaining that for the future. While doing that we're also going to focusin' on our military, to make sure our borders are protected and we're gonna beef up our space program. Michigan and Detriot build the best cars in the world. Now they can continue doing that and build spaceships that'll secure all the resources and riches for the future.

Will you help build this better America?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:59 AM on November 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


Hillary Clinton's corporate-backed leadership is not winning over the working class.

I think you forgot the word 'white' there. Because PoC working class voted overwhelmingly for her. Even more so than WWC did for Trump.
posted by chris24 at 11:00 AM on November 14, 2016 [29 favorites]


Not really directly connected with the thread, but I guess a feel-good tale, even if it encapsulates the sheer frustration of what is to come, won't hurt, right?

A friend told me a story yesterday about a rather right-wing but glam aunt from California who came over to Edinburgh earlier this year to visit. She'd had a hip replacement and it flared up with inflammation problems during her trip, so my friend took her to my friend's GP practice - which is almost a mini-hospital.

The GP saw her, said 'Yeah, that looks bad, we'd better give you a scan' and ten minutes later she'd been through the scanner at the practice. Then the GP went through her list of medications, whistling with surprise and at one stage calling the nurse over with "Look at this! We stopped using that twenty years ago." He reduced the list of something like ten medicines to about three, and added a couple more "which you can pick up at the pharmacy downstairs, actually, I'll just get the nurse to go there for you now".

Nurse returned with bags of drugs, doctor typed up a letter for aunty's doc back home, and said "You should feel better tomorrow'. When aunty got to get her credit card out, doc said 'Oh... we're really not set up for that. Don't worry about it'.

Aunty has completely revised her opinion of 'socialised medicine'. It was also the first time she'd seen a brown doctor, and that rather blew her away too.

(Needless to say, the Tories are trying to roll back everything good about this sort of thing - however, they don't control the NHS in Scotland so they can go stick a unheated speculum up their bums and spin.)
posted by Devonian at 11:00 AM on November 14, 2016 [56 favorites]


Will you help build this better America?

How would that be different if you were speaking to PoC?
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:00 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


.

OH COME ON 2016
posted by zachlipton at 11:00 AM on November 14, 2016


The idea that we can have a leader taking millions of dollars from corporate shills *and* advocating for the working class is simple false.

The working class (WHITE EDITION) voted for Trump, a corrupt plutocrat. So your whole corporate shills argument loses a bit of steam.
posted by chris24 at 11:01 AM on November 14, 2016 [21 favorites]


build spaceships

we know how to secure the Blatcher vote at least
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:02 AM on November 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


The working class (WHITE EDITION) voted for Trump, a corrupt plutocrat. So your whole corporate shills argument loses a bit of steam.

I know at least a couple of people who insisted that because Trump was a self-made (ha) billionaire (ha), he wasn't beholden to corporate masters like other politicians.
posted by Etrigan at 11:03 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


How would that be different if you were speaking to PoC?

Not sure if would have to be that different.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:04 AM on November 14, 2016


It all comes down to media spin.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:04 AM on November 14, 2016


I think you forgot the word 'white' there. Because PoC working class voted overwhelmingly for her. Even more so that WWC did for Trump.

Re: WWC, On the one hand, you have a racist demagogue appealing to the fact that you are getting fucked over, and on the other hand you have someone who isn't even talking to you. Who do you pick?

The Democratic party must be an inclusive party of the working class first. The idea that we can also defend the corporatist status-quo at the same time is a joke!
posted by kuatto at 11:05 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]




Gwen Ifill Dead at 61

Won't link because it's FoxNews but here's the only context I can find (from 11/10/16):

PBS announced last week that Ifill, the "NewsHour" co-anchor with Judy Woodruff, would be taking unspecified time off for health reasons. Ifill, 61, was out for two months last spring. She has not revealed the nature of her illness.

.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:06 AM on November 14, 2016


We've been through this a bunch of times already. Trump's a billionaire but he's able to talk to and present an image that is considered low-class, i.e. anti-elite. His economic policies are GOP orthodoxy, or worse, but his presentation and rhetoric made him seem different from the norm, from both Republican and Democratic politicians. One of the reasons why he won is that he's so slippery and self-contradictory and the media and party leaderships such a mess that no one effectively pinned him down for anything, at least not enough to get that final margin.

If we're going to have another primary re-ligitation, fine, but do we have to do a reassessment on why Trump appealed to his voters, again?
posted by Apocryphon at 11:06 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Today, the American Military Partner Association (AMPA), the nation’s largest organization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) military families, released the following statement following news that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is withdrawing its proposal to provide medically necessary gender confirmation surgery for transgender veterans

Site is down, roomthreeseventeen.

I guess I'm not surprised the VA is already reversing their position. EPA is already instituting a hiring freeze, given how badly they're going to be hit come Jan 20.
posted by suelac at 11:07 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Because PoC working class voted overwhelmingly for her. Even more so that WWC did for Trump

except in places like Flint where they just stayed home
posted by philip-random at 11:08 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


on the other hand you have someone who isn't even talking to you. Who do you pick?

Actually she was. With real solutions that go beyond what can be explained on a hat or with a scream of hate. If being "inclusive" of those who responded to racist demagoguery means pandering to that bigotry than fuck that kind of inclusiveness. We can make a coalition of PoC and non-racist whites and win. Hell, we basically did it this year.
posted by chris24 at 11:09 AM on November 14, 2016 [22 favorites]


Here's a military.com story: VA Scraps Rule to Allow Sex-Change Surgeries Over Funding
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:09 AM on November 14, 2016


There's a difference between not being talked to and not being told what you want to hear.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:09 AM on November 14, 2016 [50 favorites]


I know at least a couple of people who insisted that because Trump was a self-made (ha) billionaire (ha), he wasn't beholden to corporate masters like other politicians.

I'm a self made billionaire
Trump livin', Clinton in prison
Private jet plane in the Air
Clinton remember when I use to donate to your race
And you'd show me off in every place

Now it's all about populism
You copied my style
Three debates couldn't drop me
I took it and smiled
Now I'm back to set Obama straight
Making America Great
I'm still the Trump that you love to hate
Motherfucker I'll Hit 'Em Up
posted by Talez at 11:09 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


WWC

logo related
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:10 AM on November 14, 2016


I think you forgot the word 'white' there. Because PoC working class voted overwhelmingly for her. Even more so than WWC did for Trump.

Look at the net difference from 2008-2012-2016. Clinton's support was whiter and wealthier than Dem support had been in 2008 and 2012.

Team Clinton failed to rally support across the board, white and otherwise, in critical states. Compared to Obama's two runs, Clinton fared *worse* among non-white voters. Meanwhile, Trump actually *gained* non-white voters over Romney. For example, some people assumed that Hispanic voters would categorically reject Trump. That was super duper wrong.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:10 AM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


try to think of a way to talk to white working class people that wouldn't work just as well for talking to not-white working class people but also isn't racist

Here's the framing, once more with feeling:

The establishment elite is sucking money and influence away from everyone else. Both parties share some blame, but the Republicans have been the driving force for decades behind the deregulation and the lack of oversight and the financial voodoo that passes for economics here in the US.

Now. What do the working class left and the working class right have in common? They're getting fucked over and drained dry.

Who's to blame?

The working class left blames the elite. The working class right blames the working class left because that's what their media and their politicians blare at them endlessly.

The trick is to teach the working class right to follow the money, and to make a simple realization -- if you want to know where all your money went, the people poorer than you probably don't have it.
posted by delfin at 11:10 AM on November 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


EPA is already instituting a hiring freeze, given how badly they're going to be hit come Jan 20.

[Citation Needed]
posted by C'est la D.C. at 11:11 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Motherfucker I'll Hit 'Em Up

I'M FROM N-E-W JERS, WHERE PLENTY OF BRIDGE CLOSURES OCCURS
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:12 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Because PoC working class voted overwhelmingly for her. Even more so that WWC did for Trump

If the working class of color had voted overwhelmingly for anyone, that candidate would have won. The working class of color that voted, voted overwhelmingly for her. Those are two different numbers.

We can make a coalition of PoC and non-racists whites and win. Hell, we basically did it this year.

Hell, Obama did it!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:13 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hell, we basically did it this year.

Just a heads up we actually lost this one
posted by Greg Nog at 11:13 AM on November 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


Compared to Obama's two runs, Clinton fared *worse* among non-white voters. Meanwhile, Trump actually *gained* non-white voters over Romney. For example, some people assumed that Hispanic voters would categorically reject Trump. That was super duper wrong.

Actually that's not at all certain. The whole Trump did better than Romney with Hispanics is based on notoriously inaccurate exit polls, in a year when polling was notoriously inaccurate, and was only 2%, within the margin of error. And Latino Decisions, the largest latino pollster, has huge issues with those exit polls.
posted by chris24 at 11:13 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Hell, we basically did it this year.

Just a heads up we actually lost this one


Yeah, thanks. Wasn't aware. Oh wait, the "basically" was the acknowledgement of that. We will win the popular vote by 2 million and lost three states by 107,000 votes, with misogyny, racism, and Comey's, Russia's and Wikileaks unprecedented ratfucking. There's nothing wrong with the coalition that keeps us from winning.
posted by chris24 at 11:16 AM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]




There's a difference between not being talked to and not being told what you want to hear.

Yeah I remember when all the working-class focused policies were being repeatedly derided (not disagreed with, derided) with condescension and contempt by Clinton et al. You see, socialized health care and socialized education are fantasies. And the poor and working class and struggling middle class had better just get used to the idea that their policy preferences were laughable to Clinton.

That was the message. It's a real shocker that it's not something everyone wanted to hear. What a bunch of ingrates.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 11:19 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Re: WWC, On the one hand, you have a racist demagogue appealing to the fact that you are getting fucked over, and on the other hand you have someone who isn't even talking to you. Who do you pick?

The Democratic party must be an inclusive party of the working class first. The idea that we can also defend the corporatist status-quo at the same time is a joke!


Hey uh just want to point out the relative income levels of Trump supporters vs Clinton supporters

It's a fucking Republican myth that this was a working class revolt against the out-of-touch elitists at the DNC. The bottom line is that Trump's identity politics were aimed squarely at WHITE voters who are interested in WHITE power and privilege.
posted by Existential Dread at 11:20 AM on November 14, 2016 [46 favorites]


We can certainly debate the degree to which Democratic coalition building fell short among the WWC. But to say that Democrats have not included the WWC at all is a step right into Trump-framing land.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:22 AM on November 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from.

And so it begins. Or really, it's already begun. White working class people (implicitly straight; and not WWC people who have any connections to POC) are the important ones to court, says the socialist. I've heard this one from socialists before, and it seldom bodes well for anyone but straight white men.

But as I said earlier, they're always itching to throw the rest of us under the bus because they don't really like treating us as equals - and now they have a Marxist excuse. Our "boutique" issues aren't as important as coalition-building with people who hate us. This is how it always goes with the left - the parts of the coalition nearest to power always peel off to join power.

Something I've noticed: we on the left always think we buck trends. But if angry white straight men everywhere are refusing equality to women, queers and POC, why are we exempt? Our straight white men are rebelling, too, and they're eager to join the manly white working class for some socialist realism.

Note how it's "our party can't talk to you", not "voter suppression", not misogyny, not media, but insufficient pandering to white working class [straight] people because we, with our high-falutin' language, can't even be "heard". But believe you me, as someone who has spent a lot of time around white lower middle class people, if they don't like queers, women and Blacks, they're not going to "hear" you no matter how you sound.

On the green, someone was asking for songs that rock out while being really depressing, and I couldn't think of anything. But now an old staple of my adolescence comes back to me, a Lou Reed song called "Busload of Faith":

You can't depend on no miracle
You can't depend on the air
You can't depend on a wise man
You can't find 'em because they're not there

You can depend on cruelty
Crudity of thought and sound
You can depend on the worst always happening
You need a busload of faith to get by

posted by Frowner at 11:23 AM on November 14, 2016 [59 favorites]


Yeah I remember when all the working-class focused policies were being repeatedly derided (not disagreed with, derided) with condescension and contempt by Clinton et al. You see, socialized health care and socialized education are fantasies. And the poor and working class and struggling middle class had better just get used to the idea that their policy preferences were laughable to Clinton.

Because it's Hillary Clinton and the Democrats who are against socialized health care?
What?
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:23 AM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


This election was the ultimate in ratfucking, and now we're back to the circular firing squad about what Clinton and the DNC did wrong. Basically, combine resurgent white nationalists, Russian interference and hacking via Wikileaks, FBI complicity and electioneering, the gutting of the goddamned Voting Rights Act, and here you go, President Trump and CoS Bannon.
posted by Existential Dread at 11:24 AM on November 14, 2016 [52 favorites]


We can certainly debate the degree to which Democratic coalition building fell short among the WWC. But to say that Democrats have not included the WWC at all is a step right into Trump-framing land.

So what? If it's true, it's true. Everything Trump says and does isn't permanently tainted. Although I wouldn't say white working-class, I'd say poor, working class, and precarious middle class. Of all races.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 11:24 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Clinton/Sanders primary battles are over. This is about who leads the DNC and the Democratic Party. The elites and their corporate allies have had their chance, it's time for Keith Ellison to lead.

The working class people have to be respected in this country. These are the people who pick up hammers, who drive trucks, who clean up and who built the country that we all live in. They are working harder than ever and here is the result:

For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades (Pew Research)

The idea that we live in the richest country in the world and that ^ is the case is a travesty. Trump being elected is _the_ biggest wakeup call for me. If the Democrats do not represent the working class, who does?
posted by kuatto at 11:24 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


That was the message. It's a real shocker that it's not something everyone wanted to hear. What a bunch of ingrates.

Diverging from the upbeat, idealism of your popular two-term predecessor and diving into cold realistic wonkery against a charismatic 'low-class' challenger worked out real well for H.W. in '92.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:24 AM on November 14, 2016


Because it's Hillary Clinton and the Democrats who are against socialized health care?
What?

Don't make me link dump with fourteen youtube clips of hillary clinton and/or her proxies calling single payer a fantasy. I am not talking about the shittiness of the Republican party or its policies right now. And in fact, not every critique of Clinton is an endorsement of the Republican party or an implied statement that the Republican party or its candidates are better options than Clinton.

I was hoping that post-election this kind of convo might be possible without the knee-jerk U MUST LOVE REPUBS!!! response; perhaps not.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 11:26 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


[Citation Needed]

Cite: personal communication from a friend at EPA.

Given the length of time federal hiring takes, I suspect EPA is going to stop announcing positions very soon, because nobody would get selected and cleared before January 20th.
posted by suelac at 11:27 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd say poor, working class, and precarious middle class. Of all races.

They went for Clinton. She won big with incomes under $50,000 and Trump won everything above.
posted by chris24 at 11:27 AM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Diverging from an upbeat, idealistic popular two-term predecessor and going into cold realistic wonkery against a charismatic 'low-class' challenger worked out real well for H.W. in '92.

This is probably largely my fault but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or what you mean (and I do want to know what you mean, if you don't mind explaining more.) Apologies for making myself difficult to respond to.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 11:27 AM on November 14, 2016


Huh, apparently that "victory has many fathers, defeat is an orphan" aphorism was popularized by JFK (says a three-second googling). I wouldn't've thought someone who'd ever been within a thousand miles of a Democrat would say such a thing.

Circular Firing Squad Targets, Day VI
-the white working class
-POC
-coastal elites
-Hillary
-Bernie
-Obama
-"brosocialists"
-"centrists"
-"political demographics labelers"
-feckless media
-feckful media
-non-fecks-giving media
-SNL
-Facebook
-Twitter
-Instagram
-Google+
-Brexiteers
-ISIS

People who are laughing their way past the circular firing squad as they proceed down Pennsylvania Ave.
-Donald Trump
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:28 AM on November 14, 2016 [34 favorites]


In America, we all think we're middle class, and with income inequality, we're all under economic security. I recognize that the hardest hit went for Clinton, but that doesn't mean those who were making above $50k are not suffering, either.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:28 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


They went for Clinton. She won big with incomes under $50,000 and Trump won everything above.

But what was the percentage of people with incomes under $50k who stayed home? Because I fear "stayed home" actually won.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:28 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


I know at least a couple of people who insisted that because Trump was a self-made (ha) billionaire (ha), he wasn't beholden to corporate masters like other politicians.

"Trump the Billionaire" appeals to the white working class because he's not part of the elite. Think about it. Born and raised in Queens, not of old money, but as the heir to a shady racist local landlord. Always dreamed of making it big in Manhattan, but shunned by the upper class establishment. He's been a tabloid laughingstock for decades. He's a caricature of what a "millionaire" looks like, with his taste for gaudy excess and gold-plated everything. The WWC love him because in a real way, he IS one of them.
posted by monospace at 11:31 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


But what was the percentage of people with incomes under $50k who stayed home? Because I fear "stayed home" actually won.

I'm sure high, but turnout as a percentage of the population is higher than 2012 and almost as high as 2008.
posted by chris24 at 11:31 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


So what? If it's true, it's true. Everything Trump says and does isn't permanently tainted. Although I wouldn't say white working-class, I'd say poor, working class, and precarious middle class. Of all races.

Yes, let's just ignore the fact that the most celebrated speaker of the convention has organized unions and protested laws that punished the working class. Or the fact that Clinton was the only person on the debate stage advocating economic policies for the working class. (Trump's plan was a garbled trickle-down.)
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:31 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I also find it hi-fuckling-larious when people are all "oh get the WWC vote". I am a WWC person. Hello, nice to meet you, let me show you my union card and my resume of secretarial and call-center jobs. My white friends, yea verily, are WWC people - bartenders and odd jobs-doers and carers and sex workers and generally members of the precariat, and indeed my friends of color are also working class.
posted by Frowner at 11:31 AM on November 14, 2016 [46 favorites]


Don't make me link dump with fourteen youtube clips of hillary clinton and/or her proxies calling single payer a fantasy.

That's political plain talk. So what? Who made it a fantasy? It was Obama's opening position on the ACA. Hillarycare from 1993 would've been universal health care, making the same compromises due to the same opposition.

These are the kinds of misnomers that sadden me. Especially finding them here.
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:31 AM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


You know, this whole "working and middle class whites vote out of economic malaise" thing is just so bitterly infuriating when you consider the realities in some places. My rural Michigan county voted about 2-to-1 for Trump; it's a generationally impoverished area, but there's also a pretty well-to-do giant lake-and-golf-course-based community that is loaded with well-heeled retirees from down south.

What is the #1, central, pretty much sole industry (other than a bit of seasonal tourism) keeping the whole county economy afloat, you ask? A university. And many of the local area voters are not always thrilled about the "types of people" a campus attracts. I don't know if they voted Republican out of habit, out of some fantasy that Trump will bring back industries that never were here to begin with, out of Clinton-misogyny-hatred, or (quite likely) out of resentment for darker and foreign and liberal people. But I hope they're happy when they see the effects on the local economy, tax base, etc. after students and faculty from other areas of the state, nation, and world are too afraid or angry (or banned) to come here anymore, especially in an era of already declining enrollments and state funding.

That's already a big problem in trying to attract faculty -- oddly enough, highly qualified cosmopolitan PhDs from around the US and world are not really lining up to consign their futures to a deep red area in the middle of nowhere an hour away from a decent restaurant.

Enjoy your lily-white ghost town, folks!
posted by FelliniBlank at 11:32 AM on November 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


She didn't "win big" among households under $50k. Nothing I'm reading says that. She seems to have won that demo, but "big" is not how I would describe it. I'd also question the issue of turnout as mentioned above. If you have sources that are describing her winning "big" I'd like to see them.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 11:32 AM on November 14, 2016


This is probably largely my fault but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or what you mean (and I do want to know what you mean, if you don't mind explaining more.)

I agree with you. I'm likening the path from Obama to Clinton to Reagan to H.W., in terms of image and perception. We went from "Hope and Change" to "Nope and Can't."

Which isn't entirely true, but that's how it feels. Clinton's platform, I'm sure, had tons of great policies. But there never seemed to be an underlying theme, a vision, a narrative to carry it on. There definitely felt like she was promising more of the same, or, in some cases even a little less (in the sense that her campaign was couched by realities). That made it seem less inspiring. It sucks that this process ends up being about branding and pandering and feelings, rather than good governance. But that's American democracy.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:33 AM on November 14, 2016


What they stay home vote heard was not nuances of economic policy, it was "Clinton under investigation" and "Wikileaks show Clinton cheated at the primary"

This is what I've heard from, you know, actual people ranging from military enlistees to blue collar folks to tech bros, not the media trying to fashion a narrative.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:34 AM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


That's political plain talk. So what? Who made it a fantasy? It was Obama's opening position on the ACA. Hiillarycare from 1993 would've been universal health care.

These are the kinds of misnomers that sadden me. Especially finding them here.

How is it a misnomer to repeat something Clinton said

I mean you're making an number of arguments here that all boil down to "it was OK for Clinton to be disrespectful and condescending." I do not think it was okay, nor was it smart.

And "especially finding them here" is something I really don't understand. People who disagree with you are smart enough, good enough, moral enough, and capable enough of critical thinking to be here on Metafilter with you.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 11:35 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Not caught up and I know the Politico article has been linked here, but the IndyStar article on Pence's redacted email is an important read:
Legal experts fear the stakes may be much higher than mere politics because the decision could remove a judicial branch check on executive power and limit a citizen's right to know what the government is doing and how it spends taxpayer dollars.

"It comes down to this — the court is giving up its ability to check another branch of government, and that should worry people," said Gerry Lanosga, an Indiana University media professor specializing in public records law.
What's Mike Pence hiding in his emails?
posted by salix at 11:36 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


According to the National Exit Poll, Clinton won by 12 points (53–41%) among voters with income under $30k, and by 9 points (51–42%) among voters with income between $30k and $50k.
posted by mbrubeck at 11:36 AM on November 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


Because PoC working class voted overwhelmingly for her.

Remember that article posted way upthread or last thread about the two definitions of working class? I'm really not sure there /is/ a broad POC "working class", when working class is defined as "children of people with blue collar incomes that could provide a middle class life for a family, taking similar jobs now but not seeing that same security." Not a lot of POC were admitted to those stable blue collar jobs in the first place. Most unions didn't even let them in.

So POC in the same jobs don't have that dawning sense of horror that the world is slipping away from them. They just know they're still fucked, as they have been fucked before. And honestly because opportunities and anti-discrimination law, they're one of the few groups often doing better than their parents. I know I and most of my POC friends are.
posted by corb at 11:36 AM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


She didn't "win big" among households under $50k. Nothing I'm reading says that.

She won under $30,000 by 12 points and 30-50,000 by 9 points. Trump won the rest and none of the other income demos was separated by more than 4 points.
posted by chris24 at 11:37 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


This is kind of fun, like most gallows humor:

When the press asked Kellyanne Conway about Bannon's alt-right tendencies, she didn't say they were wrong. She said:

"I’m personally offended that you think I would manage a campaign where that would be one of the going philosophies."

It's a great PR answer, when you break it down. She's not denying that Bannon has that philosophy, because that would be an obvious lie. She's not even denying that his philosophy influenced the campaign, because that would also be an obvious lie. She's not even denying that his was a "going philosophy," which would at least be debatable.

Quite the opposite: She's telling the truth.
posted by radicalawyer at 11:37 AM on November 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


Upthread, people were talking about the "facebook bubble". You can fix that, you know. You can set your news feed to "most recent" instead of "top stories".. but you have to do it every single time you go to facebook.

If that becomes annoying or there's just too many stories, there's a FB browser extension called FB Purity that allows you granular control over your facebook feed. You can hide all types of filler stories (ads, "blah changed their profile picture", etc), force facebook to sort by newest, blacklist/whitelist people so you always see their stuff. It's pretty great. For those of you who want to break out of the bubble facebook feeds you, it's a very good way to make it all manageable.
posted by zug at 11:37 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


What they stay home vote heard was not nuances of economic policy, it was "Clinton under investigation" and "Wikileaks show Clinton cheated at the primary"

This is what I've heard from, you know, actual people ranging from military enlistees to blue collar folks to tech bros, not the media trying to fashion a narrative.


I actually very much agree with this. But I think that having a solid aspirational economic plan would have helped overcome this kind of problem. There wasn't any kind of serious push factor to get people over their uncertainty about Clinton's ethical and legal issues. (Which I think were invented, but that's easy for me to say---the media did not make that clear in any way and should be ashamed of themselves for their credulity and lack of effective reporting.)
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 11:38 AM on November 14, 2016


Clinton's platform, I'm sure, had tons of great policies.

Funny they were easy enough to access and read
posted by zutalors! at 11:38 AM on November 14, 2016 [28 favorites]


I was hoping that post-election this kind of convo might be possible without the knee-jerk U MUST LOVE REPUBS!!! response; perhaps not.

If you can reach the least racist, least sexist, one percent of Trump voters, or even one percent of non-voters, you win an election like this. Nobody is saying the Dems have to appeal to the deplorables. There are good people that can be brought to our side. Lumping them all in a box called "angry white men" doesn't help at all.
posted by rocket88 at 11:39 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I also find it hi-fuckling-larious when people are all "oh get the WWC vote". I am a WWC person. Hello, nice to meet you, let me show you my union card and my resume of secretarial and call-center jobs. My white friends, yea verily, are WWC people - bartenders and odd jobs-doers and carers and sex workers and generally members of the precariat, and indeed my friends of color are also working class.

trucks and hammers, Frowner, trucks and hammers.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:40 AM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


You know the message that I got in pro-Hillary circles was "We have the most progressive platform ever with good things for everyone and the most experienced woman to fight for them"

It's a message that needed to get out and did not break out of the Hillary bubble enough. Who is to blame for that is less relevant than how we make that sort of message heard, and loud. We are the party of the people, of policies that help people, and the people means everyone.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:42 AM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


How is it a misnomer to repeat something Clinton said

It's a misnomer to cite a statement that X is not possible to support a smear campaign that implies the position that X is undesirable. HRC and BHO would've both supported single payer if it were doable in Congress.


I mean you're making an number of arguments here that all boil down to "it was OK for Clinton to be disrespectful and condescending." I do not think it was okay, nor was it smart.


No, I'm not making a tone argument. You are.

And "especially finding them here" is something I really don't understand. People who disagree with you are smart enough, good enough, moral enough, and capable enough of critical thinking to be here on Metafilter with you.


Again, not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Hillary isn't against single payer and it's disappointing that so many generally well informed people, here and elsewhere, buy into that. Maybe address the substance instead of trying to hang a frame on my comments that isn't there.
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:43 AM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


According to the National Exit Poll, Clinton won by 12 points (53–41%) among voters with income under $30k, and by 9 points (51–42%) among voters with income between $30k and $50k.

Thanks, that's what I also saw. I guess we are having a definitional quibble: I see that as a basic (or even low) Dem margin among those voters, not "winning big"---at least not in the sense that it works as evidence for a successful Dem campaign strategy. I can see someone disagreeing with me because they are looking at the margin in absolute terms instead of relative terms, and consider it an acceptable outcome for a Dem campaign, which is fine. But I still don't think it's great evidence that Clinton's strategy was awesome or exceptional, so to the extent that someone wants to use it to support an argument like that, I very much disagree.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 11:43 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Upthread, people were talking about the "facebook bubble". You can fix that, you know. You can set your news feed to "most recent" instead of "top stories".. but you have to do it every single time you go to facebook.

I have been doing this ever since I knew it was an option (at least for the last year, maybe longer). It still doesn't show you all of your friends' posts in reverse chronological order, though, like it did back when life was simple and facebook was only available to people with a university email address.

I really, really hope the company is taking a fucking hard look at themselves and the damage they've done to American democracy with their little algorithms and their wide-eyed denials that they were creating a beautiful machine for the efficient distribution of fascist lies and propaganda.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:44 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hello, I am a struggling rural white man who hammers trucks or drives trucks full of hammers or whatever and I would vote for Democrats if only Keith Ellison were the party chair.
posted by theodolite at 11:45 AM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


This is a pretty apt comparison.

@TVietor08
Imagine if Obama had chosen Rahm as CoS and Farrakhan as chief strategist. Would the stories be about finding common ground?
posted by chris24 at 11:50 AM on November 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


Wait, what, the party that had the most progressive party platform ever is somehow against the Working Class?

The party that has pushed for higher minimum wages?

The party that pushes for gender equity in terms of pay?

The party that is consistently pushing for expanded access to higher education?

The party that consistently pushes for consumer protections?

The party that brought back the auto industry from implosion?

The party that increased access to healthcare for all Americans?

That party is somehow against the working class? Fuck that bullshit. No this is 100% about the "WWC" looking at the advances made at the real bottom of the heap (PoC, LGBT, Immigrant Communities) under Obama and were threatened.

This is 100% about the White Working Class (let's be honest the White Middle Class) in smaller Rust Belt states feeling threatened that their cultural, social, and economic hegemony is being threatened by a rising class of PoC that are typically clustered around larger cities throughout the US.

Pluralism is incredibly threatening to those at the top of the pecking order and everytime PoC come anywhere close to achieving some lasting equality the White Majority pushes back.

This narrative that this is somehow about White Working Class being ignored by the Democratic Elite is nonsense. The Republicans are going to fuck them over even harder than macroeconomics is going to fuck them over. This was about the WWC looking at a demagogue offering a scapegoat (PoC, China, Free Trade) and the WWC being willing to sign on to a total nonsense platform because while the WWC are going to get boned hard over the next 4 years they can rest content that the Republicans will focus on fucking over PoC even harder.
posted by vuron at 11:51 AM on November 14, 2016 [79 favorites]


Again, not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Hillary isn't against single payer and it's disappointing that so many generally well informed people, here and elsewhere, buy into that. Maybe address the substance instead of trying to hang a frame on my comments that isn't there.


My argument was not about the support she has for it in her heart of hearts. It was about her rhetorical stance towards Single Payer on the campaign trail, where she repeatedly labeled it as fantastical, impossible, and generally acted like it was a joke. It was part of an overall strategy to discredit the economic populist wing of the Democratic party as, essentially, a bunch of fools and clowns. That strategy meant repeatedly shitting on a number of economic reforms as being fantasies, impossible, etc.

One goal of Clinton's strategy was to deflate enthusiasm for Democratic-led economic reforms that focused on the working-class, poor, and precarious middle class. Her campaign purposefully tried to make economic populism seem like something that "mainstream" Dems weren't interested in, weren't enthusiastic about, and didn't think could be possible.

If you don't see the mistake there or you think this is about whether Hillary supports single payer (who cares, frankly, if she won't fight for it?) I'm not sure what to tell you.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 11:52 AM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Charles Pierce: Why Hiring Steve Bannon Is the Same as Hiring David Duke. No white hoods required.
It's a sad moment for this country when the best hope you have for an incoming administration is that it will be able to jettison the racism and xenophobia that was its primary fuel while fulfilling the impossible economic promises that it has made. If that doesn't happen, and the impossible economic promises do not come to pass, only the racism and xenophobia will be all that's left and over the weekend, we learned that they will have a friend at the apex of our government to keep them warm.
posted by homunculus at 11:52 AM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Imagine if Obama had chosen Rahm as CoS

uh

am I in an alternate timestream where he didn't? because if so I will just go to sleep now and wake up back in the one I came from.
posted by queenofbithynia at 11:53 AM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Funny they were easy enough to read.

Do you honestly believe the average voter, for either party, of any political alignment, from any education or income level, anywhere does this. That they read platforms and position papers instead of what the news- or rather their favored ideological outlet- paraphrases for them?
posted by Apocryphon at 11:53 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


that's moving a goalpost - you yourself sounded pretty unfamiliar with Clinton's policy positions
posted by zutalors! at 11:54 AM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


am I in an alternate timestream where he didn't? because if so I will just go to sleep now and wake up back in the one I came from.

It's the second half the the tweet where the apt comparison comes in. Rahm and Farrakhan to Preibus and Bannon. Adding Farrakhan to the Obama team to compare it to Trumps.
posted by chris24 at 11:55 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


in smaller Rust Belt states feeling threatened that their cultural, social, and economic hegemony is being threatened

To be fair, given when Detroit started tanking, and the conditions of these states, they've lost that hegemony a long long time ago
posted by Apocryphon at 11:56 AM on November 14, 2016


am I in an alternate timestream where he didn't? [choose Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff]

You are in the timeline where people think everything they say must be in the form of sarcasm
posted by thelonius at 11:56 AM on November 14, 2016


It's a misnomer to cite a statement that X is not possible to support a smear campaign that implies the position that X is undesirable. HRC and BHO would've both supported single payer if it were doable in Congress.

...I'm supporting a smear campaign? Again, Clinton lost already. You don't have to do this kind of knee-jerk "if you're not with us you're against us" thing anymore. She can't lose again, you know.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 11:56 AM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


no just the one where "imagine if" is followed by an imaginary thing or a true thing where that's the joke, but not one of each. it's a pleasant place. time. whichever.
posted by queenofbithynia at 11:57 AM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. That's the motivation. And for the next two years, this is the focus: To figure out how the Democratic party can be the inclusive party of economic growth.

The Clinton DNC machine done screwed us all over ("Hello president Trump!").
And now it's time to clean house. Major figures in Democratic party seem to understand this. Schumer, Reid and others are coming out in favor of Keith Ellison. The idea that Hillary Clinton could represent the interests of billionaires and bankers and the working class is a sad joke.

Having a President Trump is a very bitter lesson learned.
posted by kuatto at 11:59 AM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


You don't have to do this kind of knee-jerk "if you're not with us you're against us" thing anymore.

I'm going to ask you again to stop making ad hominem attacks on me by mischaracterizing the intent and the substance of my comments by using language that isn't in them.

Seriously, stop it. It's not OK.
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:00 PM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


that's moving a goalpost - you yourself sounded pretty unfamiliar with Clinton's policy positions

My angle is that the time to debate policy substance is more or less over- I already know that the Clinton campaign absorbed many of Sanders' proposals after he conceded. My point is that it really is about tone. The messaging and the messengers chosen did not emotionally connect with enough people to carry out the predicted Clinton landslide. We live in a post-fact universe of truthiness and all that. It's time to embrace it and make new myths, new visions, that can counteract the one that just won. Connect those policies with the people in a way that's better than it was this year.

I'm all for better policy as well, but sadly basic income is as regarded by the mainstream as an even more outlandish myth than Bigfoot.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:00 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


The idea that Hillary Clinton could represent the interests of billionaires and bankers and the working class is a sad joke.

Well, the right thinks Donald Trump can do that.
posted by zutalors! at 12:02 PM on November 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


Bannon is the first big test, I think it's one that will set the stage for a lot of other battles.
posted by cell divide at 12:02 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


I watched all the debates. None of the candidates running expected this outcome. Every Republican was repudiating, refuting and running as fast and far as possible from the toxic Trump taint. Many candidates wouldn't even say who they would vote for. It was a pretty wild split (and may be a saving grace). By the second round of debates everyone was speaking platitudes to how bi-partisan they were. "Across the aisle" acclamations flowed. Every Republican was also suddenly best buddies with Obama. This was not a field that felt secure and many were fighting for survival.

The Democrats on the other hand were not showing many signs of being invigorated or invigorating, "just don't make any kerfuffle and we'll all cross the finish line together" sort of unspoken rule. The anger and hope that had risen on the left during the primary having been sufficiently tamped down and quieted made many seemingly forget the Party platform even existed and turned to a lot of business as usual canned responses. "We will make it more affordable for larger numbers of people so they can have the security they deserve". Sure nothing to attack but nothing to hold on to. I think the sums of money needing raised stifled belief in a small donor path and old habits and rhetoric was returned to. Also both sides expressed disgust for the distortions and smears of PACattack ads. Collusion being a common charge.

Tammy Duckworth was the clearest in articulating and owning policy positions she also chatted up her small donors, 15$ min wage because almost 70% of minimum wage earners are women. I'm pretty sure I cheered. (Kirk also didn't seem fit enough to continue serving (but Duckworth was outstanding in the House and I'm really happy to have her in the Senate)). Misty Snow also held solidly to the platform. But being brand new to politics and running in Utah she was facing a somewhat insurmountable obstacle, she was my favorite underdog. One discovery I made was Thomas Dixon (was running for Senate in South Carolina (the moderator (Danielle Vinson, an associate professor of political science) was also feisty and at one point let Tim Scott know she thought his position on Merrick Garland was not to her liking, she didn't exactly dress him down but she made it politely but pointedly clear she disagreed with him (sure, not really proper, but moderators who asked about Obamacare without showing any understanding that wasn't actually the name of the bill tried my patients, so was a nice reprieve))). Anyway this guy is good. He answers with calm and agreement then as he expounds and explains he becomes a fire breathing beast of what is right and just. It is hard to decide which debates I liked most but is definitely in my top 10. I liked Alaska a lot too because it was the only debate that mentioned first nations. And they had a lot of candidates. More voice and choice, always fun, well more than the outcome at least. All debates with more than two people were better because the added libertarian voices were good at highlighting areas of agreement and more policy flowed. I was sad for Feingold, but he didn't bring his usual spark to either debate. There was a lot of vote nitpicking and explaining what bills and votes really meant. Johnson was also one of the most unapologetic Trump backers. Hassan was a nice surprise. Hopefully she will show some vibrancy because there was none in the debates. She just needed to say Trump and Ayotte was totally on the defensive. Teachout I had much excitement for. I have seen her impassioned but she didn't bring it to the debates. I'd best stop because I have rambling thoughts on them all and while millions possibly watched them live, the CSPAN rewatching is fairly meager. The counter maybe isn't exact but many have tallies under 1000 and even 100 views. This is an area where I think the CNN's, MSNBC's and their ilk do a public disservice. The government is more than the executive and I'm going to suggest (have no data to back this up just my feeling and could be totally wrong) that while down ballot was mentioned the races themselves that were in play or being affected were ignored. Or reported on so minimally as to be meaningless (what are your thoughts on the top of the ticket doesn't count because the object is again an office they aren't even fucking running for). Perhaps it wouldn't make an iota of difference, and there is sufficiently robust local coverage that all are intimately familiar with their choices ... just seems like it would be helpful to dig into more candidates as they have impact on a national level too.

The question that annoyed me most was "What would you do about Syria and the threat of ISIS?". Apparently it is the biggest problem facing the USA. And every Senate or House candidate could somehow pen a bill that will suddenly fix everything there. Also the only response seems to be kill the bad guys with drones. Then again it is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the pontificating on what nations need to be made to heel and what foreigners need killed ... it still amazes me. Like Tim Kaine could have moral qualms over executing people and personally disagrees with abortion. But then seems to not have a second thought and a wave of the hand it becomes "Take out the leaders. Hillary will lead a team and get Al-baghdadi" (then again he was engaged in a flag waving, crucifix kissing contest so I take the his whole act with a grain of salt).

One interesting thing was that citizens questions didn't ever focus on foreign affairs. Trade wasn't an issue, the Iran deal wasn't on the radar, the deficit nary a mention (also not all debates accepted citizens questions, so they may have come in other states had they been allowed). These are sort of presidential debate reuse questions that were asked in most every debate. Health and education were the two main recurring themes or services people wanted addressed. A good question would go "As people age a portion will suffer hearing loss. And depending on the severity it can lead to social isolation and depression. Medicare doesn't cover hearing aids. What are your thoughts on this?". A real world scenario, easily envisioned that is very much a policy that could be written.

Climate change received sporadic mention. Taxing and drilling is where every exchange bent and ended. Democratic candidates would benefit from actually boning up on the subject. One of the problems is the lack of hearings to inform them or again the big media organization need to take more than five seconds of "Trump calls it a hoax what's your reaction" that then gets used like there is a real question for debate. It is absurd. Also Democrats have the power to call hearings and get witnesses even when they are in the minority, they usually don't get to use official rooms and are relegated to the basement, but it was something they did under Bush when Republicans refused to look at little things like torture. They could have done it under Obama too, because oversight was sorely lacking, but chose to just let him veto stuff. I hope they start doing this again under Trump because ... I like hearings where more than the chair and ranking member show up (plus even if it is a hearing on weather satellites replacement schedule a lot of really cool people show up and explain the system, mandates and laws that apply and what they need going forward, it can be a really informative discussion).

I wished for more random questions. But then again after about 80 debates anything not repetitive would have been a welcome change. There weren't any light questions like favorite type of cow, or open questions like what is 100$ or written questions like is it possible to lick a 9-volt battery until it is dead and if so how many licks would it take and show your work.

Anyway, I guess my main point is that this was not predictable or seen coming by the entire field of candidates. People well placed to know the whims and wants of the populations they sought to represent I figured had their ear to the ground and were likely tracking their race as steadfastly as anyone. And all running were answering with Hillary Clinton as President in mind. Perhaps they can know no better than us and rely on the same sources. But if anyone claims they saw this coming or it was inevitable is not to be believed. Also the launching of a personal TV channel ... not something that makes sense if you see the bully pulpit in the immediate future ... then again making sense doesn't preclude much.

This was a "fuck you" coalescence vote. Pick your target, yes, yes and yes ... and Trump was the outlet for the disdain. The only thing less popular than either candidate is Congress itself. And in sending the "fuck you" a lot of Republicans were pulled along. It is hard to look at the splay legged camel and pull a single straw off the pile and say, "this is the culprit".

Congress people will say, "Put 100 000 people in the Mall and I can get the votes." This isn't exactly true and protests can be ignored, but it is the basic premise that people can be brave when they know they have support. Suppressing the rebellion on the left didn't make it go away and by not embracing the clear goals, in a clearly stated manner, that people were ready to march and fight for, the Democratic Party asked people to suppress themselves and they heeded the call.

Keith Ellison. I love to rewind his sections in hearings. He starts low key. He asks seemingly innocuous questions, simple answer, your name, your position at the time, dates served, "yes yes look it up we want to be fair". Next he establishes facts. Again simple, boss, co workers, job description, responsibilities. Still head down, conciliatory "just want to make sure we're on the same page here" or complimentary "that sounds like a lot of responsibility" or what ever is needed. Ellison already knows all these answers. Once he has placed the person at the center of what he really wants to know. He springs the trap, there is no where for them to run. It is a beautiful thing to watch. And it works every single time. He is also good at leading friendly witnesses to tell their story in a coherent and impactful manner. There is probably some law training in the mix, but there are a lot of lawyers in Congress and he does this at a different level. Also once he is down to what he wants to know, nice evaporates and a schooling begins, although he can bring back nice and reset the trap while the person is still sitting there and drag them back through for another tussle. He is very perceptive has a fighting spirit and a keen sense of fairness. I like him very much.
posted by phoque at 12:02 PM on November 14, 2016 [19 favorites]


It's time to embrace it and make new myths, new visions, that can counteract the one that just won.

brothers and sisters, we will build Hammertruck Factory and there will be a job there for anyone who wants one
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:04 PM on November 14, 2016 [19 favorites]


You laugh, but that probably just got you more votes in certain areas than Clinton received
posted by Apocryphon at 12:06 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm seeing a few calls for specific mobilization against Bannon on my Facebook feed. Here's one post in specific that makes some concrete suggestions on how to fight this appointment. Excerpt:
Presidents have had to back down before, for comparatively minor reasons. (Some of us are old enough to remember Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, Bill Clinton's two AG appointments, who had to withdraw for failing to pay Social Security taxes.) Let's not assume this is a done deal.
Let's do what we can to stop this. I have enclosed a list of actions below. Please feel free to add to this, especially those of you with organizing experience (some of whom I've tagged).

1) If you live in the US, call your Representatives and Senators and tell them this is unacceptable.
2) Paul Ryan is feigning ignorance again. Call his office at (202) 225-3031 and let him know that this is not ok. Same with Majority Leader McConnell, (202) 224-2541.
3) Call out the media when they report the Bannon appointment as a straight news story or refer to him as a "Breitbart executive" or a "provocateur," but don't call him what he is: a white supremacist, anti-semite, misogynist. Don't let them normalize.
A few other suggestions there too and she uses #stopbannon as the tag. I'm getting to work on this.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:10 PM on November 14, 2016 [46 favorites]


Chili's Takes Meal From Black Veteran On Veterans Day Because Trump Supporter Complained

Because that's the world we live in now, that's why.
posted by corb at 12:11 PM on November 14, 2016 [44 favorites]


I'm going to ask you again to stop making ad hominem attacks on me by mischaracterizing the intent and the substance of my comments by using language that isn't in them.

Seriously, stop it. It's not OK.

Do you think that I was claiming to actually quote you? I'm sorry, I won't do it again, and you are right that it is open to misinterpretation. I will say that your comments give me the impression that you are not actually reading my comments and responding to them in an effort to engage with what I am actually saying. Rather, I am getting the impression that you are most interested in defending Clinton, and see respectful and legitimate discussion to be a goal that is secondary to that. I find that disappointing given that the election is over and defending Clinton does not have the moral import that it had when she was the sole option besides the disaster that is Trump.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 12:13 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


These are the people who pick up hammers, who drive trucks, who clean up and who built the country that we all live in.

Do they have bushy moustaches and trucker caps? I'm sure the non-white people who pick up hammers and drive trucks thank you for your embrace of the Looks Like Mike Ditka Theory of political authenticity, as well as those who clean toilets and scrub floors and slaughter pigs and pick lettuce and wait tables, which is what actual working-class jobs look like in 2016.

There are a number of "messaging" stories that can be told here, and some of them are less bullshitty than others: if we're in "symbolically but not literally territory" then you can just promise free healthcare and college and magic hammertruck factories and tell the fact-checkers to shut the fuck up. But at some point you veer into stories that fall apart, stories about relative status that aren't sustainable. There are people who want to pay $300 for a big TV and work at the big TV factory in Rustbeltia paying $22/hr. And there are people who want to hear a story where people not like themselves get back to "knowing their place" or just be disappeared.
posted by holgate at 12:14 PM on November 14, 2016 [21 favorites]


Well, the right thinks Donald Trump can [represent working class people].

It's up to us to do the right thing. It's up to us to provide the correct alternative. Real wages have to rise, we need to help people with education and healthcare. That's the bottom line.
posted by kuatto at 12:16 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


There are thousands of voters who wanted to vote for Clinton (and downballot Dems) but were unable to due to structural and intentional disenfranchisement. And they don't all live in "coastal elite cities." I think my time is more valuable working to help those folks access the ballot box than convince a few white men to be a little less racist and misogynist. Every hour I spend trying to convince my dad to see women and POC as humans could be spent calling legislators, or registering voters, or driving people to the DMV to get ID, or escorting patients at Planned Parenthood. I'm not saying talking to Trump supporters is useless, but I find it to be an inefficient use of my time and believe other activities will yield greater results.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:17 PM on November 14, 2016 [71 favorites]


who built the country that we all live in

African American slaves built us into an economic superpower - for free!

Chinese immigrants worked on railroads

The NYC subway system was built largely by Italian immigrants who were undesirables at the time, but also by a large number of African Americans
posted by zutalors! at 12:18 PM on November 14, 2016 [40 favorites]


I'm just nervously expecting lots of "we had to put the nice Muslim (or dark, close enough, shrug) family off the plane because a trumpie was nervous about other people" stories to start dropping soon.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:18 PM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Every non-white, not-straight, not-christian american citizen just got viciously robbed by a hate-fueled smear-machine. (white women though, WHAT)

Whatever comes at me, a proportionate force multiplier shall be my response.
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:19 PM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]



I'm just nervously expecting lots of "we had to put the nice Muslim (or dark, close enough, shrug) family off the plane because a trumpie was nervous about other people" stories to start dropping soon.


that's been happening for years
posted by zutalors! at 12:20 PM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


I'm just nervously expecting lots of "we had to put the nice Muslim (or dark, close enough, shrug) family off the plane because a trumpie was nervous about other people" stories to start dropping soon.

You don't even need to be dark. Just olive.
posted by Talez at 12:20 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's up to us to do the right thing. It's up to us to provide the correct alternative. Real wages have to rise, we need to help people with education and healthcare. That's the bottom line.

Thank you. I've often wondered why no one on the left has said "You pay taxes. Yet a one medical emergency can but you in bankruptcy. Shouldn't your taxes be going to fund a single payer system, so you never, ever have to work about being financially hit because you have a cold? So that you never have to stay in a job you hate just for the health benefits?"
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:20 PM on November 14, 2016 [17 favorites]


Do you think that I was claiming to actually quote you?

I said nothing in the direction of 'with us or against us,' etc. I said nothing about being better than other mefites. and so forth.

you are not actually reading my comments and responding to them in an effort to engage with what I am actually saying

I am directly disputing the accuracy of what you're saying, at least the part of it that isn't pure opinion regarding HRC's personality, and you seem to think that's silencing and ridiculing you. It is not.

I find that disappointing given that the election is over and defending Clinton does not have the moral import that it had when she was the sole option besides the disaster that is Trump.

Then why does attacking her have the import that it did in the primaries?
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:21 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


...I'm supporting a smear campaign? Again, Clinton lost already. You don't have to do this kind of knee-jerk "if you're not with us you're against us" thing anymore. She can't lose again, you know.

I don't care that much about Clinton. I do care about the people in Democratic politics doing the good work of building multi-ethnic coalitions across class lines on issues such as voting rights and poverty. Those people really don't need to be erased in the service of a revisionist cadaver synod of Clinton.

The mefi buble strikes me this last week as very much as a combination of circular firing squad and fantasy football. Other sites have been hosting discussions about bringing Barber's fusion coalition model to other cities and states, and reports from people actually doing that work. We can talk about how effective that activism was in converting votes this year, but denying that it even exists is beyond the pale here.

Frankly, a lot of people, including myself, likely need to logout from the circular firing squad and fantasy football and get connected. Read some Barber, Goodman, Moses, or Marx. Make friends with a church lady from one of your social justice churches.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:21 PM on November 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


White Hegemony extends beyond the locality that people live in.

Yes the Fordist state is dying or dead with most of the industry and an increasing percentage of population leaving for Sun Belt states (mainly because the south have typically been anti-union right-to-work states - thanks Republicans)

But if you are a WWC in a dying rust belt town or suburb you realize your kids aren't going to stay past college and they are going to leave to one of those thriving multicultural coastal cities.

They don't like that and they are making their displeasure known.

Of course their paroxysm of rage is actually going to result in the exact opposite of what they want. Their kids and grandkids are still going to be migrating to the urban spaces and Republicans will completely fail to bring back anything resembling industry in this country.

If the WWC had worked with Democrats in the 80s instead of abandoning the party for Reagan maybe there could've been a time where the long decline from the 70s could've been stopped but at this point those jobs that have been gone from the US for decades are even disappearing in low wage countries because robots are fast and efficient and just about the whole world depends on just in time manufacturing.
posted by vuron at 12:22 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


The idea that Hillary Clinton could represent the interests of billionaires and bankers and the working class is a sad joke.

Well, the right thinks Donald Trump can do that.


The left isn't the right, so I don't think "Trump can do it" is a great argument for a democratic politician being able to do something. I mean, you're right that it's not fair, but Dem candidates might just have to be better than Republican candidates on this issue because Dems need to attract more high-information voters than Republicans (or something like that, I haven't pieced together how it would work yet).

In other words, there's a normative argument for how things should be (people should see that Trump is not more plausible as a champion of the working class than Clinton) but there's also a descriptive argument about what seems to actually exist.

To some extent, the issue seems to be that a subset of people see white nationalism (or military aggressiveness, or masculinity, or ... all of them?) as a good proxy, that indicates that a candidate will support them even if that candidate will not plausibly support them just because they're working class or whatever.

Obviously it's morally indefensible for democrats (or anyone, frankly) to go that route. So the question is that if we can't go the same route as Trump, what do we do? And the answer might have to be finding a candidate who is more plausibly pro-working-class than Clinton was.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 12:22 PM on November 14, 2016


Arguing the small scale tactics of the last election is a moot point now anyway.


From what I see, the left everywhere has been so busy arguing how we implement "Freedom and Justice For All" that nobody's been arguing why it is a good and necessary thing. This is a worldwide campaign that needs to be waged now, to convince hearts and minds that we should look after each other regardless of race or color or religion or sexual orientation.
posted by Zalzidrax at 12:23 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wait, what, the party that had the most progressive party platform ever is somehow against the Working Class?

I mean, yes, you're absolutely right on substance, but that's not how some people see it. Some people see the whole long list of platform planks you listed and think "more regulations and taxes and I'll be worse off." Some of that is because they've been fed that message by a GOP propaganda machine and their bosses for decades. Some of it is because Democrats don't have a great economic message for people who don't care about the minimum wage because they make a fair bit more than it, but still haven't received a real raise in ages. Some of it is because they have employer-sponsored healthcare and so blame the premium increases they see on Obamacare, forgetting that they weren't new and have actually slowed down. And some of it is just a cultural thing involving out of touch elites.

Child care was supposed to be a big part of addressing this. It's something that could help even upper-middle class families in a tangible way. But that message got marginalized to the point I question how much it got through. Why was that? We can blame the media for focusing obsessively on Trump and emails and clouds over policy, but it also wasn't something the Clinton campaign really pushed in the debates and messaging, choosing largely to make it personal instead. Did it poll badly? Why wasn't it, along with a stronger jobs agenda, a real focus of the campaign?
posted by zachlipton at 12:23 PM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


Today in "dumb things heard in locker rooms": People (like, older, adult people) aghast that there's going to be a student protest Wednesday night (way, way after hours, inconveniencing nobody). "Do you ever remember when it was this bad before? Was it this bad with Nixon?" ("This bad" meaning: some students are going to gather and yell a lot. Life on campus has been pretty much undisrupted thus far.) Holy shitballs do none of you remember past, like, last year? Gulf War? Iraq War? WTO? WE HOSTED THE G20 IN THIS VERY CITY NOT 5 YEARS AGO. No? Nothing? McFly?

I'm not usually a wake up sheeple kind of person but christ on a cracker, pay attention.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:23 PM on November 14, 2016 [29 favorites]


Oh, yeah, I know the deplaning thing has already been happening, but it's going to get a lot more prevalent and I suspect more acceptable by passive trumpies.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:23 PM on November 14, 2016


The FBI would like you to know that reported hate crimes were up 7% in 2015, an increase of 67% for attacks against Muslim Americans and a sharp increase in attacks against transgender people. Many such crimes go unreported.
posted by zachlipton at 12:25 PM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


WE HOSTED THE G20 IN THIS VERY CITY NOT 5 YEARS AGO.

G20 was 2009 so actually seven.
posted by Talez at 12:26 PM on November 14, 2016


[Feels like this is sort of going around in circles and verging again into relitigating primary stuff; Rock 'em Sock 'em, snuffleupagus, please go ahead and let this be at this point.]
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:26 PM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


Dems need to attract more high-information voters than Republicans (or something like that, I haven't pieced together how it would work yet).

Or, perhaps what I mean is that Dems can't reach to the easy racist dogwhistle kinds of arguments that Republicans can. Both for moral reasons (it's wrong) and for practical reasons (it's could alienate other important constituencies).

So it might actually be harder for Democrats to appeal to white working class voters, specifically, than it is for Republicans, because Dems can't use racism as a tool.

No matter how it works, I think that focusing on the fact that it's not fair to dems (or not fair to Clinton specifically) is fine, but not really something that counters the idea that Clinton did not successfully thread this particular needle. It might have been an unfair standard but if it's the standard, it needs to be met if it can be met without giving up something more important (like a strong anti-racism stance).
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 12:26 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


G20 was 2009 so actually seven.

lol time flies when you're having fun!
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:28 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Male Trump Supporter Sucker-Punches Woman Who Disagrees With Him At Brooklyn Restaurant

But you know. Just another election, Dems are sore losers, business as usual, things will be back to normal in no time. I'm sure we just didn't try hard enough to reach out to this guy, we need to be more inclusive and listen more.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 12:28 PM on November 14, 2016 [44 favorites]


Every hour I spend trying to convince my dad to see women and POC as humans could be spent calling legislators, or registering voters, or driving people to the DMV to get ID, or escorting patients at Planned Parenthood. I'm not saying talking to Trump supporters is useless, but I find it to be an inefficient use of my time

The thing is, all those things you listed that you would rather be doing are things that POC, physically in more danger than you, would also rather be doing, and have more physical safety needs around doing instead. White people, however, are the ones who are safest when having those conversations around other people seeing POC as human, and these conversations absolutely have to be done. Do you think that a world where 51% of the vote is safe for POC, but 49% are okay with still hating them, is a world it's safe for me or my kids to live in? Do you think that would make it okay to sit back and relax?

Let the POC do the registration, the driving, the calling. White people, talk to your families. You are the best positioned to do so, are the safest, and have the best chance of success.
posted by corb at 12:30 PM on November 14, 2016 [24 favorites]


Male Trump Supporter Sucker-Punches Woman Who Disagrees With Him At Brooklyn Restaurant

something something economic suffering
posted by entropicamericana at 12:30 PM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]




Male Trump Supporter Sucker-Punches Woman Who Disagrees With Him At Brooklyn Restaurant


Wow, I have been to that place many times. It's not out in Bensonhurst or something, it's right in tony gentrified Brooklyn
posted by zutalors! at 12:30 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Today a co-worker told me of how, somewhere in the suburbs around Philly, in a largely deserted gas station, a guy said because she had taken the gas pump that he was intending to use, was that she was "a Mexican bitch."

This woman, who is my hero today, said she asked him what he had said.

"You heard me," he said.

Then she laughed and laughed and laughed, because she had been in her car reading about how the idea that we were fooling ourselves terribly by saying that we live in "post racial" times.

He did this, he said this vile thing, because he had to wait a minute to gas up his car.

BTW she's not even Mexican. She's of African-Anglo ancestry.

And my thing today is this: I am going to get arrested as many times as I can this year in peaceful protests. I want, no some part of me NEEDS for a cop to shackle me and drag me out of my wheelchair.

Because I need to fight, goddamnit.

Also Bernie needs to STFU
posted by angrycat at 12:31 PM on November 14, 2016 [36 favorites]


Wait, what, the party that had the most progressive party platform ever is somehow against the Working Class?

[...] Some people see the whole long list of platform planks you listed and think "more regulations and taxes and I'll be worse off." Some of that is because they've been fed that message by a GOP propaganda machine and their bosses for decades. Some of it is because Democrats don't have a great economic message for people who don't care about the minimum wage because they make a fair bit more than it, but still haven't received a real raise in ages. Some of it is because they have employer-sponsored healthcare and so blame the premium increases they see on Obamacare, forgetting that they weren't new and have actually slowed down. And some of it is just a cultural thing involving out of touch elites.


Thank you, zachlipton. About as succinctly as it could be put.
posted by philip-random at 12:32 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Arguing the small scale tactics of the last election is a moot point now anyway.

Yes and no.

I think that the anti-economic-populist message from the Clinton camp was a major tactic and a major mistake. And I would hope that it's not repeated in downticket elections two years from now, especially because I see the two directions Dems can take as being:

1) become less vocally protective of minority groups, or
2) become more appealing on economic/class lines

I don't think they have to do both at the same time. I do not want Dem politicians to go backwards on support for Muslim civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights, women's rights. I would rather they go much much harder to appeal to voters on economic/class lines.

In other words, if bigots have to choose between their bigotry and their money, I think they will choose their money. But it has to be a lot of money and it has to be made clear to them that that is their choice. We need to dream big about what Dems can do for the working class/poor/precarious middle class, and we need to stop calling it a dream.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 12:33 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Starting to think they want to "drain the swamp" to find the bodies to fill their administration.
posted by drezdn at 12:34 PM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


that's been happening for years

and like half the time they're sikh or jain, or like, a mexican guy wearing a scarf because it's fucking cold on planes

or that italian guy who was absentmindedly doodling math equations on his way to prolly win a fields medal or something and a white lady said she saw him writing a terrorism

ugh everything is so terrible
posted by poffin boffin at 12:35 PM on November 14, 2016 [23 favorites]


One of the reasons why [Trump] won is that he's so slippery and self-contradictory

He's training us. He's showing us he has a good side and a bad side -- and wouldn't we rather be on his good side? He is training us to approach him deferentially and to be grateful for the least bit of humanity.
posted by dmh at 12:35 PM on November 14, 2016 [66 favorites]


I'm just nervously expecting lots of "we had to put the nice Muslim (or dark, close enough, shrug) family off the plane because a trumpie was nervous about other people" stories to start dropping soon.

that's been happening for years


That's what a lot of people talking about "Muslim ID laws" are missing.

You don't need new laws, generally. Things like that would come at the end of the process. You just need prejudice to be a little more tolerable, for people to be less willing (or more afraid) to speak up about it, for complaints to be more readily ignored. The discretionary approaches by authority - regular police, border police, immigration officials - are prime places for this, but the attitude can permeate all interactions. After a while, the people affected will learn that it's not even worth speaking up. To the extent that this isn't already normal (and for a lot of people in a lot of places, it is) it's something that was totally normal in living memory.

So it won't be a law that says "black people can't drive at night". It will just be a fact that police shootings are poorly investigated, rarely prosecuted, and hardly ever result in a conviction. You say that's the way things are already? Well, yes. That's how it's going to be.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:35 PM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


He's training us. He's showing us he has a good side and a bad side -- and wouldn't we rather be on his good side? He is training us to approach him deferentially and to be grateful for the least bit of humanity.

Jesus, that's a chilling thought. He's approaching the nation the way an abuser approaches his victim. I'm gonna quote this.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:39 PM on November 14, 2016 [32 favorites]


There are a bunch of cowardly Trump voters that seem to be using all sorts of violence (both direct and indirect) as a way of getting back at their SJW oppressors.

And it's typically done either with a mob or done to obviously easy to intimidate victims.

These bullies depend on other white males to either condone or stay passive. If you see these bullies target disadvantaged populations for violence and harassment get up and challenge them. Invariably most of them will back down although some might try to escalate.

As long as we don't allow for the normalization of violence against disadvantaged populations we can continue to push them back into the dark corners.
posted by vuron at 12:40 PM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Jesus, that's a chilling thought. He's approaching the nation the way an abuser approaches his victim.

Well yeah. The gaslighting was kind of a giveaway.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:42 PM on November 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


What Canada Thinks Of You Threatening To Move There

Now, if you're a trans person or a Muslim or someone else who feels legitimately threatened by America's shifting political climate, or if you're terrified about the prospect of losing lifesaving health coverage, you'll find that Canada is a welcoming country. [...] But for everyone else -- and I really apologize for how harsh this is going to be -- Canada is not your fucking safety school.
posted by philip-random at 12:42 PM on November 14, 2016 [24 favorites]


Dare I say that the Democratic Party (and individuals inside and outside the party) need to embrace a diversity of tactics? Maybe we need to be, in a certain sense, all things to all people? The anti-Trump Popular Front can sheepdog white racists into anti-Trumpism by talking economics, while also working to win back voting rights for PoC, while also elevating the leadership of women and PoC, while also catering to "moderate" Republican-identified people with a line stressing "genuine conservatism" and Trump's betrayal of same?

We have no shared heroes, no shared agenda, and no shared message. All we have is one common goal.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:44 PM on November 14, 2016 [21 favorites]


everything he does is classic serial abuser shit. the whole "says a horrible thing/makes a horrible threat and then flatly denies that it ever happened, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary" is textbook abusive gaslighting that is very very familiar to a whole lot of people, women in particular.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:44 PM on November 14, 2016 [62 favorites]


White people, talk to your families. You are the best positioned to do so, are the safest, and have the best chance of success.

I agree with you. But, for die-hard Trump supporters it literally will not work. You cannot make a sociopath have empathy. There is no getting through to the Steve Bannons of the world. He's not a unicorn; thousands of Trump voters are just like him. Yes, there are a lot of people who voted for Trump who could potentially be reached. Don't assume all of them can be. Some people have abusive sociopaths for parents. If someone doesn't care about their own child's wellbeing or emotions it's going to be hard for that person to understand why they should care about someone else's children.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:48 PM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


I'm white but I literally don't know anyone who voted Trump, or at least not anyone who admits it (woot woot liberal bubble) so unless someone wants to start a Rent-A-Pinko service to evangelize to racists over dinner (will there be mashed potatoes? call me!) I'd rather focus my energies on being of whatever assistance I can to local marginalized and vulnerable communities.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:49 PM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


So I'm only dipping into this thread to make this comment as the current state of things is stressful enough without following along a 750+ comment post (though I may pop in later to see if there are any comments); and I'm only posting this as an observation and to share some, frustration, I guess?

I contacted my Senator today to express concern on the selection of Steve Bannon as chief strategist, using the strategy laid out at https://storify.com/editoremilye/i-worked-for-congress-for-six-years I was a little nervous so I typed up a statement to use for notes, and then called the local (state) office. A young lady answered and I introduced myself and launched into my spiel. Shen mostly reponded with "uh huh, okay" and then said "the Senator has no involvement with Administration staff Selection" I countered with "okay, well, can you pass on that I'd like to see the Senator "join Senator Harry Reid in denouncing this choice" and "publicly oppose a white supremacist from holding a position in the White House". She responded with "okay, I guess we'll pass on the message"

Frustrated, I called my Senator's Washington D.C. office, and got another young lady on the line. I gave the same speech, including acknowledging that the Senator has no direct involvement but taking a public stand would be appreciated. She, also, said "we will pass on your message"

Since I had typed up the notes, I did a bit of editing and sent the same statement off through the contact form on his website.

I share this as the whole experience felt a little disjointed, the message fell on somewhat deaf ears (or if not deaf, then uninterested ears) and that the message delivered won't convey my worry and concern about the direction things are going.

I will continue to pressure my Senator and Representative, but the experience really wasn't anything like I expected. Just wanted to share, and maybe get some reassurance from fellow MeFis.
posted by jazon at 12:50 PM on November 14, 2016 [27 favorites]


Well yeah. The gaslighting was kind of a giveaway.

Unfortunately, there's a whole lot of folks (like me!) who have never experienced this directly and don't know what it looks like. We're generally privileged (and white, and male) enough that we just look at it askance, but don't recognize the pattern for what it is. Thanks to folks here for the pointing the pattern out explicitly; I'm going to take that and use it on other folks who also don't make the connection right away.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:51 PM on November 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


I rather like what this Irish Politician said. Pity there aren't more politicians round the world like him.
posted by adamvasco at 12:51 PM on November 14, 2016


Unfortunately, there's a whole lot of folks (like me!) who have never experienced this directly and don't know what it looks like. We're generally privileged (and white, and male) enough that we just look at it askance, but don't recognize the pattern for what it is.

and a lot of us are told "this is what power and confidence looks like; this is the way to comport yourself if you want to be successful in life; this is how you treat women if you want to be attractive to them"
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:54 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


He's training us. He's showing us he has a good side and a bad side -- and wouldn't we rather be on his good side? He is training us to approach him deferentially and to be grateful for the least bit of humanity.

You guys remember back in the halcyon summer when we thought Trump couldn't get elected, how his people were threatening #NeverTrump delegates who signed the petitions by saying "Trump will retaliate against your state" and we thought it was ridiculous because he would never get elected and who would do that anyway?

Yeeeeeeeah, about that....
posted by corb at 12:54 PM on November 14, 2016 [35 favorites]


There are a bunch of cowardly Trump voters that seem to be using all sorts of violence (both direct and indirect) as a way of getting back at their SJW oppressors.

I think the internet has largely failed as a medium for political discussion. I think some social justice discourse is a shit-show of flamewars over largely symbolic problems. But ...

1. Growing harassment is a problem overall. The alt-right is notorious for it.

2. I'm not going give up on LGBTQ politics because some overly-earnest person got in my virtual face over that Q or my use of the word "biphobia."

3. Milo and Thiel IMO are pretty clearly following the example of Sullivan of building careers blatant self-interest and trolling.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:56 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I rather like what this Irish Politician said. Pity there aren't more politicians round the world like him.

Video not available.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:59 PM on November 14, 2016


Thank you, zachlipton. About as succinctly as it could be put.

Well thanks. I do think it points to a particular blind spot, that when people say "well what about WWC voters?" we point to a laundry list of policies that many such voters categorically reject as unhelpful if not condescending to them. Continuing to tell the people who just voted to repeal the ACA "but we gave you Obamacare, we're here to help you" is not an effective messaging strategy, especially not when every Democratic policy is instantly demonized as a socialist handout job killer as we all bow down in service to the all-mighty Job Creators. (When the hell did "bosses," who nobody likes, get re-branded as job creators anyway? It goes back at least to Nixon in the 50s.)

We keep teeing up big lists of policy and are getting shouted out of entire states for it. We shouldn't abandon those policies, they're largely good ones, but we can't keep marching into MI and OH with the same message and the same list of stuff anymore.
posted by zachlipton at 1:00 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


We keep teeing up big lists of policy and are getting shouted out of entire states for it. We shouldn't abandon those policies, they're largely good ones, but we can't keep marching into MI and OH with the same message and the same list of stuff anymore.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is the uneven demographic impact of depopulation and migration. Not like, post-Rome empty walls depopulation (although there are places in Detroit...) but, I mean -- you can't throw a pebble here in Chicago without hitting a Michigander or an Ohioan, many of whom moved here during and after the Great Recession (I'm one of them). In some ways the Midwest didn't get much redder (it did to some extent, of course) between '08 and now, but there was a significant cohort of people who moved away either to Chicago or to the South or the coasts.

And I would bet we were disproportionately left-of center young people, maybe disproportionately POC as well. In the great firing squad that is this week, I volunteer as symbolic hourly sacrifice for whatever timeslot is available.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:08 PM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


A WaPo blog comes to an interesting conclusion: As it turns out, James Comey is a great scapegoat for Hillary Clinton’s loss
In national exit polling conducted after last Tuesday, 6-in-10 voters said they didn't think Trump was qualified to be president. And yet one-fifth of those voters voted for him anyway.

Part of that is because of people who thought that neither candidate was qualified to be president. That group was 14 percent of the electorate, according to exit polls -- and they picked Trump by a more than 4-to-1 margin.
Clinton's final campaign pretty much came down to "Trump is unqualified." Many people agreed. Her mistake, all our mistake really, is that everybody thought that meant they wouldn't vote for him. It didn't stop them.
posted by zachlipton at 1:08 PM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


I rather like what this Irish Politician said. Pity there aren't more politicians round the world like him.

Video not available.

Seanadóir (Senator) Aodhán Ó Ríordáin's video is available on facebook.
posted by knapah at 1:11 PM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]




The great strength of Republicans is making a stink. Why can't we? Rebecca Solnit is leading the push back against Bannon:

Here's a concrete action a friend of a friend proposed: Friends, let's seek a tactical victory this week. Let's try to stop the Bannon appointment. Presidents have had to back down before, for comparatively minor reasons. (Some of us are old enough to remember Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, Bill Clinton's two AG appointments, who had to withdraw for failing to pay Social Security taxes.) Let's not assume this is a done deal.
Let's do what we can to stop this. I have enclosed a list of actions below. Please feel free to add to this, especially those of you with organizing experience (some of whom I've tagged).

1) If you live in the US, call your Representatives and Senators and tell them this is unacceptable.

2) Paul Ryan is feigning ignorance again. Call his office at (202) 225-3031 and let him know that this is not ok. Same with Majority Leader McConnell, (202) 224-2541.

3) Call out the media when they report the Bannon appointment as a straight news story or refer to him as a "Breitbart executive" or a "provocateur," but don't call him what he is: a white supremacist, anti-semite, misogynist. Don't let them normalize.

4) Where protests are ongoing, make this the focus, with signs, chants, etc. Next week we can turn out attention to other things. But for now let's focus like a laser on this.

5) Let's get religious groups on board; maybe even mainstream business groups, like the Chamber of Commerce (202-659-6000).

6) Contact other people of influence--College presidents, high-profile coaches and anyone else who has a public megaphone.

We can do this. #stopbannon

posted by emjaybee at 1:16 PM on November 14, 2016 [31 favorites]


Trump's Transition Team Is Just Now Learning What a President Does
Immediately after Tuesday’s election, members of Trump’s team were given the task of readying the president-elect for his transition to the White House. But in the hours-long meetings that followed, outside advisors tasked with helping the team were horrified to learn just how little the people getting ready to run the federal government actually knew.

“They are blatantly unprepared and don’t really have any sort of plan at all so far,” our source told us. “The best illustration is there were no prepared policy statements or papers. Whereas in 2012 Romney’s team had hundreds of pages worth of federal policy transitions planned and written out, Trump’s team had (as of Wednesday) literally no pages.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:18 PM on November 14, 2016 [32 favorites]


Haha Trump stopped paying his policy bullpen back in like June and they all fucked off to more remunerative pastures.
posted by soren_lorensen at 1:19 PM on November 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


From the Deadspin article, and of surprise to nobody: “Also his team’s grasp of federal powers is fairly paltry. They had hours long meetings with outside advisors to figure out what could and couldn’t be delegated to Pence, what the president could do unilaterally, etc. One of Trump’s advisors said as recently as last weekend that they were planning on what to do after the election with the assumption that Trump would lose, and had no real plan for a victory.”
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:20 PM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]




soren_lorensen: Haha Trump stopped paying his policy bullpen back in like June and they all fucked off to more remunerative pastures.

Exactly, and this needs a [TRUE] tag, lest this sound like a joke to people who weren't obsessively following the election cycle. This is quite literally exactly what happened. Trump has no policy because he mismanaged and stiffed the team he hired to develop it for him.

WP: Inside the collapse of Trump’s D.C. policy shop

Vanity Fair: TRUMP CAMPAIGN STAFFERS QUIT AFTER NOT GETTING PAID
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 1:24 PM on November 14, 2016 [34 favorites]


boy. I'm remembering all the times I laughed and laughed at CJ's incompetence. We laughed, together. Didn't we, metafilter friends? Remember how we laughed at the JCPL? Oh, silly JCPL, now let's laugh at DJT's incompetence some more.

also, forgot to mention that the thing that really freaked me out about my colleague's being attacked with racial epithets? Remember how this lion-hearted woman laughed and laughed at him?

He got angry. He got angry. Which speaks to how lion-hearted this woman was. as a POC, maybe this is familiar to her, you laugh (laugh!) at somebody being vile, and they get ANGRY?

And right now I feel like Dave Chappelle is sort of sorrowfully laughing at my white lady bewilderment.
posted by angrycat at 1:26 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


At least some of professional wrestling is unwilling to stand behind Trumpism.

Styles is gone from CHIKARA too.
Mike Quackenbush's statement.
posted by sporkwort at 1:26 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]




and like half the time they're sikh or jain, or like, a mexican guy wearing a scarf because it's fucking cold on planes

or that italian guy who was absentmindedly doodling math equations on his way to prolly win a fields medal or something and a white lady said she saw him writing a terrorism

ugh everything is so terrible


Can't forget just talking 'not American'. Just watched a video of woman in SF who went off on another woman who was taking on her cellphone. I'll link if anyone wants to see it but it was pretty much what you can imagine. 'You're going to be deported now. You're stalking me with your 'talking'. And she went on and on.' Looks like other people started telling her to shut-up because she started saying and all of these other people are stalkers. She was also told pointedly that she was being filmed and it was going on the internet and just kept at it. The best part was when the woman she was harassing just calmly said 'I'm a citizen.' The woman looked taken aback for a moment before 'Well good for you then. You got in just under the wire'.
posted by Jalliah at 1:28 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Styles is gone from CHIKARA too.
Mike Quackenbush's statement.


I JUST POSTED THAT IN FANFARE HOW DARE YOU
[hits sporkwort with a chair]
posted by Etrigan at 1:30 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I will continue to pressure my Senator and Representative, but the experience really wasn't anything like I expected. Just wanted to share, and maybe get some reassurance from fellow MeFis.

Stay strong. "We will pass on your message" is basically exactly what you want to hear. There shouldn't be much back-and-forth.

I got the same "no involvement with staff selection" response on Twitter from a rando on our side. Like you, I learned today that it helps to make yourself clear that this is not about formal Congressional approval, it is about a representative going on record to send a message. If you have Democratic reps, this is about going on record against the normalization of white nationalism.

If you have Republican reps, take heart! "Uh huh, okay" is basically the worst possible thing staffers will tell you when you ask your senator to join with Harry Reid.

As corb said up above, it is helpful to mention that you share the same party affiliation as your senator/congressperson. If you can't explicitly say that, I found that you can at least present yourself as if you shared the same party affiliation. E.g., "The Republican party has always been the party of Lincoln, and that's why it will bother me so much to see Steve Bannon working in the White House. Although I understand that his appointment does not go through Congress, I'm asking Senator R to please go on the record in opposition to it. Steve Bannon is a white nationalist, and is not an appropriate choice for an inclusive party with high standards."

For real, thank you for calling. It does more for our cause than a hundred comments in this thread. I hope you will try it again!
posted by compartment at 1:30 PM on November 14, 2016 [37 favorites]


And I would bet we were disproportionately left-of center young people, maybe disproportionately POC as well. In the great firing squad that is this week, I volunteer as symbolic hourly sacrifice for whatever timeslot is available.

Y'all are good. Keep on moving out, and moving to Madison and Milwaukee and metro Detroit. Come 2020, these white-folks counties are gonna be a little less populated, and come 2024 MI, WI, and PA are getting hit with the reapportionment hammer. Maybe if enough of y'all move to metro Chicago you can keep IL from losing a seat.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:32 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can't forget just talking 'not American'.

them: you need to learn the language if you're gonna live here!
me: *looks right into the camera*
posted by poffin boffin at 1:36 PM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]




That press conference, can Obama be dictator for life?
posted by Talez at 1:38 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton's final campaign pretty much came down to "Trump is unqualified." Many people agreed. Her mistake, all our mistake really, is that everybody thought that meant they wouldn't vote for him. It didn't stop them.

Looking at the numbers of votes the last three Republican candidates got (McCain: 59,948,323; Romney: 60,933,504; Trump: 60,371,193) it seems, to me at least, to show that essentially the Republican vote is a constant block that will vote for their candidate no matter what, regardless of how terrifingly incompetent and staggeringly unpleasant they are.

Which suggests the Democratic campaigns probably shouldn't even bother trying to win the centre ground, or turn moderate Republican's to their cause, because they essentially don't exist, and that their real fight each election will be to get as many as possible of their own voters engaged enough to vote (for example some of the ten million Obama voters that seem to have evaporated over the years).

I know that's easier to type than actually do, obviously, and also even just admitting that there's this huge section of American society you can't and won't ever reach feels like a betrayal of liberal and progressive ideals and the idea of an inclusive society. But if 60 million people can bring themselves to vote for Trump despite, essentially, everything about him being against the supposed values the various factions of the Republican Party claim to hold dear, purely because he's their party's nominee, than you've got to basically look at it and say that there's nothing you could ever do, no candidate you could ever put up, that will cause them to change their mind.
posted by dng at 1:39 PM on November 14, 2016 [25 favorites]




D'oh. Maybe I shouldn't skim so much.
posted by ocschwar at 1:43 PM on November 14, 2016


The Daily Kos's Stephen Wolf: Republicans now dominate state government, with 32 legislatures and 33 governors
Following the 2014 midterm wave, Republicans dominated state legislatures at a rate not seen since the Civil War. Democrats had hoped to rebound in 2016, but thanks in part to Trump’s resilience and widespread Republican gerrymandering, they only made modest gains. Democrats flipped four chambers, but lost control of three, leaving Republicans in charge of 68 state legislative chambers and Democrats just 31.

The above map illustrates the balance of legislative power in state legislatures nationwide. Republicans control both chambers in 32 states, including 17 with veto-proof majorities. Those 32 states cover 61 percent of the U.S. population. Democrats, meanwhile, control the legislature in just 13 states, amounting to 28 percent of the country’s population; only four of those chambers have veto-proof majorities.

With a firm grip on the presidency, Congress, and soon the Supreme Court, Republicans have won more political power in 2016 than in any election since at least 1928, when Herbert Hoover was elected to the White House. Democrats now face a deep hole they need to climb out of to fight back against the coming reactionary policy shift of the pending Trump administration and its allied state governments.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:43 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I will continue to pressure my Senator and Representative, but the experience really wasn't anything like I expected. Just wanted to share, and maybe get some reassurance from fellow MeFis.

I also called my reps this morning. But I had a positive experience (but they're Dems, so more receptive to the message). I just had a short script to the effect of:

Me: Hi, I'd like to make a comment to [the Senator/etc] about Steve Bannon, is that something you can help me with?
Them: [either yes, or they transfer you]
Me: Ok great, My name is [name], I live in [state/county/town/whatevs] and I'd like to urge [the Senator/etc] to publicly denounce [or join Harry Reid in publicly denouncing] the appointment of Steve Bannon, a prominent white nationalist, as Chief Strategist to Donald Trump.
Them: Ok, we'll pass it on
Me: I'd like a response from [the Senator], if possible. [give email or mailing address, depending on what they want]. Thanks so much for your help!

I plan on using this script for my daily calls, tweaking as needed for the issue. I wrote down the names of the people who answered the phone at the local office, so I can keep track and establish a rapport (as I'll be calling them every day).
posted by melissasaurus at 1:44 PM on November 14, 2016 [115 favorites]


Trump has spoken by phone with Putin, Kremlin says

I'm so old I remember when we didn't find out about conversations between POTUS and world leaders from the Kremlin
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 1:44 PM on November 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


Don't take this as a rational suggestion, but maybe what the Democrats can do is to be really, really angry. I don't refer to the reasoned, more academic type of anger that exists in opinion pieces and newspapers; not even the productive anger that makes one inclined to call and send e-mails to their congresspeople. I'm referring to the formless, vindictive, indiscriminate anger that Trump supporters - particularly, online alt-right people - use.

They've gained recognition and support from a lot of people because anger feels right. They said : "There's something wrong in our country, and this is the set of issues and people that are causing it."-and people listened. People listened and became vindicted upon their belief because they feel angry.

I'm not an USian, but as someone whose parents and grandparents have been active in the underground left movement in a country that had a history of massacring and killing leftists at least until before 2000, those kind of anger sometimes is needed when the situation becomes intolerable. What do you do when the government kills its own citizens? Maybe in the U.S. it's not the killings that are perpetrated by the military, but indirect killings by policies and apathy and hate. So, faced with that, some of us hate, very deeply. And be angry. The kind of anger that makes people burn cars, confront bigots/exploitators physically, storm the government buildings, throw rocks and molotovs, whatever it takes - that lets people know that what has happened and still happening are monstrous, massively unjust, tyrannical and in the U.S. case, racist, bigoted and utterly absurd.

The alt-right and Trump supporters have already abandoned ethics in all manners of kind - in campaigning, in their news and in their online activities - and now escalate to violence in the streets, more overt discrimination in everyday life, etc to the point where POC and non-white people don't feel safe. Shouldn't people whom the hate is directed to, also others who support them, be furious? Not just trading barbs in family meetings, mind you.

They said don't do what your enemies have done to you. But why not? Drown them with hate back, anger and confront them when they attack. Don't just put symbols over one's clothes that primarily functions more as a feel-good trinket upon which one could be satisfied with their efforts to combat bigotry - no, but fight them physically whenever they act. Fuck moderation. I'm not saying to beat up Trump supporters without cause in the street, but when one has the gall to punch someone in the face, they already gives up the right to not be responded, in kind, back. It's about sending a message.

Speaking from my personal experience, as someone who is relatively young but is pretty deep into practical politics here, as much as I want rational discussions in which voters can vote for their own interest and be more informed and other things of that note, I realized a bit of time ago that anger is a very useful tool and using that is not dishonorable. And it's effective - just not that long ago we won an election using that kind of tactics.

I guess this is why it's great to see national demonstrations all over the U.S. these past few days - showing that people are restless, angry and not at all content with what has transpired. But that's not enough and when push comes to shove, would people of leftist persuasion take the arms, metaphorically and literally?
posted by tirta-yana at 1:50 PM on November 14, 2016 [15 favorites]




You know you are through the looking glass when this greentext is one of the most popular things on 4chan - and that mefi will agree with its sentiments (imgur link - no link to scum, no racism, sexism etc)
posted by lalochezia at 1:52 PM on November 14, 2016 [21 favorites]


I'm so old I remember when we didn't find out about conversations between POTUS and world leaders from the Kremlin

It's a weird pattern, RobotVoodooPower. When Trump and other world leaders have communicated, he seems to always let all the other side make the announcement and discuss the details. (He also has yet to hold a formal press conference since the election results, but he stopped doing that during the campaign.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:53 PM on November 14, 2016


really stupid procedural question: is the job that Bannon's taking the type of cabinet appointment that can be filibustered?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:58 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, I missed it, so. I don't know. Good? Let me say, rather, the worst yet. I missed her so much the last few weeks. Now she's gone forever. I hate this year, and I don't think I'm going to like the next one.
posted by Don Pepino at 2:01 PM on November 14, 2016


really stupid procedural question: is the job that Bannon's taking the type of cabinet appointment that can be filibustered?

No. It's not a cabinet appointment subject to confirmation, but an advisor, who can be pretty much anyone.

I suppose it would be moderately interesting to ask the legal hypothetical of what happens if Congress passes a law declaring that Bannon cannot be a government employee or something equally weird, but people would start screaming about separation of powers. Ultimately, the President is generally entitled to choose his own advisors.
posted by zachlipton at 2:01 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


No. And I'm almost happy he has it, because it makes getting impeachment fodder that much more likely and easy.
posted by ocschwar at 2:01 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, from the top two WaPo articles right now, we learn that:

1. Obama is reassuring everyone that NATO won't dissolve under rump: Meeting the press for first time since Trump’s win, Obama says new president-elect is committed to NATO, and

2. The Kremlin is reassuring everyone that rump is committed to improving relations w/ Russia: Trump, Putin agree in phone call to improve ‘unsatisfactory’ relations between their countries, Kremlin says.

I am really disturbed by the juxtaposition of those headlines... and the fact that everyone is apparently speaking for rump's foreign policy agenda but rump himself.
posted by Westringia F. at 2:02 PM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Yea Bannon is like professional buddy friend
posted by zutalors! at 2:03 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump has spoken by phone with Putin, Kremlin says

"I've never spoken with Putin."
[fake]
posted by kirkaracha at 2:05 PM on November 14, 2016


WaPo: If you voted for Trump because he’s ‘anti-establishment,’ guess what: You got conned

It's almost like he's a salesman!

We should be worried when Putin wants a particular person for President, right?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:05 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think theoretically the Congress could make Counselor to the President an advise and consent position (the Constitution allows them to vest appointment solely in the President for inferior officers), but I don't see it happening. It would also presumably only impact his official position, the President can listen to whatever advice he wants.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 2:07 PM on November 14, 2016


I am really disturbed by the juxtaposition of those headlines... and the fact that everyone is apparently speaking for rump's foreign policy agenda but rump himself.

We are in a power vacuum. It is a time of unbelievable uncertainty and there are very deep, core bedrock principles of our country being tested right now.

The transition of power is scary as fuck in normal years, this is completely fucking unprecedented.
posted by Annika Cicada at 2:07 PM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


um. Obama does know the man lies more then otherwise, right?

but then, this may be #1 on O's list of "preventing the collapse of the country." Shrieking doom and gloom to NATO about rump I guess wouldn't aid global security.

Can you imagine the trade-off Obama's had to make? "Okay, I won't be all public about the fact that Nazis are in the West Wing if there's the slightest chance that rump will call me to bounce this wacky notion of lobbing a stray nuke"

I mean, I agree I guess with that calculation but jeez I wonder if he's smoked at all.
posted by angrycat at 2:09 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


If people want to categorically put asterisks by exit poll data for now, then that really is fine, I am not being the least bit sarcastic. And yet...the story is pretty plain no more how many sources you consult. The narrative remains consistent, to a certain extent: Trump held traditional Republican demographics, whereas Clinton lagged behind Obama 2012 with regard to the youth vote and the non-white vote. Women generally preferred Clinton, but the difference wasn't all that striking when compared to, say, Romney vs. Obama. If the focus is on the Democrats as a multi-racial coalition, then a lot of work needs to be done. Regarding WWC outreach, a lot of it looks out outreach to many other people: skipping Wisconsin fucks you over on all fronts.

I mean, maybe the exit polls regarding Hispanic voters are flawed...but there isn't a whole lot of evidence that Hispanics, as a bloc, had been especially repulsed by Trump, or especially fond of Clinton, as compared with 2008 and 2012.

The biggest lessons for Dem leadership, IMNSHO: one, there are no firewalls, and two, Always Be Closing. You cannot assume that people will feel the way you do, will share your passion, etc.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:09 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


okay. so "stop Bannon" isn't a possibility.

Where's the first hill to fight on? What's the first thing that a Senate filibuster could conceivably block?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:09 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


will calling him 'rump' be even more effective that 'Drumpf'
posted by beerperson at 2:10 PM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


Thank you for that script, melissasaurus. It got me through phone calls to my senators' offices, one Republican and one centrist Democrat. Both went fine. We'll see if either publicly denounce Bannon.
posted by jedicus at 2:11 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh come on let me believe in that Joe Biden meme and enjoy it for a day
posted by angrycat at 2:11 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hillary Clinton: Are you fucking kidding me? [fake]
posted by Mchelly at 2:12 PM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


> We are in a power vacuum.

Ordinarily I would parse "power vacuum" as "absence of power" but it occurs to me that "thing that sucks with unimaginable force" works equally well.
posted by Westringia F. at 2:13 PM on November 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


I think expressing our opposition to Bannon to our elected officials is an important first "show of force" -- it's saying "we're here, we're ready to fight, please use your platform to amplify our voice." I fully expect Bannon to stay, but I want my reps to know that I'm not happy about it. I want them to know how I feel about every action that Trump takes. I want the Trump transition to be very uncomfortable for Congress and state governments.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:15 PM on November 14, 2016 [30 favorites]


I am really disturbed by the juxtaposition of those headlines... and the fact that everyone is apparently speaking for rump's foreign policy agenda but rump himself.

Trump's a snake-oil salesman out of his depth: He's going to tell his immediate interlocutor whatever they want to hear and then move on to the next meeting where he'll adjust his patter accordingly.

And that's not even accounting for his propensity for lying, which is so egregious that his own lawyers couldn't rely on him in one-on-one meetings:
In fact, one of those lawyers, New Jersey casino specialist Patrick McGahn, once described how he and Trump's fellow counsels always met with Trump in pairs because of Donald's propensity for lying. "We tried to do it with Donald always if we could, because Donald says certain things and then has a lack of memory."
Imagine how that's going to go down in sensitive negotiations of any kind, international or domestic.
posted by Doktor Zed at 2:16 PM on November 14, 2016 [17 favorites]




Contact Your Representatives
posted by PenDevil at 2:17 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]






Just came in to post a spark from Ursula K. Le Guin:
"We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings."
posted by weston at 2:18 PM on November 14, 2016 [26 favorites]


Actually this all seems very befitting of a monarchy changeover, down to the horrors involved and complete restructuring.
posted by corb at 2:20 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


William Kristol, and now also Glenn Beck, are against Bannon. I am not sure how, exactly to process this. 2016, I guess.
posted by Cookiebastard at 2:20 PM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


So there's that one really massive Harry Potter fanfiction that starts off okay but then gets kind of... awful... whatsitcalled, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.

One of the first things that the supergenius asshole Harry Potter in Methods of Rationality realizes is that if everyone else is avoiding using the name of He Who Must Not Be Named, he should probably avoid it too, cause he's in a magical world where the use of someone's name might trigger magical effects. In the real Harry Potter books, Potter says "Voldemort" left and right, just to prove how independent and rebellious he is — and it kind of bones him, since, yup, he's in a magical world where the use of a name can trigger effects, and it turns out Voldemort had rigged up a spell that basically allowed him to track all mentions of his name — a sort of wizarding grep set to search for the string "Voldemort." And so each time Potter rebelliously used the name, he was revealing his location to the name's bearer.

Back to the real world — I think the time for deforming his name to make funnies is past, but, well, I regret using his name in this thread. Not because I think it invites more surveillance — we're on the internet, everything is always already surveilled — but because it makes me sick at heart to use it.

Let's follow Michelle Obama's lead and just avoid using the name altogether. No deformations, no references to what his grandfather's name was before he changed it. Just avoid it. Everyone will know who you're talking about, anyway, because every conversation's going to be about him for a very, very long time.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:20 PM on November 14, 2016 [23 favorites]


but it occurs to me that "thing that sucks with unimaginable force" works equally well.

I know right, I typically think of power vacuum as "no assigned leader anymore, people are rushing in to take control" but in this case it's "dangerously ill-prepared and incompetent leader, people are moving in to take control" that is creating the current power vacuum.
posted by Annika Cicada at 2:20 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Imagine how that's going to go down in sensitive negotiations of any kind, international or domestic.

According to one account, Gulf War I started partly because the Bush administration sent mixed messages to Iraq over U.S. willingness intervene with Kuwait, the verdict being that Gulf War I may have been avoidable if U.S. diplomats had shot down Hussein's hypothetical trial balloon while it was still hypothetical.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 2:21 PM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


will calling him 'rump' be even more effective that 'Drumpf'

Calling him 'Trump' will be more effective than either, because it indicates you're an adult who argues rationally.
posted by rocket88 at 2:24 PM on November 14, 2016 [29 favorites]


I actually think the worst thing I can call him is "President Trump", because there is a pretty serious bathetic drop there at the end
posted by thelonius at 2:25 PM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]




Calling him 'Trump' will be more effective than either, because it indicates you're an adult who argues rationally.

I'mma keep going with "President-elect Poopie-face" for a bit anyway.
posted by Cookiebastard at 2:29 PM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Apparently the Trump folks are asking how his children (you know, the ones who are supposed to be off running the business) can get top secret security clearances.

But come on and read My Fair Trump:
Obama: (finishes a long PowerPoint as Biden hums the last bars of “Ashokan Farewell”) … and that was what Abraham Lincoln did.
Trump: A civil war, huh?
Obama: Yes.
Trump: So that’s where those little red flags come from, with the blue X’s.
Obama: Yes. And that is why they have such a complex racist history.
Trump: I thought it was, like, a country music thing.
Obama: (too cheerfully) Never too late to learn!
Trump: (beat) Who was Alexander Hamilton, by the way? I keep hearing his name. Was he some sort of a rapper?
Obama: He was the first secretary of the treasury.
Trump: (writes, in big squiggly letters) Secretary. Of. The. Treasury.
Obama: That’s another Cabinet post you’re going to need to fill.
Trump: Not another one.
Obama: You have to fill ALL of them.
Trump: You’re kidding me.
Obama: Nope.
Trump: Gosh.
Obama: Yup.
Trump: Okay. (beat) How many of them are there?
Obama sighs and hands Biden $50.
posted by zachlipton at 2:29 PM on November 14, 2016 [44 favorites]


Thanks for the script, melissasaurus, I'll use it next time.

The Senator I called was a Democrat, which is why the cool response was so odd for me. Next time I'll be better prepared. Thanks to the reassurances, I'll keep it up (and maybe even try to call my Republican Senator as well).
posted by jazon at 2:34 PM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


I want to address something, in the talking-to-your-relatives thing; I've seen in more than one place, in response to liberals saying "Not my president!" other people saying "Now you know how WE felt for 8 years!"

And I don't have a comeback because while I can point to very concrete things this presidency will do to my country that are bad, they point to wholly illusory (or completely misunderstood) things the bad black President man did to their country. And I'm sure they think I'm as wrong about their guy as they are about mine.

How do I pierce that backwards mirror/my truth is same as yours logic? Or get past it at least?

I mean, Obama was not a perfect president, and I would always agree with that, but the false-equivalency thing is a nearly bulletproof argument dodge. I say X bad thing their guy admits to doing, they throw out X bad thing Breitbart said Obama did.

I know there's no magic bullet to win people over, but I want to disrupt this argumentative gambit somehow. I never took debate or rhetoric, so if anyone has some idea, I'd appreciate it.
posted by emjaybee at 2:35 PM on November 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


Whereas in 2012 Romney’s team had hundreds of pages worth of federal policy transitions planned and written out, Trump’s team had (as of Wednesday) literally no pages.

This is the kind of thing that gives me hope. There's going to be a lot of normalizing of bullying, a lot of cruelty, a lot of threats... but they don't actually have a plan to make any changes, and all that takes time. There is no big Binder Of All The Laws with "OBAMACARE" on page 437 that he can just tear out and throw away.

As I gather from some reports, they weren't even aware they had to hire their entire set of support staff. So they'll need to be conducting interviews and doing background checks on top of doing policy work.

My daughter recommends flooding their "help wanted" section with applications. Every liberal resume they have to wade through is one more chance that they get tired and just hire the next three people who have experience in the topic they're looking for.

Let's follow Michelle Obama's lead and just avoid using the name altogether.

This is my plan. Unless I'm quoting something, I can call him "the president-elect" or "the Republican candidate" or something like that. Later, I can call him "the president" - because as much as he wanted the title, he wanted it attached to his name. He doesn't just want to be the 45th guy to have the most stressful job in the country.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 2:37 PM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


But come on and read My Fair Trump:

I knew this was gonna be Alexandra Petri before I even clicked on it and I am reminded that all good in this world is not yet extinguished.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:37 PM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


henceforth, the big orange talking yam shall be known to me as Fondle Rump.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 2:39 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


No matter how you choose to refer to him in the future, just remember to always append 'Loser of the Popular Vote' on there somewhere.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:39 PM on November 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


always append 'Loser of the Popular Vote' on there somewhere.

The beautiful thing here is, if you append that to nothing, you can just call him "Loser of the Popular Vote".
posted by Annika Cicada at 2:41 PM on November 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


emjaybee, I have the same problem. I have to remind myself constantly that it's not worth arguing with my mom: anything I say breezes through her brain but whatever poppycock her bosses bleat out sticks. It just pains me when she says crap like "But I thought George Bush was FOR stem cell research!" or as of yesterday, "Why does Obamacare have to be so expensive? Why can't it be cheap?" She asks me to point out facts, I do, she blows them off or forgets them. Not to mention, "Hillary LIES! Why can't we have someone who's honest?" Right-oh, and Trump is the essence of truth now? She didn't vote for and doesn't like Trump, but now she's all, "Give him a chance!"

It's so frustrating because for once she didn't vote Republican and then somehow I keep thinking "oh, I can talk to her about this like a normal person," but then she's all, "I don't get why the relatives are still crying after DAYS." And when I try to say things like "think of how many people are gonna DIE with no health insurance," I get that crap parroted from her bosses about how expensive it was.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:41 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


I want to address something, in the talking-to-your-relatives thing; I've seen in more than one place, in response to liberals saying "Not my president!" other people saying "Now you know how WE felt for 8 years!"

If all #notmypresident means is "I really think it was a bad idea to elect Trump", then maybe just stick to saying that and saying what policies Trump supports that you think are a bad idea, and what policies the people he seems to trust have that are bad ideas. I really don't think you can avoid the obvious reply of "now you know how we felt for the last 8 years", or defeat it by showing how the circumstances aren't parallel if what you lead with is an obviously untrue slogan that seems to be disregard reality.
posted by skewed at 2:43 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


What if we split the difference. How about we talk to people who did vote for Obama, at one or both elections, but either didn't vote for Clinton or didn't vote at all this year? Maybe that'd be more fruitful, and less frustrating.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:44 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


LPV! One letter off from HPV!
posted by angrycat at 2:45 PM on November 14, 2016


"Now you know how WE felt for 8 years!"
And I don't have a comeback ... How do I pierce that backwards mirror/my truth is same as yours logic? Or get past it at least?


Possible talking points:
Did Obama say it was okay to grab women by the pussy? What did he say that you thought was that offensive? The president elect is on record saying, "Women... you have to treat them like shit." What group did Obama say that about?

Did Obama call any of your friends rapists? What group did he say that about?

Did Obama call assault and battery (attacks on protesters at rallies) "passionate" and say he wished there were more of it?

When did Obama advocate torture? Which race did he say shouldn't be handling his money? What medical procedures did Obama try to ban?

Get specific. Take any frightening statement or action of the pres-elect, and ask when Obama said the same thing, or something equivalent.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 2:46 PM on November 14, 2016 [33 favorites]


I really don't think you can avoid the obvious reply of "now you know how we felt for the last 8 years", or defeat it by showing how the circumstances aren't parallel if what you lead with is an obviously untrue slogan that seems to be disregard reality.

I agree with this. Getting into specifics is the discussion you want to have. If the conversation remains "I like this guy/well I like this guy" it doesn't go anywhere. Anytime they try to divert by bringing up Obama or Clinton, remind them "he's not going to be president anymore and she never will be, so we have to talk about Trump."

I especially encourage you to go directly to topics that you know they feel strongly about - like Paul Ryan's Medicare plans if that impacts them or people they care about.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:46 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


How about reminding them that at no point did Obama attempt to voucherize Medicare? Follow up by asking them where they plan to get $20,000 a year, the estimated out of pocket amount for seniors once Medicare is voucherized.

That's going to be my talking point going forward, at least until I get to my late sixties/early seventies and have to shoot myself because I can no longer physically work but can't afford to retire.
posted by Frowner at 2:49 PM on November 14, 2016 [27 favorites]


The Jewish Vote 2016
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:49 PM on November 14, 2016


The thing I keep thinking about is that what my Mom was afraid of with Obama was all fictional -

He's a secret Muslim
He's the antichrist
His healthcare plan will lead to death panels

So I think I'll try to gently point out that I'm worried about stuff the Republican candidate (loser of the popular vote) actually said he would do and said he believes.
posted by hilaryjade at 2:50 PM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


How about...'when the kkk has a victory parade cuz your guy wins maybe it's just time to shut the fuck up and reflect a little.'
posted by ian1977 at 2:52 PM on November 14, 2016 [34 favorites]


Hamilton Nolan: What It's Like To Wake Up And Find Yourself Working For Donald Trump:
We obtained the following email, which a State Department official working abroad sent to some colleagues last week, after the results of the election became clear. Though it is only one voice, it is illuminating.
Although you signed up to be foreign service officers no matter which party took power (and there undoubtedly would have been a time when the Republicans held the White House), you didn’t sign up for the ignorant, misogynistic, homophobic, racist and fascist bullshit that Trump promulgated during his campaign.
posted by palindromic at 2:52 PM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


How about...'when the kkk has a victory parade cuz your guy wins maybe it's just time to shut the fuck up and reflect a little.'

3 hours later, a link to an article about Robert Byrd shows up in your inbox
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:55 PM on November 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


He's a secret Muslim
He's the antichrist
His healthcare plan will lead to death panels


Obama told the truth and they insisted he was lying.
Trump says what he believes and they insist he is lying.

Thus, the secret is to be like George Costanza and say the opposite of what you actually mean and then they'll believe what you're not saying.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:55 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I want to address something, in the talking-to-your-relatives thing; I've seen in more than one place, in response to liberals saying "Not my president!" other people saying "Now you know how WE felt for 8 years!"

I've taken to just ignoring my trumpy relatives, but they're all aunts and uncles and cousins I don't have to see in person.

You could try "The difference is that I'm still proud of a lot of things Obama did, and proud of voting for him, but you're going to regret your vote when he doesn't bring the jobs back or do any of the other things he promised you, and you're probably going to be ashamed of voting for him ten years from now."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:55 PM on November 14, 2016


You don't have to defend Obama or Clinton to talk about why you don't like Trump. "But you did it first / you also did it" is a really common rhetorical move. It indicates that the person feels:


1) This is about whose "team" is right, and only one team can be right
2) You are on one of the "teams" and they are on an opposing team

In other words, they are treating the conversation like a zero-sum game. The friendly way to counter it is to gently counter the assumption that you're on different and incompatible teams. You have to create a common ground where you can both be right.

For example, you can say things like "I agree, sometimes Clinton didn't seem very honest to a lot of people. That was frustrating to me, too, because I really believe in [actual important issue] but I don't think she represented it as well as she could have. We're on the same page about that for sure. But I do think that the overall issue is important even though she's not my favorite."

The issue here is that the election isn't going to happen again. If you're trying to convince people they shouldn't have voted how they did, you'll have an uphill climb because voting is a one-side-or-the-other thing. Instead, focus on getting support on issues and suggesting that now that Trump is president, it's worth pushing him on the issues because, after all, he is our president and we want him to do the best job he can.

I think convincing people that they were wrong to support Trump is a waste of time and effort but I think convincing them that he and his staff are wrong on the issues is very doable, if you don't get bogged down in trying to make them feel bad about the election.

I also think that if you're an ally, trying to get people to sympathize with your fear or pain around the topic is really low-priority, politically, and something worth dealing with on your own. It's going to make people defensive and it's not like they can go back and change their vote. Instead, focus on positive things that they can do --- again, like pushing Trump on issues.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 2:56 PM on November 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


You could try "The difference is that I'm still proud of a lot of things Obama did, and proud of voting for him, but you're going to regret your vote when he doesn't bring the jobs back or do any of the other things he promised you, and you're probably going to be ashamed of voting for him ten years from now."

this is like the opposite of something that will be helpful or work. It will make them dig in deeper in order to keep from feeling like you're correct in shaming them. it will encourage them to entrench their support for Trump as a long-term personality characteristic and not as a one time occurrence that does not commit them to continued support.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 2:58 PM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


3 hours later, a link to an article about Robert Byrd shows up in your inbox


Fucking EXACTLY, mentioning that David Duke/the KKK supports Trump is going to get you absolutely NOWHERE with anyone who wasn't already convinced. This is why you find a set of things that Trump has specifically promised or supported, and talk about why you don't like that. Unless it's a pro-choice issue, or your relatives are actual white nationalists, the stuff that Trump has said isn't very palatable even to mainline conservatives. Now that the democrats have lost, you don't have to defend them, you can just point out what you don't like about what the Republicans have actually specifically said they're doing. And if your relatives still say that all that is still better than the democrats, you can be comfortable saying it's not a matter of policy then, it's just a matter of teams.
posted by skewed at 3:08 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bottom line is that, policy aside, racism aside, Trump called for foreign hackers to meddle in our election, advocated for political violence, and pointedly refused to respect the outcome of the election if it wasn't in his favor. None of these can be valid positions in a free and democratic country.

He is a mortal threat to democracy and freedom.
posted by Zalzidrax at 3:09 PM on November 14, 2016 [27 favorites]


On some platforms (like tumblr and twitter) typing "Trump" is very much like saying Voldemort, because there are people tracking tags and doing searches and if they see someone they wanna fight with they will definitely do so. Any hot-button thing like Gamergate will have troll brigades. My experience of this is with fandom. It's common to obfuscate the names of certain ships or shows, like "The 1OO" instead of "The 100" or just inserting extra characters like "cl////exa".

So, in some contexts, obfuscating our president-elect's name has a practical defensive reason. Altho using "Drumpf" is both ineffective (because it's common enough that they'll search it) and vaguely xenophobic, so go ahead and call that out.

I have been calling him things like "Dingo Trap" because I don't want to cede any psychological space to him ... but I'm realizing that it's also a form of dehumanization. I'll think on that.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 3:09 PM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


"I don't get why the relatives are still crying after DAYS." And when I try to say things like "think of how many people are gonna DIE with no health insurance," I get that crap parroted from her bosses about how expensive it was.

So, I've seen people push back by giving people an out on a personal level: "You may not be racist, but Trump has said racist things. Even if you don't think the worst will come to pass, I think it's understandable that people are frightened by what he's said."

Whenever people complain about health insurance cost with anecdota, I give it right back to them and say how my family and friends have directly benefitted from it.

The people complaining about protestors, point out how he lost the popular vote. When they extol the virtues of the electoral college, I simply state that it's something I think reasonable people can disagree on, that it seems unfair to me that the relative weight of a voter in Wyoming can be worth so much more than a Californian simply because of population density.

It's not about changing their minds right now, but about giving a competing narrative that may give them a twinge of doubt.
posted by ghost phoneme at 3:13 PM on November 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


> On some platforms (like tumblr and twitter) typing his name is very much like saying Voldemort, because there are people tracking tags and doing searches and if they see someone they wanna fight with they will definitely do so.

God, I knew that, but I sort of had blocked it out. To some extent he doesn't even need the state surveillance apparatus, because he's got surveillance Freikorps working for him round the clock.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:13 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


I've just opted to call Trump and his... staff/associates/cronies the new administration. Takes a lot of cooks to set this place on fire.
posted by lineofsight at 3:14 PM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


the lesson I took away from the Bush years is that arguing with your conservative relatives about how awful the administration is gets you absolutely fucking nowhere

but, give 'em a fucked up Iraq War and a Hurricane Katrina and eventually they'll come around on their own, sorta

so, um

~it gets better, but not really~
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:15 PM on November 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


I have been calling him things like "Dingo Trap" because I don't want to cede any psychological space to him ... but I'm realizing that it's also a form of dehumanization. I'll think on that.

I understand that impulse, I have it myself, but I'd ask that you consider how easy it is to dismiss people who engage in name-calling, especially of the sort that involves silly/mean changes to someone's name. I mean, how quickly would you tune out someone who was constantly referring to the democrap party, or Hitlery Clinton? I just think that it makes it so easy to dismiss what might otherwise be intelligent discussion as the rambling of the crazy left.
posted by skewed at 3:16 PM on November 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


Er, I should say, I don't have direct experience of the troll brigades in regard to Tromp. I'm extrapolating from my experience in fandom - I assume they're happening. And I assume many other people are making the same extrapolation.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 3:16 PM on November 14, 2016


Google’s top news link for ‘final election results’ goes to a fake news site with false numbers (WaPo)

This is another thing on the heap of possibly confirmation biasy situations online where I just feel like the internet rolled over a checkpoint sometime in 2016 where there is just so much fake shit out there it's rendering time spent online useless.

The way I imagine it, is how our friends and relatives who spend little time online must have viewed the internet. A vast wasteland full of text where unknowable truths and lies just fly about. There's no way to really know the truth of anything, so nothing matters.

I put a comment in an election thread that was from a fake account. It got quickly pointed out to me and I removed it. It has happened to another person I know who has been online for decades as well. Prominent journalists are retweeting fake information. Probably because it's just so plentiful, and it just seems like people are going out of their way to make it look legitimate for some stupid reason. Like humans actively working against themselves to ruin possibly the greatest shared and widely available tool for knowledge and education across the spectrum.

I did some searches on Google today and one was a search for some date information, and the top result was some bootleg website with a bunch of nonsense attached to the information I was looking for. Something happened with Google's algorithms.

Shit, something happened with America's algorithms. If I was a cartoonist I would conceptualize it as a giant mass of sludge with the word "ignorance" on the side and have it lurching up the sides of buildings with the tallest labeled 'summit of man's knowledge'. 60 minutes is done. Journalism is now like a mighty title for a no longer popular video game console. It doesn't matter how great it is, it's not going to have an effect. This election just showed that. And the tv news networks are all a waste. There's nothing. I'm sorry, I don't have a good note to end this on.
posted by cashman at 3:17 PM on November 14, 2016 [22 favorites]


I haven't bothered with using "Drumpf" or other angry pseudonyms, but I just haven't been able to capitalize trump since he won.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:24 PM on November 14, 2016


I think the take-away is that Democrats need to get a lot better at dropping pamphlets from the sky if they want to have a chance.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 3:34 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Right. So there is a swastika that popped up near me over the weekend. I just heard about it a couple hours ago and took pictures.

I'm horrified. I knew this was happening, but I having it show up in my backyard is making me feel just sick.

I posted it to facebook, and someone, a person who I would normally consider quite a good guy, lashed out and tried to minimize it, wanting to know, and I quote: "So we're getting upset about what 14 year olds are doing now?"

This is what Trump supporters are doing. They're downplaying actions like this. They're claiming they are isolated. And they're saying "but the left is doing it too!" And we're just not.

I'm shaking. I don't know if I'm angry or scared or what. I'm terrified for us.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 3:38 PM on November 14, 2016 [36 favorites]


Trump is nearly at his strongest yet. He's already won, but he hasn't been able to *do* very much as yet. Yes, we all hate Bannon etc., but Trump voters won't care yet.

IMHO we should spend this time officially communicating with our own sens/reps, while also establishing the *frame* for Trump. Pin a dismissive label on him. We will not find him fearsome - that makes him powerful. We will not invoke the apocalypse - you'll look like Chicken Little.

No, try using some empathy to determine why your relative voted for Trump. Perhaps to them, Trump represents a more honest alternative to Clinton (at least he *knows* that he's pond scum), perhaps they feel that he will bring a businessman's touch to the White House, perhaps they like his mad dog style. (If you really do think that the only reason was racism, then I guess there's no point in trying to sway them.)

So, anyway - chip away at that. He is not a Businessman - he is simply a Salesman, selling only himself. And each time that he does something false, it simply confirms how right you had been.

Why not have a friendly bet. Pick some objectively measurable metric for one year out, and bet a friendly amount on it. Nothing huge. Not a threat-bet. Maybe a night on the town, drinks on you. Something like that. "You know, Aunt Sue, we only argue because we both just want a better future. I'll tell you what - let's put our arguments on hold, and instead make a friendly wager..."

And as for your sens/reps: keep the drumbeat STEADY and LOUD. Let them know that you are watching them, and that there will be no advantage in keeping too close to Trump. Your goal is to be as (politely) annoying as the most annoying nosy neighbor. You are up in their business and you follow them and you have friends who vote and you talk to your friends and they are almost as annoying as you are.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:40 PM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


A guy I ended up spending a half-hour in a car with last week was all the *both sides are bad HRC would've got us into a war, more bombing of Syria, those poor refugees*

So, I was like, "well, yes, we should let in more refugees, shouldn't we? And isn't Trump against that?"

And he said, "Well I read on the internet that refugees are arriving in the middle of the night at PHL airport. It might not be true, but, well."

It's like for the love of God man you just spent this time telling me that HRC was going to bomb poor refugees and then you're like *well the refugees are getting into the country someway well it might not be true but where there's smoke there's fire*

I applaud all of you trying to win hearts and minds out there but well, I was looking through emojis for some reason and there are these hand symbols and they are all yellow hands except for one black fist.

I just stared at that fist thinking "Why is only the FIST black" and then sat there looking at it and thinking: That's what I want to offer Trump and his allies. An upraised fist.

You can raise a fist at peaceful protests. An upraised fist doesn't strike. But it connotes anger. And I just hope that my lily whiteness doesn't make me unqualified for the black fist emoji.

I'm going to be the angry person carted off to jail while my hick relatives think *we always knew she was crazy*.
posted by angrycat at 3:40 PM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


"So we're getting upset about what 14 year olds are doing now?"

Potential reply: "When those 14-year-olds are glorifying racist murdering thugs, then yes; yes we are."

All of us should be concerned with what 14-year-olds are doing, especially when it's both criminal (vandalism) and speaks of a potential for violence directed at their own communities.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 3:43 PM on November 14, 2016 [19 favorites]


I called all my congresspeople, and the few US reps from my state that are (R)s, to urge them to denounce Steve Bannon. Mostly had to leave messages on voicemails, but it felt good to take some action.
posted by Existential Dread at 3:45 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


"If those 14 year olds are joining the neo-Hitler Youth, yeah, I'm going to get upset about what they're doing."
posted by zachlipton at 3:45 PM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


Something happened with Google's algorithms.

I got my first big sense of it last year. Things that you used to be able to recall with a description and a phrase, whether from last week or ten years ago, were gone, the muscle memories useless. It's all fuzzy now, like an externalised memory loss. (Or like the last days of AltaVista.)

And there's this piece on the perfect storm of the Facebook UI (and profit motive) and clickbait psychology:
The headlines that float by you on Facebook for one to two hours a day, dozens at a time, create a sense of familiarity with ideas that are not only wrong, but hateful and dangerous. This is further compounded by the fact that what is highlighted on the cards that Facebook is not the source of the article, which is so small and gray as to be effectively invisible, but the friendly smiling face of someone you trust.
posted by holgate at 3:48 PM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


AP In Trump's orbit, son-in-law expected to stay a power center
Kushner's options for a White House job are limited given his family ties to the president, according to Richard Painter, who served as President George W. Bush's White House ethics lawyer. Congress passed an anti-nepotism law in 1967 that prohibits the president from appointing a family member — including a son-in-law — to work in the office or agency they oversee. The measure was passed after President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert Kennedy, as attorney general.

But the law does not appear to prevent Kushner from serving as an unpaid adviser. Painter said that arrangement would allow Kushner to both advise Trump and sidestep ethics rules requiring federal employees to comply with conflict of interest laws.

"You can be an informal adviser to the president with lots of conflicts of interest," said Painter, a Republican who supported Clinton during the campaign.
My guess is that all the grown Trumps (except Tiffany!) will be in the White House in some capacity. Advising the new President but also keeping an eye out for more power and money-making opportunities.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:50 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


But the law does not appear to prevent Kushner from serving as an unpaid adviser.

he's going to have the very best éminence grises. The grisiest
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:53 PM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Today a result of this election that I did not anticipate occurred. My kidlet's school forced her class to watch Trump's acceptance speech. That one wasn't the worst, but it made me wonder: what to do going forward if his speeches aren't appropriate for children?
posted by corb at 3:56 PM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


The WSJ story is up now, and this is good news: Google to Bar Fake-News Websites From Using Its Ad-Selling Software
Google said Monday that it is updating its policies to ban Google ads being placed “on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher’s content, or the primary purpose” of the website. The policy would include sites that distribute false news, a Google spokeswoman said.

False news stories, particularly those that spread widely on Facebook Inc.’s social network, became an issue during the recent presidential election. Google experienced its own mishap on Sunday when a false story on a right-wing blog erroneously stating Donald Trump won the popular vote appeared atop some Google search results.
Kicking fake news sites off AdSense is only a first step, but it's a real one. Enforcement will be tricky, and there are plenty of other ad exchanges, but it's at least acknowledging the problem and taking responsibility for making it worse.
posted by zachlipton at 3:57 PM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


Followup tip for those calling legislators today: save their number in your phone so you don't have to look it up next time.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:57 PM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


I've been thinking a bunch about Danbury, Connecticut this last week. At one time (and for over a century) Danbury was the leading manufacturer of hats in the country. People used to wear hats everywhere but after World War 2 - for a variety of reasons, one major one being the rapid rise of the automobile - fewer and fewer people wore hats and the industry ultimately collapsed. Danbury is still a pretty active micro-city but none of the descendants of the once proud Hat Industry work in the Hat Business these days. If a politician came to Danbury and claimed that he'd be able to get the Hat Industry off the ground again, I think almost everyone would scoff at him. They know those days are in the past.

When I hear Trump claiming that he's going to bring back coal mining or steel mills or factories or whatever, I can't help but think that a significant portion of the people hearing this - who surely are no more or less intelligent than the people of Danbury or of any other city or town - recognizing that this is an impossible promise. They know their industries better than anyone else.

Furthermore, the people of Danbury now work in a bunch of other industries because the town had to move on. Granted, every situation is different (and some towns, which were supported by a single company, get destroyed when that company collapses or splits) but holding out hope for the process of history to reverse itself so that the circumstances that allowed Hammertruck factories to flourish in there areas just means they're not allowing themselves to move on. Politicians that make them believe the factories might reopen hinder their ability to find other solutions.

I'm not advocating for some sort of tech revolution - many of the folks in Danbury work in education or in health care or for multi-nationals with local offices. I also am not saying Danbury is some sort of ideal example of the process of how a community survives after its main industry collapses (just one I'm familiar with because I grew up nearby). What I am advocating is that this message of "the world keeps changing and it won't stop changing even if we want it to, so we have to find other solutions and we all have to work together to help you find them" is maybe an argument we should be making all the time.

To whit, I'm not just a progressive because of my views on social justice - I'm a progressive because I'm pragmatic and recognize that history itself is a progressive process. Learning to adapt to change is the only way to survive as a species. Change has to be done intelligently though and not just left up to hurricanes and the occasional mismanaged war.

I have a friend from China who says that Chinese history is circular - attitudes and events keep gradually looping back on themselves. He thinks American history is like a bunch of straight lines that go very aggressively in one direction and then suddenly change and go very aggressively in another direction and then change again. I'll lay this problem at the foot of conservatism - we refuse to change until we have to change and then we change suddenly and ithout much thought or planning until we're forced to change again. Being progressive means allowing yourself to change as you need to and in anticipation of of the way the world is changing.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:59 PM on November 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


In Trump's orbit, son-in-law expected to stay a power center

CNN is saying that Trump is seeking top secret security clearance for Kushner and Trump's vile adult children. Or at least they mentioned Ivanka, Eric, and Jr. so maybe Tiffany gets left out again.
posted by lalex at 3:59 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


WTF. Even Michelle Obama is the target of openly racist dehumanizing hate speech now.

I am beyond disgusted.
posted by Westringia F. at 4:00 PM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


Google said Monday that it is updating its policies to ban Google ads being placed “on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher’s content, or the primary purpose” of the website.

Some actual good news! I wonder if it also implies some correlation between AdSense and Google results. Though it's probably a more complicated web of being interested in the same subject matter that serves those ads leading to those results being served...
posted by wallgrub at 4:02 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Shit, something happened with America's algorithms.

This needs to be on billboards.
posted by Annika Cicada at 4:05 PM on November 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


The Trump kids and Mike Pence, should not have the security clearance to catch dogs. Mike Pence made it clear the USA is fourth in line for his loyalty. Trump has to use his brains to run this country, this presidency is not a family gossip session, or family dinner. Melania Knaus Trump, illegal immigrant, cum first lady, also can't have the security clearance to catch dogs.
posted by Oyéah at 4:06 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


will the google adsense changes make AskMe great again, though?
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:07 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


BuzzFeed Renegade Facebook Employees Form Task Force To Battle Fake News
Facebook employees have formed an unofficial task force to question the role their company played in promoting fake news in the lead-up to Donald Trump’s victory in the US election last week, amid a larger, national debate over the rise of fake and misleading news articles in a platform used by more than 150 million Americans.

The task force, which sources tell BuzzFeed News includes employees from across the company, has already refuted a statement made by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg at a conference last week that the argument that fake news on Facebook affected the election was “a pretty crazy idea.”

“It’s not a crazy idea. What’s crazy is for him to come out and dismiss it like that, when he knows, and those of us at the company know, that fake news ran wild on our platform during the entire campaign season,” said one Facebook employee, who works in the social network’s engineering division. He, like the four other Facebook employees who spoke to BuzzFeed News for this story, would only speak on condition of anonymity. All five employees said they had been warned by their superiors against speaking to press, and feared they would lose their jobs if named.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:07 PM on November 14, 2016 [41 favorites]


Don't we want Jared and Ivanka to have as much access as possible, given that as morally repugnant they are they're likely to be the most liberal people in the administration by far? Plus I figure that Trump will tell them everything anyway, so might as well do it with some oversight.
posted by acidic at 4:12 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Don't we want Jared and Ivanka to have as much access as possible

No, especially not if they're going to be running the family businesses.
posted by lalex at 4:14 PM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Yeah, but we also want to not be powerless subjects to a mad king, and to live in a democracy without nepotism. Plus all of the business stuff.

Maybe if we're lucky the nepotism triggers an impeachment and implodes the party for a couple of years.
posted by fomhar at 4:15 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Daily Beast has more about security clearance for his children: Trump Wants Top-Secret Clearance for Kids
The president-elect has reportedly begun asking how he could secure top-level clearance for his adult children and son-in-law, most of whom are currently helming his transition team. Only official government employees and contractors can receive security clearance. Trump's daughter Ivanka, and sons Eric and Donald Jr., and son-in-law Jared Kushner are currently part of his transition effort, but none have any official government role, or experience in government. CBS's Julianne Goldman reports that Trump's adult children would run his business and work as unpaid national security advisors, to skirt nepotism rules. Their suggested dual roles would invite an unprecedented conflict of interests.[...]

Ivanka Trump also said that she would not be interested in a formal role in the upcoming administration. "I’m going to be a daughter," she said when asked about a possible role. "But I’ve-- I’ve said throughout the campaign that I am very passionate about certain issues. And that I want to fight for them."

A former Obama administration official told The Daily Beast that Trump could simply be asking for them to be cleared so they can have unescorted access to parts of the West Wing. Even First Ladies have to be cleared to access that part of the White House, but that doesn't mean they have access to top secret areas like the Situation Room, the official said, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss the clearance process publicly. The lowest level of clearance is called "Yankee White" which could be what Trump is seeking.
Then we have to ask if all the previous children of POTUS have had security clearance. In other words, is this SOP? I have a feeling it isn't because the news is pouncing on this detail.

Don't we want Jared and Ivanka to have as much access as possible


Why do they need clearance-- surely they can talk to their Dad anytime they want. If they get insider knowledge of what is happening in foreign and domestic affairs while running the family business that becomes much, much too insidery. The whole reason for turning the business in a "blind trust" (not a true blind trust) run by his kids was to prevent a conflict of interest.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:17 PM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


The time to fight back is before they start restricting normal, everyday, lawful activities

Like setting up free speech zones when a President is within 15 blocks?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 4:21 PM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


"have been perceived as blatantly racist."

journalists just can't get over using language that softens the image of YES THE BLANTENTLY RACIST THING IS RACIST
posted by waitangi at 4:21 PM on November 14, 2016 [26 favorites]


... and now biological and nuclear weapons proliferation advocate, NRA flak, and American Enterprise Institute fellow John Bolton!

The whited sepulchers open and the ghouls assemble.
posted by ryanshepard at 4:22 PM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Details about security clearance:

1) They need at least the minimal level of clearance to walk around the west wing unescorted. This is potentially a problem, in that currently, only gov't employees can get clearances. If they're "unpaid advisors" to avoid the conflict of interest of managing his businesses, they can't be federal employees.

2) Clearances are granted by the Bureau of Human Resources, which is under control of the Secretary of State. So, no problem appointing someone to grant that... except that that process can't begin until he's in office.

3) It normally takes about 4 months to get clearance; I'm not sure how much handwaving is allowed for that - and even very sycophantic supporters might not want to set the precedent of "the president just grants clearance to anyone he wants."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 4:26 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ok, here we go. I am a bit terrified of posting a comment to this thread, given the tensions of the past week, but so many of you on the blue are writing that you don't know any Trump supporters (which is interesting because over on the green people are asking questions about how to handle Trump supporting relatives over the holidays) so I thought I'd provide a little insight from my circle of the world here in Northern Virginia.

About me, politically, for background: White, 40, registered Democrat in college (assumed and didn't understand why Republicans didn't want to help people and make the world a better place, so natch the Democrat party seemed to align with my goals to improve the world) who switched to the Republican party post college, admittedly under the strong influence of three things [1] my father in law who explained to me that most Republicans he knew DID CARE about people but thought they should be helped through private charities or at the local and state level instead of the Fed. He asked me two simple questions of if I acknowledge that people trend toward evil (which I did) and that you can't always trust people at the state level to do the right thing (one of my prime arguments for a caretaking Federal govt) then why on earth would i think people at the federal level would not also trend toward evil and should be trusted more? And If I couldn't trust them more then people at the state level then why would I support giving them so much more power and money when they are so less accountable to me as a voter when they make bad decisions than people at the state level? [2] an increased concern with free will and the problems with forcing people to do what I think they should with their money and private property [3] the DNC vs RNC platform in the early 90s and how contrasted they were. The RNC platform had, from memory, several different approaches to the problems of the nation while the DNC platform seemed pretty much to report for every issue - the solution is we need more money to fix this. However, because I had been a Democrat, and many of my friends were still (and are still) Democrats, I clung to the belief that 90% of us in America are GOOD people who want the same things (opportunity, freedom, higher standard of living, a healthy populous, etc etc) but just have very different ideas on how to best achieve that and hence we debate incessantly as a people. I have typically voted R in elections, except for I voted for Obama both times because McCain seemed so angry all the time it made me nervous and I was worried about Romney's judgement. For me those elections came down to this - yes Obama is a Democrat and yes we disagree a lot on policy (except I am probably to the left of Dems on opening borders and mercy for immigrants as I am the daughter of one) but he seems to be a GOOD man and I trust that he will not do terrible, immoral things. If he is a Christian, and praying about his work, it will probably turn out ok. Besides, the Republicans in Congress can hopefully stop anything he tries to roll out that is too socialist leaning (infringing on people's free will and property rights). So in summary, generally fiscally conservative but for open borders (both for free trade and for immigration - economics teaches us that for the labor to have as much power as the capitalists both trade and immigration must be open so people can freely settle and work wherever they prefer).

THEN came this election. What to do? I did not want to vote for Hillary. I can never forget the interview I read of her where she said, to paraphrase, in answer to the question of why she went into law - she has always wanted to change the world and she used to think that changing people's minds one at a time and appealing to their better nature was the way to do this but then she realized it was more efficient and productive to get your fingers into policy making in the govt and change the law to reflect your values and people will come along eventually, albeit perhaps kicking and screaming at first. That horrified me when I read it and still does to this day because it's an evil of shortcutting over people's free will to get what you want. I watched her DNC convention speech and it was so moving and for a few moments I thought I could vote for her till she started talking about free college and federal guarantee of right to job and healthcare and I just couldn't do it because it runs all over the free will of everyone who doesn't want to pay for that stuff and I have worked for Congressional leadership and have seen the waste of taxpayer money that goes on with both sides of the aisle. But then there is Trump. Unethical. Sleazy. Sexist. Race bating. No way I could vote for him and sleep at night.

So i chatted up all my Republican friends (demographics - late 20s to mid 50s, white middle to upper class folks both locally and across the country)- what were they going to do? I was sad to find out most were going to vote for Trump. Yes, yes they thought his character was disgusting but they hoped that the Republican establishment that would surround him in the WH and in congress would keep him on track with conservative fiscal policy. Plus they said, no way could we let Hillary pick the next SC justices. How can you do that though I asked? How can you put your desires for the shape of the court over your obligation not to support a man of such character (who clearly doesn't seem to talk to God much at all) in the WH? HOW? And they countered with are you suggesting we vote for Hillary and I couldn't say I wanted them to do that anyway. Maybe you should sit it out or vote 3rd party I suggested. That will just be votes thrown away and given to Hillary by proxy they said. As far as I know, I am the *only* Republican in any of the circles I travel in that didn't vote for Trump. But i couldn't bring myself to vote for Hillary either, so I sat out the Federal vote.

So that's one perspective from the right. And it has already cost me emotionally. Several of my left leaning friends have called me obscene names this week and defriended me both in person and on social media when they found out I didn't vote for Hillary. Even though they knew I was a Republican, they thought I would come around for her or something I guess. And they are so angry. Seething rage bubbling up from under the surface and ready to strike. I've never seen anything like this before. When I voted for Obama, many many of my Republican friends told me I was naive to assume he was a good man who meant what he said about being a Christian and having good character but none of them called me an privileged insufferable white bitch or the other rotten things I've been called this week by me Democratic friends because I chose to sit out the election. The fear and resultant viciousness coming from my social media circle on the left is unprecedented.
posted by TestamentToGrace at 4:26 PM on November 14, 2016 [28 favorites]


Yeah I was just going to post the same thing, waitangi. "Perceived as" like if you look at it from a different POV maybe not racist, maybe it is just your perception that it is racist.

At any rate here is the quote: “It will be so refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady back in the White House. I’m tired of seeing a Ape in heels,”

Their idea of "classy" must be very different than mine.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:26 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Already had a cousin call me a "fucktard" for commenting on one of those "I survived 8 years of Obama" things. They still don't know how badly they've been hoodwinked.
posted by aspersioncast at 4:30 PM on November 14, 2016


If you're in Oregon and thinking about calling your representatives about Steve Bannon, bear in mind that we've already seen at least some comment from several:

Senator Jeff Merkley (D) had the best response I could find, with a press release strongly denouncing this appointment (linked and quoted upthread, here again for completeness). He's reiterating this position on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight (right now, I think), per Twitter.

Senator Ron Wyden and Representatives Suzanne Bonamici and Earl Blumenauer (all D) have all commented on the Bannon appointment on Twitter. I couldn't find any statements on Twitter or elsewhere from Representatives Peter DeFazio or Kurt Schrader (both D), so if these are your reps and you want them to make some kind of statement, it might be worth reaching out to encourage them to take a public stand.

Oregon's only Republican rep, Greg Walden, has not commented either as far as I could tell. If you're in Oregon's 2nd district or know someone who is, it would be great to put some pressure on him to weigh in here as a Republican. (Not that the Dem voices are unappreciated, but they're too easily dismissed out of hand as partisan; we really need more Republicans to demonstrate some integrity here.)

I also made a couple of calls at the state level to encourage the legislature to support the National Popular Vote. The aide I talked to at OR Senate President Peter Courtney's office said that they've been hearing a lot about this, so maybe this next legislative session will be the one. (As far as I can tell, the OR House has passed this a number of times, and OR Senator Diane Rosenbaum has supported it in the Senate, but Sen. Courtney doesn't seem to have been on board so far.)
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 4:31 PM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm sorry that not voting for Trump has cost you your social circle.

I still don't feel as sorry for you as I do for all the people who actually stand to lose much more than that.
posted by qcubed at 4:32 PM on November 14, 2016 [49 favorites]


TestamentToGrace, I am sorry that you are being called names. A lot of people are mad at those who sat the election out because they/we feel that we may lose our lives because of it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:33 PM on November 14, 2016 [58 favorites]


Accept that anybody who doesn't already see the shit will probably never see it. A surprising amount of room for positive action might be made that way.
posted by Burhanistan at 4:33 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


And they are so angry. Seething rage bubbling up from under the surface and ready to strike. I've never seen anything like this before.

TestamentToGrace, the guy who's about to be in charge of major sections of our country - and our entire military - is an ignorant bully whose allies would like to KILL a lot of us. As in, we are below human to them; neither our lives nor our communities matter to their vision of the future of America.

I'm Pagan. The only reason I'm not getting rocks thrown at me as that my religion is small enough that they've forgotten it exists in the wave of anti-Muslim sentiment. I'm queer. I'm outside of mainstream in several other ways. I decided several years ago not to have a third child, and not to publicly mention details about my religion online until my younger was 18, because I feared additional crackdowns against my family.

And I'm white, married, well-employed, college-educated, in a liberal superbubble district. I have little to fear, compared to the people the president elect promised to deport or torture. (To him, "accused of terrorism" means "guilty of terrorism.)

We are all terrified, and a lot of that fear is going to find its outlet in lashing out at people who could have stopped this, but decided that "manipulative" was more detrimental to the country than "fascistic."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 4:34 PM on November 14, 2016 [51 favorites]


Newsweek The Myths Democrats Swallowed That Cost Them the Presidential Election

1. The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee

2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump
I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. [...]

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:35 PM on November 14, 2016 [82 favorites]


Thanks for sharing from your viewpoint, TestamentToGrace.
posted by lalex at 4:38 PM on November 14, 2016 [17 favorites]


The fear and resultant viciousness coming from my social media circle on the left is unprecedented.

Your party nominated a sociopath who courted the KKK and Neo-Nazis during his campaign and is attempting to grant actual white supremacists access to the levers of national power. There should be no mystery as to why the fear on the part of the left (and really anyone who is not a white supremacist) is unprecedented.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:39 PM on November 14, 2016 [75 favorites]


That horrified me when I read it and still does to this day because it's an evil of shortcutting over people's free will to get what you want.

No, it's shortcutting over the majority's tendency to inflict the most massively horrific evil you can possibly imagine on minority groups.

I fear the tyranny of the majority way more than I fear any government, and THAT is why I am a democrat.

I just couldn't do it because it runs all over the free will of everyone who doesn't want to pay for that stuff

There are people in the state I live in who are using this "free will" argument to criminalize my existence as a trans woman and you know what, free will doesn't mean you get to be an asshole to whomever you want just cause.

And that's why I'm a democrat.
posted by Annika Cicada at 4:40 PM on November 14, 2016 [68 favorites]


The fear and resultant viciousness coming from my social media circle on the left is unprecedented.

Have you considered that might be because the candidate who got election is unprecedentedly dangerous and unqualified? I'm sorry you were called names. But the fact that you don't see election results as something that might cause real fear is, indeed, an artifact of white privilege.

You say the election has cost you emotionally. There are many people for whom the costs are not going to be emotion, the costs will be death from lack of health coverage. Deportation. Hate crime, injury, and possibly death. Lack of social services and possibly death.

And so on. But I'm sorry your feelings were hurt.
posted by Justinian at 4:41 PM on November 14, 2016 [56 favorites]


2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump

Somebody posted a link to OpenSecrets last night and I looked up some people I know. The big surprise was that my uncle donated an absolute shit-ton of money to O'Malley last year

maybe he was on to something
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:41 PM on November 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


On the balance, what AtomEyes said. I'm sorry that you find the idea of being drug forward into progress a subversion of free will. I really am.

But I'm a lot sorrier (and much, much angrier) that a lot of us are going to lose healthcare, get deported, and be measurably less safe. A whole, hell of a lot.
posted by Archelaus at 4:41 PM on November 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


I've been thinking a bunch about Danbury, Connecticut this last week.

Hey, Danbury represent. I grew up there. Mostly when I think of it now, I am thinking "thank christ I got out of there."
posted by Justinian at 4:42 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


what to do going forward if his speeches aren't appropriate for children?

That's a really good question, especially since it's virtually guaranteed we're going to find out more awful things Trump has said and done over the years.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:43 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Senator Ed Markey, of Massachusetts, pinned this to his FB page:
If the saying is true and you are the company you keep, Donald Trump has chosen to champion the positions of neo-Nazis, white nationalists and anti-Semites by appointing Steve Bannon as chief strategist and senior counselor.
There is no place in our society, let alone the White House, for purveyors like Steve Bannon of hate and violence against any group of Americans. President-elect Trump will forever poison the well with Congress and the American people by appointing a figure who has fueled the rhetoric and activities of hate groups that actively promote violence against immigrants, Muslims, women, African-Americans, the LGBTQ community, and people of Jewish faith.
If Donald Trump wants to keep his word and unify the country, he must call on all of his appointments to repudiate any and all past affiliations with hate groups, and he himself must denounce anyone who has affiliations with groups whose stock and trade is hate and violence against the American people.
Right now, we are in an epic battle for our democracy. The stand we take today will determine if future generations live in a nation founded on hope or fueled by hate. Today, and every day moving forward, we must always be guided by the principles and values of our nation -- justice, tolerance, liberty, and equality -- for all races, creeds, colors, faiths and origins.

posted by TwoStride at 4:45 PM on November 14, 2016 [33 favorites]


w/r/t the myth that Sanders would have won against Trump, another thing to consider is that during the brief window of time when it looked like Sanders had a chance, that moment right after he won Michigan, Bloomberg immediately started making noises about how he'd enter the race as an independent if Sanders and Trump were the candidates. Which would have either directly thrown the election to Trump, or else sent it to the Republican-controlled House, under rules guaranteed to yield a Trump victory.

Not to make Grand Pronouncements or anything, but: powerful neoliberals are much more comfortable with fascism than with anything that smells even remotely like socialism.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:46 PM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


the DNC vs RNC platform in the early 90s and how contrasted they were. The RNC platform had, from memory, several different approaches to the problems of the nation while the DNC platform seemed pretty much to report for every issue - the solution is we need more money to fix this.

I grew up in a conservative area, where most political interested people were some flavor of conservative; I grew up accepting a lot of those politics, because it was what I saw. I accepted it, in part, based on the idea you mention here: the Left had one, top down set of ideas that it would impose, despite practical evidence to the contrary, conservatives were pragmatic, drawing on real experience. I was really into Edmund Burke around this time.

The thing is, as I grew up and spent more time in the real world, I saw that I had it totally backwards. Conservatives in America, at least now, have a defined set kid policy choices that they impose whenever they get power. Cut taxes, no matter the current tax rate. Cut assistance to the poor, no matter what level it's at, impose "Christian" values no matter what the demographics of the area are.

I've come around on a lot of things(my politics did a 180), mostly from meeting the actual people impacted by these policy choices, but that was the first thing I noticed.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 4:47 PM on November 14, 2016 [24 favorites]


The fear and resultant viciousness coming from my social media circle on the left is unprecedented.

Well, nobody should call you names or scream at you. That completely sucks, and I'm sorry about that. Yet, I also don't think this compares to Barack Obama's election in 2008. Obama's message was very much about hope and unity and "No red or blue, but purple". A lot of it may sound schmaltzy, especially at this point, but I think a lot people were tired of the partisanship eight years ago.

Donald ran on the complete opposite of that. For 16 months nobody could escape from his vile uninformed opinions about minorities, women, and foreigners. And even before then, his role as one of the big promoters of the birther movement really did not help at all. His core message was that the world, US society, and everything was a zero-sum competition: US vs. the Rest, Whites vs. Minorities, Men vs. Women. Either you're on one side that wins, or on the other side that loses (and only can win because they cheat or lie).
posted by FJT at 4:47 PM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


That horrified me when I read it and still does to this day because it's an evil of shortcutting over people's free will to get what you want.

Integrating schools in the south was a shortcut over the free will of the (voting) people of Alabama. Or: when did a majority of Americans finally approve of interracial marriage? The 1990s. And so on.

I'm sorry that your friends have called you bad names. It's for you to work out in your own heart whether their fears are worthy of your consideration.
posted by holgate at 4:47 PM on November 14, 2016 [57 favorites]


The fear and resultant viciousness coming from my social media circle on the left is unprecedented.

Maybe because people who did not vote for Clinton have fucked over the US and the rest of the world to an amazing degree. Even if you ignore the racism, misogyny, incoherence and ignorance (which you shouldn't), the very idea that the world's most powerful man, in charge of the country that produces the most CO2 per capita, does not believe in climate change and is planning to do all that he can (which is a lot) to prevent efforts to protect the environment is a terrifying thing to consider. I have no children, live in Canada and I'm in my thirties; I will be ok come what may with regards to the climate, but almost everyone younger than me is very likely screwed because a bunch of white people decided that the minorities were getting too uppity.

So yeah, maybe some Republicans were gracious in their loss to Obama, who simply wanted to make sure people had access to health care (how terrible! the monster!), but the people on the left who are distressed, angry and spitting venom over the election of the orange monster have very good reasons to be that way.

It may not be the most effective way to win hearts and minds, but it may also be too late to do anything but get pissed and tell the people who fucked the world over how angry you are that they were so selfish.
posted by dazed_one at 4:48 PM on November 14, 2016 [46 favorites]


TestamentToGrace:
That horrified me when I read it and still does to this day because it's an evil of shortcutting over people's free will to get what you want.
How do you feel about Democracy in general? Do you think that government is the only mechanism by which people's free will is shortcutted? Do you reward Republicans with your vote even when they propose using the government to control things they don't like?
posted by Green With You at 4:48 PM on November 14, 2016 [17 favorites]


she has always wanted to change the world and she used to think that changing people's minds one at a time and appealing to their better nature was the way to do this but then she realized it was more efficient and productive to get your fingers into policy making in the govt and change the law to reflect your values and people will come along eventually, albeit perhaps kicking and screaming at first.

In my lifetime it was against the law for black people to marry white people. That changed in 1967 with Loving v. Virginia (which, by the way, didn't make new law; it looked in the rulebook and saw that anti-miscegenation laws violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause).

it would've been It would've been illegal for a black person to sit in the same part of a bus in parts of this country until Rosa Parks accelerated a movement towards desegregation. Black people had to use separate-but-"equal" bathrooms, water fountains, and restaurants.

Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals couldn't openly serve in the military until Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed in 2010. Same-sex couples couldn't get married in much of this country until the Obergefell v. Hodges decision last year.

People don't always come along soon enough, and I don't care if they kick and scream if they are wrong. The Equal Protection Clause says states can't "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." All of the laws.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:49 PM on November 14, 2016 [59 favorites]


That horrified me when I read it and still does to this day because it's an evil of shortcutting over people's free will to get what you want.

It's only evil to shortcut others' free will to get what you want when what you want is evil.

Traffic lights infringe on people's free will. Policies to install traffic lights were not established by patiently convincing every driver, one by one, that they'd be a good idea.

A "change policies, not people" approach is appropriate for matters of mass safety where those who believe they will never be unsafe won't support a change.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 4:49 PM on November 14, 2016 [48 favorites]


...she has always wanted to change the world and she used to think that changing people's minds one at a time and appealing to their better nature was the way to do this but then she realized it was more efficient and productive to get your fingers into policy making in the govt and change the law to reflect your values and people will come along eventually, albeit perhaps kicking and screaming at first

That's not so bad, though, if you look at it through the lens of Brown vs. Board of Education?

I was able to marry the love of my life up here in Canada owing to a Supreme Court decision that brought other folks along kicking and screaming. But that decision didn't have an impact on their own free will to marry who they want. Or never marry at all.

But given that you didn't feel that you were able to vote your conscience, this would be where I'd say you were right to sit it out. That's o.k. But on the other side of the coin maybe they're not great friends if they're being so shitty to you about a president you didn't vote for.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 4:51 PM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yeah No it is not the job of the oppressed to comfort the oppressors. Supporting someone who does and says racist/misogynist/homophobic things is taking part in that bigotry. Standing by and doing nothing is cowardice.

I understand how some conservatives are under the mistaken assumption that Republicans are all about sane fiscal policy when all evidence is to the contrary. Republicans like to spend stupid amounts of money on various things (generally about being punitive to PoC) they just don't want to have to pay for them. So endless tax cuts while also increasing spending. It's a challenge to undo decades of messaging and social training.

Friends being mean to you on social media is nothing, family refusing to come to your house for Thanksgiving is nothing. It is White Fragility that lots of Republicans are feeling right now when people are calling them on the bullshit.
posted by vuron at 4:53 PM on November 14, 2016 [32 favorites]


[Folks, gonna suggest we steer back, before this becomes too much of a personal everybody-respond-to TestamentToGrace -- a number of rebuttal points have been made, and maybe let's move it back toward the more general discussion.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:59 PM on November 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


Tom Brady has broken his promise (and Jets fans cheer.)
posted by bukvich at 5:05 PM on November 14, 2016


Do you live in Alaska, Arizona, Nebraska, or Maine? If so, you are represented in Congress by a Republican senator who is a possible ally in our fight to keep the filibuster around. Here is who to call: These are the phone numbers for local offices in their respective state capitals. There may be an office in a city closer to you. (Alaska is a big state! Senator Murkowski has lots of offices! And Maine is a smaller state ... but Senator Collins has lots of offices too!) If you think you eventually want to get more involved than phone calls, click on the links to find the number for the office closest to you. That way you can get to know staffers as suggested above.

Present the filibuster as an important component of limited government — it is a necessary check that keeps things from growing out of control.

I will be calling tomorrow, and welcome any suggestions about more specific language to use.
posted by compartment at 5:12 PM on November 14, 2016 [17 favorites]


If they get insider knowledge of what is happening in foreign and domestic affairs while running the family business that becomes much, much too insidery. The whole reason for turning the business in a "blind trust" (not a true blind trust) run by his kids was to prevent a conflict of interest.

And of course, all this seems JUST FINE to people who went into frothing ragefits over the idea that the former Secretary of State gave some speeches at Wall Street firms. Fucking shoot me now, please.
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:17 PM on November 14, 2016 [23 favorites]


I've hated Steve Bannon ever since that time he was so mean to Chapman.

sorry. and with that i'm out for a while, need to find some way to decompress.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 5:19 PM on November 14, 2016


The AP is reporting Giuliani is the favored name for Secretary of State.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:19 PM on November 14, 2016


Are you fucking kidding me
posted by soren_lorensen at 5:22 PM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Are you fucking kidding me

I'm starting to think this is just the theme for the whole election.
posted by Archelaus at 5:23 PM on November 14, 2016 [33 favorites]


I'm sure Secretary of State Rudy Giuliani and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson will get along great tho.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:24 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Well Ghouliani could probably do more damage as AG so I guess SoS might be preferable...
posted by vuron at 5:24 PM on November 14, 2016


This really is the darkest timeline.
posted by soren_lorensen at 5:24 PM on November 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


Given what happened to many Nobel Peace Prize winners who end up not deserving their award, I wonder if there's a similar thing for TIME Magazine Person of the Year winners who won for positive reasons.

Exactly a decade ago. I hate this guy.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:25 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


This really is the darkest timeline.

Every time you say that it gets darker.
posted by Annika Cicada at 5:25 PM on November 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


WTF. Even Michelle Obama is the target of openly racist dehumanizing hate speech now.

I am beyond disgusted.


Oh, there's no "now" to this. Republicans -- and I mean people in positions of power, not some rando Republican dude on social media -- have been saying incredibly vile things about Michelle Obama since Mr. Obama was the Democratic Party nominee.

And of course they have paid no price for their ungracious and ungentlemanly behavior because Republican.

I recall that white dudes on both sides of the aisle ran nobly and chivalrously to the defense of Sarah Palin when any criticism was leveled at her, back before she made it unavoidably clear that she was out there. Those same dudes have had little to say for the past 8 years when Republicans have said horrible things about the Michelle Obama who is, in my not so humble opinion, one of the best humans on the planet.

Funny how that happens.
posted by lord_wolf at 5:26 PM on November 14, 2016 [48 favorites]


I supported the democratic party 100% in the lead-up to this election and for the past couple years. I voted even in the municipal elections and donated to my candidates. I wanted Hillary to win with all my heart. I knew it was the only way forward.

But I have to admit in the aftermath I am feeling very distant from the democratic party. Even from pantsuit nation. I see a lot of people talking about 2018, and organizing for the next battle like this is just another election. I see democratic leadership encouraging calm and patience. I see a lot of normalization. I see appeasement. I see collaboration.

It's debatable if this election was free and fair, considering the voter suppression, but I don't think it's debatable that we will not see a free and fair election again for quite some time. I don't think there will be a game in 2018. I definitely don't think there will be a game in 2020.

I think from here on out, we're fighting fascism, we're fighting Nazis, and they don't care about our petitions and our phone calls. I think we survive and we protect the vulnerable. I don't think we play politics and see what happens two or four years down the road.

And I'm remembering now that the democrats betrayed me and my generation, too. I'm remembering an election where climate change was barely mentioned and meanwhile the temperatures keep rising. The current generation of democratic leadership might be dead by the time the planet becomes unlivable. I won't be. They stole my future.

I'm not playing their game anymore, I'm not complacent, I'm not going to collaborate. I'm fighting from the outside now, because I don't really see them fighting at all.
posted by the turtle's teeth at 5:30 PM on November 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


Giuliani is at least theoretically qualified for AG, even if he would be terrible and actively harm people. His qualifications for State are basically "won't shut up about 9/11."
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 5:30 PM on November 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


But I have to admit in the aftermath I am feeling very distant from the democratic party. Even from pantsuit nation. I see a lot of people talking about 2018, and organizing for the next battle like this is just another election. I see democratic leadership encouraging calm and patience. I see a lot of normalization. I see appeasement. I see collaboration.

I want to say, for a lot of the 2018-talkers, we're 100% wary of the worst-case-scenario stuff. But we also want to make sure all the normal opposition-party items are wrangled. Both parts are important.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 5:35 PM on November 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


The AP is reporting Giuliani is the favored name for Secretary of State.

How would that going to even work? He can't talk straight. He's just going to freak out the rest of the world. He'd be like the nutty American guy that you have to talk too but everyone makes rolly eyes at each other when he's not looking. And then the meeting is over and the whole world decides that the party is at this restaurant and send him to one one the other side of town. Then they all sit over beers and makes the actual real decisions while the American guy drives all over town in a taxi trying to find out where everyone went.
posted by Jalliah at 5:36 PM on November 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


Holy cow. I'm a sometimes inarticulate, conflict-averse introvert with massive social awkwardness and paralyzing stage fright in performance or confrontational situations. And I'd make a better Secretary of State than Rudy Giuliani.

Hillary must be (bitterly) laughing her fucking ass off at that prospect, in between downing Jello shots.
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:40 PM on November 14, 2016 [22 favorites]


The AP is reporting Giuliani is the favored name for Secretary of State.

The most important decisions you make in a leadership position - the ones that tell everyone the most about your competence - are who you choose to hire for your jobs.

I think Trump's decisions have already demonstrated that we don't need to seriously wait to see how he's going to do. Start fighting now. He is not a legitimate president and shouldn't be treated as such.

Putin allegedly wanted to make American democracy look ineffective and broken. Mission accomplished.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:43 PM on November 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


Man I would have Jello shots with a Hillary Clinton a week into a failed Presidential bid before beer with any of the clowns in the new administration
posted by zutalors! at 5:44 PM on November 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


I expect it would work about like this:

Iran: "What do you propose to do about our planned changes?"

Guilani: "9-11?"
posted by Archelaus at 5:45 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


The AP is reporting Giuliani is the favored name for Secretary of State.

How would that going to even work? He can't talk straight. He's just going to freak out the rest of the world. He'd be like the nutty American guy that you have to talk too but everyone makes rolly eyes at each other when he's not looking.


The other name being bandied about is John Bolton, so apparently 'freaking out the rest of the world' is the order of the day.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:47 PM on November 14, 2016


You forgot the noun and the verb
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:47 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


That's fucking terrifying. Guiliani will recommend we bomb pretty much anyone "because 9/11."
posted by TwoStride at 5:47 PM on November 14, 2016


WTF. Even Michelle Obama is the target of openly racist dehumanizing hate speech now.

In trying to make sense of all of this, I'm sort of able to articulate one of the things that's bothering me. I generally believe that most people are good at their core, but it's impossible to reconcile that with the racism and misogyny and homophobia and xenophobia I've always known is out there, but has become more visible this past year, and this past week. So I think there's a flip side to the idea that most people are good at their core, and that's that most people have one or two things they really want to do or say -- things they know would be inappropriate or criminal or otherwise despicable -- but we generally know better. We generally know not to shoplift that thing we can't afford (even though it would be so easy to get away with it), not to steal from the tip jar (even though no one is looking), not to call someone ugly names (even though no one else is around to hear). We usually know better, but that all goes out the window when someone with more authority than you tells you it's okay. If the security guard indicates that he'll look the other way, why not shoplift? If the bartender tells you she's pissed off at her coworkers and will look the other way, why not steal the tip pool? And if a major party presidential candidate -- then president-elect -- does everything possible to signify that he's not going to stop people from acting on the hatred he's stirred up, people are going to do it. If you're given even tacit permission to do that thing you usually can't get away with, it's like a fucking snow day.

And that's why who sits in the Oval Office and who serves in the Cabinet are scary to me, but they aren't the scariest part of all of this. The scariest part is that people with deep-seated hatred of whatever group feel emboldened, and sanctioned, to act on it.

Michelle Obama is the most blemish-less public figure we have. There is no basis to criticize her, except the color of her skin. They're emboldened, and it makes me sick.

It feels very defeating.
posted by mudpuppie at 5:47 PM on November 14, 2016 [36 favorites]


CNN The alt-right heads to the White House
Bannon, in any other administration, likely would not have passed muster.
He was once charged with domestic violence, allegedly objected to his daughters attending a school because of the number of Jewish students enrolled and ran a website that stoked racial fears, engaged in blatant misogyny and peddled conspiracy theories.
But beyond his biographical bullet points, it's Bannon's quiet encouragement of Republican infighting through Breitbart and his championing of hardline conservative policy prescriptions that may prove intrusive to Trump's efforts to pass legislation with a slim Republican majority in Congress.
While Republican leaders are finding comfort in Trump naming RNC Chairman Reince Priebus to the top post of White House chief of staff, the press release announcing the appointments noted the two men will be "equal partners." And Bannon was listed first in the statement.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:48 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm fighting from the outside now, because I don't really see them fighting at all.

Good luck. The important thing is to keep fighting and not give up. There is a role for both folks on the inside and outside.
posted by FJT at 5:49 PM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Are there any Republican leaders going "what-the-ever-living-fuck is happening"? Because seriously, what is happening. Where is the pushback from those vocal rally-goers about getting rid of insiders? What do their facebook feeds look like now? Does any of this matter to them?

Where are all those "they're not racist, really, they voted for other reasons" folks making their disappointment known? Are they waiting to give Giuliani a chance too? Let's just give Bannon a chance, see how things pan out, who knows, miracles could be produced? Where are those moderate "I just can't fill in the oval for Clinton, I'm not a bad person" conservatives and how are they reacting to this hijacking of their party?

This is part outrage and part honestly wanting to know, where are these fucking people.
posted by erratic meatsack at 5:51 PM on November 14, 2016 [24 favorites]


There is some good news. The ACLU is reporting the greatest outpouring of support in their entire history-- even greater than after 9/11
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:51 PM on November 14, 2016 [45 favorites]


AP: Trump considering woman, openly gay man for leadership posts

Remember that W. had Colin Powell and Condi, Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo. It's not so much a Trump thing as it is a general Republican thing to do this sort of tokenism. Though it is a bit "only Nixon could go to China" in terms of the Grenell pick.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:52 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


There is some good news. The ACLU is reporting the greatest outpouring of support in their entire history-- even greater than after 9/11

This is very good, but please, please support your local organizations as well who aren't well funded.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:54 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


The other name being bandied about is John Bolton, so apparently 'freaking out the rest of the world' is the order of the day.

And I can't decide which one would be 'better', even in the relative sense of it.
posted by Jalliah at 5:57 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


And I can't decide which one would be 'better', even in the relative sense of it.

I had a similar reaction to the rumor that he was considering a Wall Street guy who helped get us into the 2008 crash for Treasury Secretary: "Well... that's awful, but at least even if he does things that are bad for the economy in the long term, he'll understand that he's doing them..."
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 6:01 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


@WSJPolitics Is Russia a friend or adversary? Both says Giuliani. "It's an adversary because we made it that way" [twitter link takes you to video with Giuliani and Conway]

We have always been at war friends with Eastasia
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:02 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


And I can't decide which one would be 'better', even in the relative sense of it.

It's like a game of Would You Rather? that stumps us all.
posted by emjaybee at 6:03 PM on November 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Somewhere deep in the Kremlin there's an old 486 PC with a handwritten sticker that says "Trump/Giuliani Geopolitical Game Theory Solver"
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:04 PM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Shout out to Canadians here. Like expected it's leaking north. We're likely going to have to work to stem it as much as we can.

This my current level of response: $&%&% (redacted) $^$^$^%$

Posters In Toronto Are Encouraging White People To “Join The Alt-Right”
posted by Jalliah at 6:05 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I really liked this:
What to Do About Trump? The Same Thing My Grandfather Did in 1930s Vienna.
[...] Which leads me to the third principle, the one hardest to grasp: Refuse to accept what’s going on as the new normal. Not now, not ever. In the months and years to come, decisions will be made that may strike you as perfectly sound, appointments announced that are inspired, and policies enacted you may even like. Friends and pundits will reach out to you and, invoking nuance, urge you to admit that there’s really nothing to fear, that things are more complex, that nothing is ever black or white. It’s a perfectly sound argument, of course, but it’s also dead wrong: This isn’t about policy or appointments or even about outcomes. This isn’t a political contest—it’s a moral crisis. When an inexperienced, thin-skinned demagogue rides into office by explaining away immensely complex problems while arguing that our national glory demands we strip millions of their dignity or their rights, our only duty is to resist by whatever means permitted us by law. The demagogue may boost the economy, sign beneficial treaties, and mend our ailing institutions, but his success can never be ours. Our greatness, to use a tired but true phrase, depends on our goodness, and to succeed, we must demand that our commander in chief come as close as is possible to reflecting the light of that goodness.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:06 PM on November 14, 2016 [66 favorites]


our only duty is to resist by whatever means permitted us by law

I object. Should be, "by whatever means permitted by your principles."

to be a righteous voice raised against injustice should it arise.

I think it's safe to say we've blown past that gate already.
posted by perspicio at 6:15 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Are there any Republican leaders going "what-the-ever-living-fuck is happening"?

Not really, publicly. It's interesting, though, that if you watch Paul Ryan's (slimy, unctuous -- oh wait, it's Ryan, so that's redundant) CNN interview from yesterday, it goes pretty much like this the whole time:
Jake Tapper: So, President-Elect Trump says he wants to do X. What say you?
Ryan: Yeah, no fucking way we're doing X.
Tapper: Trump completely refused to consider Y.
Ryan: We'll be doing so, so much Y.
Not that he's a leader or has one iota of integrity or public service in his entire granny-starving body, but I don't know that he and Trump will be playing nicely together at all. Of course, he doesn't give a shit if Trump appoints Nosferatu and Cruella DeVille to the cabinet since it has no impact on his horrid legislative agenda.

I suspect that Trump will try to get his gross, abysmal cabinet choices approved by promising to screw the Republican Senate on Supreme Court picks otherwise. After the Garland thing, it would almost be amusing to see him just decline to nominate anyone until they play ball -- if it didn't decimate actual people's lives.

Btw, I'm pretty sure that if you look into Paul Ryan's eyes for more than a few seconds, he can hypnotize you like a cobra.
posted by FelliniBlank at 6:15 PM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Posters In Toronto Are Encouraging White People To “Join The Alt-Right”

And the election has led to a small disaster in my own personal life. I for the first time ever posted a comment on Buzzfeed...

I'm consoling myself that it took this serious an issue to prompt it and not being upset with someone's bad cookie recipe.
posted by Jalliah at 6:17 PM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


WSJ Rudy Giuliani Says Defeating ISIS to Be Early Focus of Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy
Mr. Giuliani didn’t say, however, what specifically the Trump administration would do to combat Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL. Mr. Trump has repeatedly said he wants to keep this strategy secret so that the terror network can’t prepare for it.

Mr. Giuliani also said that the Trump administration would work to reset relations with both Russia and China. He said the Obama administration had made Russia into an adversary and said Russian President Vladimir Putin didn't respect President Barack Obama. Messrs. Trump and Putin spoke on the telephone on Monday and pledged to work together on a number of issues.
I can't wait to see how the Trump Secret Plan to Defeat ISIS unfolds. After all, DJT knows more than the generals.

Also this idea that the Obama administration made Russia an enemy and Putin does not respect President Obama is such an astonishing statement that I wonder his body didn't spontaneously combust. It is so loaded with nuggets of bullshit: Russia has only recently become our adversary, Obama bases his foreign policy on his personal likes and dislikes, DJT knows exactly what Putin is thinking-- that it reeks to high heaven. Yet somehow I imagine that Guiliani savored that shit sandwich as it exited his mouth.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:25 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]



THE NEW YORK TIMES JUST GAVE TRUMP A GIANT F*CK YOU AFTER HIS EARLY MORNING MELTDOWN

But if he thought these rants and threats would get the paper to budge, he was sorely mistaken. First in a statement to readers then on Twitter, The New York Times sent a powerful message: Take your threats and shove it. We’ve got reporting to do. And readers want to hear it.

As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.


They also called “bullshit” on Trump’s lie that the paper was losing readers due to reporting on Trump. In fact, subscriptions are flooding in. The Times tweeted out a message from assistant masthead editor for the NYT Clifford Levy pointing out the inconvenient truth

--------

Even factoring in cancellations, The Times says it has a net gain of four times as many readers since Election Day. They then took it a step further, tweeting a factcheck directly to Trump.

posted by Jalliah at 6:26 PM on November 14, 2016 [24 favorites]


Can we go back to the economic concerns of the working class for a minute? Because people I haven't seen since like, my first year of high school have crawled out of the woodwork to berate me about how they voted purely on an economic basis and it's not racism to want to feed your families and why can't we just give the guy a chance? I've read a lot during this election about the forgotten WWC and their Bleaksville lives ever since the fake dog poo factory shut down, so I've really put a lot of effort into grokking this economic argument.

The trouble is, I'm one of the white (or pink? maybe light pink?)-collar precariat, like lots of Americans. My master's degree barely gets me $22k a year in academic serfdom. So when I read that these people in middle America are so angry, I'm really irritated. Yes, I know you used to be able to raise a family of 4 on the income from one unskilled manufacturing job. You also used to have people whose entire job purpose was to type things for other people. That doesn't exist anymore because employers expect everyone to do their own typing. Lots of things have changed. Do people seriously expect to make $75k a year with only a high school diploma when the country is full of Millennials with college degrees that are happy if they can get $30k a year? Doing what? What, exactly, do they think the president can do to compel employers to pay these tremendous wages?

The flip side of these hand-wringing articles is how it's a wound to the dignity of proud working class people to take "government handouts" (excepting, of course, Medicare, housing tax credits, disability etc), and what they really want is to go back to the days when they made middle class wages for doing unskilled labor. So how does this fit with rah-rah capitalism? Whose responsibility is it to ensure high-paying jobs? Businesses have no obligation to do so. These are the same people who rail against single-payer, who have bought the Republican free-market unfettered capitalism ideology hook, line & sinker. These people, I believe, will NEVER support guaranteed basic incomes. They don't want the money, they want the narrative of being self-made, of pulling up by one's bootstraps to a position that lets them look down upon anyone further down.

It's interesting to see Trumpism framed as a reaction against neoliberalism. What do they expect to replace neoliberalism with? The Republicans won't ever capitulate to protectionist tariffs and curtailed economic growth as Berlusconi did in Italy. There's too much profit at stake for the wealthy, so we're back to a position where people think they're revolting against the system, but they've picked the wrong targets entirely. If Trumpers were serious about economics and the ravages of neoliberalism, they would have been paying attention to the G8 protests, Occupy Wall street, etc. The same people on my Facebook feed rushing to defend their man with cries of "economics!" gave zero fucks about Occupy. They didn't even notice when GW Bush was crashing the economy into a ditch.
posted by Kitty Stardust at 6:27 PM on November 14, 2016 [84 favorites]


Does this mean the NYT will start calling Bannon "white supremacist" instead of "provacateur"? Cause then I might buy a fucking subscription after all.
posted by emjaybee at 6:32 PM on November 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


If you're given even tacit permission to do that thing you usually can't get away with, it's like a fucking snow day.

Um, no. Some of us try to be decent people even if nobody's watching. Even if we could "get away with it." Integrity is not based on what you don't get caught doing, but what kind of person you are when the ruling authority doesn't forbid being vicious to each other.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 6:35 PM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


WSJ Rudy Giuliani Says Defeating ISIS to Be Early Focus of Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy

So what might very well happen is that the Iraqi military and the Kurdish peshmerga will retake Mosul, while the SDF, the Syrian army, and various Turkish-backed rebels will attack Raqqa with both American and Russian airpower and support. So the Islamic State proper gets wiped out before mid-2017, and Trump will have claimed the work of both Obama and everyone who actually bled and died to achieve it.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:37 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


@SimonWDC
Biggest gains for Democrats in 2016 - TX, CA, AZ
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

@mattklewis Retweeted Simon Rosenberg
Big long-term problem for the GOP if they trade the sun belt for the rust belt.
posted by chris24 at 6:38 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Times of San Diego Facebook Threats to Kill Donald Trump Get Del Mar-based CEO Suspended
A San Diego-area cybersecurity firm announced Monday the suspension of its chief executive over social media comments he made about assassinating President-elect Donald Trump.

PacketSled President and CEO Matt Harrigan admitted to posting the seemingly threatening rhetoric — including the statement, “I’m going to kill the president. Elect.” — on his Facebook page as voting results were coming in Tuesday night, though he would later describe his remarks as a “flawed joke.”

The Del Mar-based company posted a statement on its website stating that it “takes recent comments made by our CEO seriously.”

“Once we were made aware of these comments, we immediately reported this information to the Secret Service and will cooperate fully with any inquiries. These comments do not reflect the views or opinions of PacketSled, its employees, investors or partners. Our CEO has been placed on administrative leave.”

In Harrigan’s online rant, which was subsequently deleted but later reappeared in screenshots on Reddit, he wrote that he would be “getting a sniper rifle and perching myself where it counts.”

Apparently addressing Trump, the post continued, “Find a bedroom in the whitehouse (sic) that suits you (expletive). I’ll find you.”

When a Facebook friend suggested that the comments could provoke a federal investigation, Harrigan replied, “Bring it. Bring it secret service.”

Harrigan also posted, “In no uncertain terms, f— you America. Seriously. F— off,” and “Really San Diego? Trump? Go f— yourself San Diego.”
Sounds like a drunken rant to me.

Kitty Stardust: So how does this fit with rah-rah capitalism? Whose responsibility is it to ensure high-paying jobs? Businesses have no obligation to do so. These are the same people who rail against single-payer, who have bought the Republican free-market unfettered capitalism ideology hook, line & sinker. These people, I believe, will NEVER support guaranteed basic incomes.

You nailed it. This is what we have all been scratching our heads over. DJT says he will bring their jobs back, but what jobs? How? It is impossible. If iPhones were made in the United States do you think anyone could afford to buy one? If Oreo cookies reopen their factories do you think that the people working there would get high wages and great benefits? DJT just made pronouncements like "Elect me and all your dreams will come true"[real] and people decided that sounded good to them. No critical thinking skills. No imagination to look beyond the promises. No attempt to do anything beside listen to his voice. It's maddening.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:38 PM on November 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


@jameshohmann
Los Angeles Police Department will not help deport immigrants under Trump, chief tells LA Times.
posted by chris24 at 6:39 PM on November 14, 2016 [31 favorites]


I really don't get the Putin-love that so many Republicans seem to be have. My father told me yesterday that Putin is just a much better leader than Obama because he's clearly so much smarter. I said that Putin's sole goal seemed to be creating chaos in the West, perhaps to hide the shortcomings of his own failed state. When my dad repeated the line about being a better leader, I pointed out that the average life expectancy of a Russian was nearly ten years less than the average life expectancy of an American, and the only meaningful measure of the success of a leader was in the quality of life of the people they serve. He then mumbled something about how lives have always "worth less" in Russia, but it was clear that I had struck something.

Or at least I'd like to think so.
posted by Slothrup at 6:41 PM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Well, hell. I've had plenty of issues with the NYT in the past but if they're going to step up and square off with trump then I'm going to finally pay for the shit. I think paying for journalism is one of the first things us well-off folks can do right now during the transition. And the ACLU, of course.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:41 PM on November 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


The trouble is, I'm one of the white (or pink? maybe light pink?)-collar precariat, like lots of Americans. My master's degree barely gets me $22k a year in academic serfdom. So when I read that these people in middle America are so angry, I'm really irritated. Yes, I know you used to be able to raise a family of 4 on the income from one unskilled manufacturing job. You also used to have people whose entire job purpose was to type things for other people. That doesn't exist anymore because employers expect everyone to do their own typing. Lots of things have changed. Do people seriously expect to make $75k a year with only a high school diploma when the country is full of Millennials with college degrees that are happy if they can get $30k a year? Doing what? What, exactly, do they think the president can do to compel employers to pay these tremendous wages?

I think this is a strawman. I don't know that people expect to make $75k a year; they want to be able to make enough to rent a house, get a car, things like that. In a lot of the country that doesn't take $75k. Maybe $75k total for two working people so like $37k per. And honestly, I don't think that having a master's degree necessarily entitles one to always earn more than a manual laborer. I am not sure if you are saying that or not and I don't want to misjudge you but if you are saying it, I would rethink.
posted by Rock 'em Sock 'em at 6:41 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


NPR's Master Class in Whitewashing the Steve Bannon Appointment

CAN WE GIVE UP ON NPR NEWS NOW

ASKING FOR A FRIEND
posted by petebest at 6:42 PM on November 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


Putin is a White, Christian Autocrat. That's it.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:43 PM on November 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well, I canceled my NYT subscription on Wednesday and included a stern letter to the editors saying that I considered them complicit in Trump's election for treating him as a serious equivalent candidate to Clinton. So they may well have picked up a few new readers, but I'm sure I'm not the first to leave.

(I should have unsubscribed earlier but thought I'd enjoy reading about Hillary's victory. Fool me once, etc.)
posted by vickyverky at 6:43 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Does this mean the NYT will start calling Bannon "white supremacist" instead of "provacateur"? Cause then I might buy a fucking subscription after all.

Yeah, I prefer the plain language. "Provacateur" vaguely sounds like he (Bannon) is teasing us with some kind of fan dance.

(And I want to see that in a cartoon.)
posted by puddledork at 6:44 PM on November 14, 2016


Seriously, it would be nice if these economic anxiety people realized that they don't want free-market solutions. They want regulations to keep businesses from screwing them.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 6:45 PM on November 14, 2016 [26 favorites]


Jalliah:

Propagating Alt-Right activism in Toronto seems like a moronic non-starter. How can that have any traction in a city that is almost exactly half PoC? Assuming that at least a fraction of the white people in Toronto will repudiate such ideology, you're looking at a pretty fringe movement almost by default. They can go and fuck themselves, really. It's so amusingly impotent that they think they can do anything.

I'm so eager for the day that America & Canada both are minority white. I really want a painfully unquestionable, profound demographic reckoning to land on these people. There's a dark part of me that wants to see so many white people denied work, chased out of town, denied housing, in a biblical-reckoning style conflagration. I don't even care if that would impact me negatively. The schadenfreude would set me alight with joy regardless.
posted by constantinescharity at 6:46 PM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


I don't know that people expect to make $75k a year; they want to be able to make enough to rent a house, get a car, things like that. In a lot of the country that doesn't take $75k.

People making under $50k/year voted very solidly for Hillary. So yes, we're looking at people who make $50k a year and up, who think they're being ripped off and not making enough. We're looking at people who make $85k a year and think they deserve $125k. They have enough to make house and car payments but their health insurance is very expensive - by which I mean, they can't afford it AND vacations to Europe a couple times a year.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 6:47 PM on November 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


Yep, if the Democrats gain the sun belt and based upon the shifts in voting patterns that seems likely the Republican party is going to have some significant challenges moving forward.

Atlanta, Houston, Dallas are becoming incredibly Democratic. Phoenix and Denver and Las Vegas are following that trend as well.

Thus far the rest of Texas is negating the urban areas and the Valley but Republicans are losing ground. It's primarily the insanely high costs of the Texas media markets and the challenges for Voter registration that are postponing the inevitable.

Needless to say I anticipate the Rust Belt to start having some extreme buyers remorse before too long as well.
posted by vuron at 6:51 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Slothrup: I really don't get the Putin-love that so many Republicans seem to be have. My father told me yesterday that Putin is just a much better leader than Obama because he's clearly so much smarter.

Putin, while not a Communist in the ideological sense, has a place he's coming from (Foreign Policy article with a one-time paywall warning but should be accessible):

But Yeltsin’s team never formed a clear strategy for how to transform what had once been the secret services of a totalitarian state into the intelligence community of a democracy.Yeltsin’s team never formed a clear strategy for how to transform what had once been the secret services of a totalitarian state into the intelligence community of a democracy. In a 1993 executive decree, Yeltsin lamented, reeling off a list of acronyms for various incarnations of the security agencies, that “the system of the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD-MGB-NGKB-KGB-MB turned out to be incapable of being reformed. Reorganization efforts in recent years were external and cosmetic in nature.… The system of political investigation is preserved and may easily be restored.”

It was a prescient comment: By the mid-1990s, various component parts and functions of the old KGB had begun to make their way back to the FSK, like the liquid metal of the killer T-1000 android in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, slowly reconstituting itself after having been blown to bits.

First to return was the power to conduct domestic investigations. In November 1994, Yeltsin restored the investigative directorate of the FSK and placed the infamous Lefortovo prison, which had once held political prisoners and had been used for interrogations that involved torture, back under its remit. The next year saw a crucial name change: The FSK was rechristened the FSB. The shift from “K” (kontrrazvedka, or counterintelligence) to “B” (bezopasnost, or security) was more than cosmetic; with the new name came a broad mandate for the FSB to become the guardian of “security” for Russia.

Over the course of the next five years, the FSB would win back many of its old functions. It would once again be given responsibility for pursuing dissidents, who were now branded “extremists,” and would be given its own foreign intelligence directorate, duplicating the SVR’s.

When Putin came to power in 2000, he initially appeared to follow the route laid out by his predecessor, Yeltsin. His main concern, at least at first, seemed to be minimizing competition between the secret services; as a result, in 2003, he allowed the FSB to absorb responsibility for the border troops and FAPSI — the electronic intelligence agency — and gave the service expanded powers over the army and police.

But the president, himself a former KGB officer, was too taken in by KGB myths about the role of the Cheka in Russian society to be satisfied with the FSB being a mere security organ. He was determined to see it become something bigger. Putin encouraged a steady growth in the agency’s influence. The president began using the FSB as his main recruitment base for filling key positions in government and state-controlled business; its agents were expected to define and personify the ideology of the new Russia. When FSB Director Nikolai Patrushev, in December 2000, called his officers Russia’s “new ‘nobility’” — a nickname that agents in the KGB could have hardly dreamed of being applied to them — he was taking a cue from his boss.


So, I guess for the Republican-minded relative who's saying "Putin doesn't seem so bad," the response should be "Does the notion of Soviet secret police bother you? Because that's what Putin has modeled his state security apparatus on."
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 6:51 PM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


"Multiple vacations in a year" is a hell of a reach there.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 6:52 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


@KyleOrl
For anyone interested in keeping track of the real popular vote totals, which Clinton seems set to win by 2M+ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/[...]
posted by chris24 at 6:52 PM on November 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


As You Know, Bob, the Democratic candidate, despite being largely despised by the general public for more than two decades, still won the election by more than two million votes. Every single election since 2010 has been gerrymandered to death - in 2014, 1.2 million more votes went to Democratic congressional candidates than their Reichist rivals. I can only assume more votes went that way in a Presidential year, for chrissake Dems picked up two senate seats, despite about the worst candidate ever to ever ham-hand a campaign in an angry, workers-in-revolt we-want-change year. (Historians a hundred years from now, in their animal skins and with their bone rattles high in isolated mountain caves, will be giggling at the stupidity of it all.)

We have a no-kidding illegitimate President. He did not get the most votes. We have a no-kidding illegitimate congress - neither the House nor Senate is represented fairly by the American People.

We have a no-kidding illegitimate Judiciary, as the 2-illigit-2-quit Congress refused to confirm Obama's nominees, some of them for yeaaaaaars at a time.

And you're all like, let's make more white middle class people be ashamed to be white middle class?

Intersectionality is tough. We have failed to make the struggles of white men the same struggle as those of women, POC and immigrants. We have blamed them, and made them an evil outsider in our narrative, even as they are dying in astonishing numbers and their families are slipping into the poverty cycle. No wonder they stayed home when we needed them most.

Trump didn't win because our allies became our enemies due to racism (they elected a black guy with the middle name of "Hussein" twice, by double digits) nor sexism (Nikki Haley, Sarah Goddamn Palin, I mean, Madam Scty. Palin.)

No. Trump won because Hillary was a terrible candidate who could not communicate clearly to her core constituency.

We can't talk to people who have likely never met a Black or Hispanic person in their life, except for that one time at the Sheetz, about how much they are terrible and evil for hating people who are largely an abstract. We can't talk to them about their privilege when they are shuttering the shop their Dad left them that their Great Grandad opened, and had to bury their brother because Fentanyl.

Intersectionality is a large pill to swallow when looking at it from the other end of the microscope. White working men are being exploited just as hard, but in different ways. One of those is as an easy patsy, a goon, a willing henchman. Shove someone into that role hard enough from either end, and they may just decide to fill it. We must offer them a way out.

Make their pain our pain, and have a succinct and lucid diagnosis, and a clear path of treatment, and we will win.

Also we need to tell him Paul Ryan is trying to take away his aged mother's Medicare, because Paul Ryan actually is.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:55 PM on November 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


I really don't get the Putin-love that so many Republicans seem to be have. My father told me yesterday that Putin is just a much better leader than Obama because he's clearly so much smarter. I said that Putin's sole goal seemed to be creating chaos in the West, perhaps to hide the shortcomings of his own failed state. When my dad repeated the line about being a better leader, I pointed out that the average life expectancy of a Russian was nearly ten years less than the average life expectancy of an American, and the only meaningful measure of the success of a leader was in the quality of life of the people they serve. He then mumbled something about how lives have always "worth less" in Russia, but it was clear that I had struck something.

Or at least I'd like to think so.


My going thesis which I have on a list to explore more is that Putin love started gaining force in a big way in Right Wing world because of Obama. The Right tends towards more views of authoritarian views of leadership, masculine views of leadership, fathers as great leaders sort of thinking. The office of the President, the most powerful job and leader in the world is a symbol of such leadership. Then a black guy got put in there. This puts a jimmy in the whole masculine (white) myth and symbolism of the leader because...racism. So the Right started looking for someone else, a great 'white' masculine leader and Putin loving took off and has just built on itself from there.
posted by Jalliah at 6:57 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Can we go back to the economic concerns of the working class for a minute? Because people I haven't seen since like, my first year of high school have crawled out of the woodwork to berate me about how they voted purely on an economic basis...

Hmmm...maybe they should've voted for Ms. Raise Minimum Wage to $15/Hour instead of Mr. Wages Are Too High.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:57 PM on November 14, 2016 [22 favorites]


So how does this fit with rah-rah capitalism?

It doesn't. Hence the National Socialism.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:59 PM on November 14, 2016


[Couple deleted. Slap*Happy, don't pick a fight here.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:00 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Russia is a failed petrostate run by an Authoritarian cabal focused primarily on enrichment of their own bank accounts.

Putin and Russia might have delusions if grandeur but there doesn't appear to be a Renaissance of the Soviet Union anytime soon despite the various attempts to regain hegemony over their previous satellite states.

Putin's ability to buy off his own population is still somewhat in place but Russia is extremely dependent on selling natural gas to the EU.
posted by vuron at 7:01 PM on November 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


> Propagating Alt-Right activism in Toronto seems like a moronic non-starter. How can that have any traction in a city that is almost exactly half PoC?

Toronto elected Rob Ford mayor.

Also though more broadly there is a rising wave of fascism across the globe. Nowhere is immune, not even Canada.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 7:03 PM on November 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


The other name being bandied about is John Bolton, so apparently 'freaking out the rest of the world' is the order of the day.

Ah, the man who once said, "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." And then George W. Bush nominated for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Yes, he's Mr. Diplomacy.
The Democrats in the Senate blocked him so Bush did a recess appointment.

MetaFilter: a failed petrostate run by an Authoritarian cabal focused primarily on enrichment of their own bank accounts.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:03 PM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]



We can't talk to people who have likely never met a Black or Hispanic person in their life, except for that one time at the Sheetz, about how much they are terrible and evil for hating people who are largely an ab