I really think that "A woman can not get elected" isn't the message we should be taking from this result. Clinton couldn't get elected, but that's not logically equivalent.
I think a woman can get elected. Hillary could have been elected. It was ~1% in the tipping point states. But I do think there's a misogyny handicap just like everywhere else in this country. So you might want somebody who has a special edge in how likeable she is.
Someone with Sarah Palin's folksy likability but also actual brains might be good. Clinton came off as too "elite" as did Obama. Someone who talks like a small town mayor but has knife-sharp wits would play pretty well in America.
God, I hate knowing this would play well. I hate knowing that folksy and down home is something positive in a candidate.
I still can't fathom that we WANT outsiders, or seeming outsiders. I don't fucking ask a farmer to perform open heart surgery on me. I want a policy wonk that is introduced by a bullhorn and takes over an hour every week from every channel to make people know what the fuck is going on.
I think that's ignoring that personal charisma is a skill, too. You want the best heart surgeon available to lead the operation, but you want your nurse to have a good bedside manner and be medically skilled. Maybe the president is more nurse than chief surgeon.
So can someone explain as neutrally as possible why with admissions FROM Russia re: interfacing with the trump campaign why there isn't some...legal system in place to press pause on everything and you know...maybe take a second look at installing a Russian mole?
Because it's a bad idea to put any part of the civil service between the will of the electorate and the president actually taking his or her seat. Our democracy has enough failure points as it is.
But isn't installing a Russian bootlicker just as much a failure?
The only solid admission is that they had contact. Trump had contact with the Mexican government as well. Obama visited Europe during his campaign. Unless something can be proven, there's nothing that can be done.
Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin political analyst, was jubilant at the result and said a Trump presidency would make it more likely the US would agree with Russia on Syria, where the two powers back different sides and Moscow has intervened decisively on behalf of the president, Bashar al-Assad.
Markov also said it would mean less American backing for “the terroristic junta in Ukraine”. He denied allegations of Russian interference in the election, but said “maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.”
I would not be shocked to find Comey was involved somehow either.
Russia working with Wikileaks doesn't directly implicate the Trump campaign. I mean, look we all know, but knowing and having proof are two different things.
Trump's foreign policy campaign advisor is/was under investigation by US Intelligence over backroom dealings with Russian officials to undermine current US foreign policy by promising to remove sanctions against Russia if Trump won.
At this point I legitimately don't know if there's going to be an indefensible impeachable offense by the Trump Administration (/vomit) in the first 2 years.
This is still my prediction. Within a year or two he'll have either done something or orchestrated some great reason to hand it over to Pence. Or the Russians release some terrible blackmail thing and then it goes to Pence. And then the Terminator locks in the codes and we're all doomed.
What happens if they release some terrible blackmail thing before Donald takes office? Or claim that they rigged the election?
We will tear ourselves apart.
I was actually wondering about this. If Trump gets arrested/impeached before even taking office, what happens? Pence gets it? What if they both choke on a chicken bone or something? Clinton doesn't win it by default, right? Despite Popular Vote? Is it different if the electoral college has already voted?
If someone dies before the electoral college vote, they can change their votes to anyone on the ballot (and always could). If something happens after the electoral college vote, it should follow normal succession rules, President -> Vice President -> Speaker of the House -> etc.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
And I did hear her potential third term referred to as "Bill's third term." Both positively and negatively. Which, given Hillary, is stupid anyway. But it just shouldn't even be a thing.
Turnout was higher this time. Her lead is going to grow. It might end up being \as big as Bush's in 2004.
Winning the popular vote by ~2% and still losing the election is utterly phenomenal to me. Bush/Gore was within half a percentage point and I recall that causing some major upset at the time.
Does Clinton have 2% more or 0.2% more?
Clinton has .2% more
or as Paul Ryan puts it, a clear mandate from the American people to remake the country
Turnout was higher this time. Her lead is going to grow. It might end up being \as big as Bush's in 2004.
Winning the popular vote by ~2% and still losing the election is utterly phenomenal to me. Bush/Gore was within half a percentage point and I recall that causing some major upset at the time.
Does Clinton have 2% more or 0.2% more?
Clinton has .2% more
or as Paul Ryan puts it, a clear mandate from the American people to remake the country
Final votes aren't tallied and they're likely to lean heavily towards Clinton. She's probably going to wind up with a 1 or 2% lead in the popular vote.
Warren dropped a statement very similar to Sanders'.
Let me be 100% clear about this. When President-elect Trump wants to take on these issues, when his goal is to increase the economic security of middle-class families, then count me in. I will push aside our differences and I will work with him to achieve that goal.
...
If Trump and the Republican Party try to turn loose the big banks and financial institutions so they can once again gamble with our economy and bring it all crashing down, then we will fight them every step of the way. Every step.
And rebuilding our economy does not mean crippling our economy and ripping working families apart by rounding up and deporting millions of our coworkers, our friends, and our neighbors, our mothers and our fathers, our sons and our daughters. If Republicans choose that path, we will fight them every step of the way.
This was delivered to the AFL-CIO this afternoon.
I have to say, I'm pretty down with the "if Trump keeps his promise to try and make things better for working people" line we're going with. Because he won't, unless he's shamed into doing so by things like this.
It's funny how some liberals have learned nothing from losing this election and think that the answer is to double down on their hubris. The hypocrisy with these protests against what was a free and fair election is delicious.
Make no attempt to understand the other side. Keep those echo chambers smooth.
I'm speaking in general, not to any specific person here.
If the protests remain peaceful, then there is no hubris in conducting them. If these people want to spend the next 4 years, following Trump around by their 10s of thousands, protesting every event he attends, every moment of his presidency, reminding him every day how he lost the popular vote and does not have their permission to forget that, then providing they follow the instructions of the secret service and other law enforcement agencies to maintain Trumps safety, do not damage public or private property, and do not break any laws then Trump just has to sit and take it and there is absolutely no valid criticism of them other than...
"Aren't you kinda wasting your time?"
I mean, Trump should get used to it. I doubt he will be able to travel anywhere other than China, Russia or Saudi Arabia without facing titanic protests which would render his visit impossible.
And of course, Trump was saying 'I will win the popular vote and Hilary will steal the election!' to his followers. When in fact, Hilary has won the popular vote and he has 'taken' the election anyway. Now, I don't say that he did anything illegal. He didn't 'steal' the election. The law is the law. You must win the electoral college, not a mandate from the people. But the law can be wrong, and laws which are wrong should be subject to legal protest until they are changed. Losing the popular vote and winning the election is NOT a common thing in US history. It's happened 4 times, twice in living memory to Democrats. This is not working as intended.
A part of us is still wired to think of, and yearn for, kings and royal dynasties. IMO.
(Another part - see below - wants to believe that "anyone can be President", even a guy just like us.)
Hence shitty midterm turnout. What's a congress? What's a Senate?
My family didn't know who Rick Scott was until I had to explain to her why her Obamacare was so expensive for her when my brother's and sister's were not.
Clinton has more attributes in her negative column than "woman" in terms of electability
People don't think "I will not listen to a woman!" they get irritated and then self-justify it by calling her "shrill" "annoying" "schoolmarmish" "smug" or whatever. You can bet your sweet ass that Warren would have got all of this. And Michelle Obama, really? That would be called "Obama's third term."
Maybe we should move away from spouses of presidents as candidates. Kids of presidents are meh too.
When the first woman gets elected, I would prefer if a) her spouse was still eligible to run and b) doesn't.
Having lived previously in the White House should be a soft bar to nomination. I mean sure, if there's just nobody else. But come on, 300 million people and we can't find somebody who isn't directly related to a former president?
I don't think presidential dynasties have happened enough that it's something specific we need to care about.
We just came a hair's breadth from electing the spouse of a president just eight years after the son of a president finished his term (which was eight years after his father, and the intervening eight years was her husband). And we had another son running as well in the primary.
Maybe that's just an unrelated cluster. But it worries me.
Reality tv hosts as president worries me too, obviously.
There's a lot to say about the election and what happened. Most of it was that Hilary Clinton was a horrible candidate, but somehow the golden girl of the DNC - I guess because she had paid her dues. The main messages I heard (note I didn't watch the debates) were that I should vote for her because she's a woman who has a lot of experience in government. Even though she talked about the issues, she really didn't run on them. "I'm With Her" and the much too late "Stronger Together" didn't make me think she would be a good president. The issue with her candidacy is that people didn't trust her. For me it had more to do with the pandering I saw her do with respect to first amendment issues (check out when she agreed with Jack Thompson) while for others it was because of the FBI investigations and because she very much catered her messages to what she understood was popular at the time.
I understand why the people who voted for her are so upset. I kind of think there's a lot of over-dramatizing going on though regarding what this means for the country. Every time someone is elected, we see if they will live up to what they campaigned on. Most of the time we have doubts that they will. Donald Trump's behavior since the election (and I know it's only been days) as compared to when he was campaigning seems like night and day. I keep expecting him to say something really explosive about the protests against him or at least dismissive of those people's perspectives - and he hasn't. I read today that his campaign site took down some of his more extremist campaign policies around Muslims. There are signs that really, it won't be the extreme situation that was painted by both campaigns.
And yet, those who sided with the other gal, continue to be downright depressed acting like the world is over. It's not. I think we should save our energy for times when there is action that really is needed on our part such as if there are threats to civil rights seriously being discussed and considered by our lawmakers. My hope is that it won't happen, but if it does, that's the time for dramatics - not when you think the sky is falling, but when it really is.
I have to say, I'm pretty down with the "if Trump keeps his promise to try and make things better for working people" line we're going with. Because he won't, unless he's shamed into doing so by things like this.
Yup. Keep hammering him on that one. Make it one promise, one contract he can't default on or weasel out of.
God, everytime I type, read, say, or hear anything about President Trump or the Trump Administration or the like, my stomach churns.
There's a reason I've been referring to him as "that man", earning the distinction of becoming the second person who's name I cannot bring myself to use.
(The first being the terrorist who killed 77 people (mostly teenagers at summer camp on Utøya) in Norway, 22 July 2011.)
Sic transit gloria mundi.
0
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
I really think that "A woman can not get elected" isn't the message we should be taking from this result. Clinton couldn't get elected, but that's not logically equivalent.
I think a woman can get elected. Hillary could have been elected. It was ~1% in the tipping point states. But I do think there's a misogyny handicap just like everywhere else in this country. So you might want somebody who has a special edge in how likeable she is.
Someone with Sarah Palin's folksy likability but also actual brains might be good. Clinton came off as too "elite" as did Obama. Someone who talks like a small town mayor but has knife-sharp wits would play pretty well in America.
God, I hate knowing this would play well. I hate knowing that folksy and down home is something positive in a candidate.
I still can't fathom that we WANT outsiders, or seeming outsiders. I don't fucking ask a farmer to perform open heart surgery on me. I want a policy wonk that is introduced by a bullhorn and takes over an hour every week from every channel to make people know what the fuck is going on.
I think that's ignoring that personal charisma is a skill, too. You want the best heart surgeon available to lead the operation, but you want your nurse to have a good bedside manner and be medically skilled. Maybe the president is more nurse than chief surgeon.
No I don't. That's why I said that's what I want. I don't give two shits about likeability (bedside manner) when it comes to policy. Barney Frank was a shrill, angry and loudmouthed asshole and he's been my favorite politician in my lifetime.
Warren dropped a statement very similar to Sanders'.
Let me be 100% clear about this. When President-elect Trump wants to take on these issues, when his goal is to increase the economic security of middle-class families, then count me in. I will push aside our differences and I will work with him to achieve that goal.
...
If Trump and the Republican Party try to turn loose the big banks and financial institutions so they can once again gamble with our economy and bring it all crashing down, then we will fight them every step of the way. Every step.
And rebuilding our economy does not mean crippling our economy and ripping working families apart by rounding up and deporting millions of our coworkers, our friends, and our neighbors, our mothers and our fathers, our sons and our daughters. If Republicans choose that path, we will fight them every step of the way.
This was delivered to the AFL-CIO this afternoon.
I have to say, I'm pretty down with the "if Trump keeps his promise to try and make things better for working people" line we're going with. Because he won't, unless he's shamed into doing so by things like this.
They'll fight every step of the way? What steps? The Republicans control all branches of the government, and Trump controls the Republicans. The "steps" to him doing something are saying "I'm doing this" then doing it.
I remember pictures of Bush and Obama after they got that briefing and they both looked deeply disturbed like they had seen a ghost. I don't know what they tell people but its really kind of scary.
Also whatever it is, Hillary already knew it.
I doubt it's anything so nefarious. But I seriously doubt there's anything that would truly prepare someone for that position. That first briefing they get is probably filled with so much stuff they just hadn't even thought about. The sheer weight of what is entailed by being the President, even with all the checks and balances that are part of it, has got to be like having a lead jacket put on your shoulders.
There's a lot to say about the election and what happened. Most of it was that Hilary Clinton was a horrible candidate, but somehow the golden girl of the DNC - I guess because she had paid her dues. The main messages I heard (note I didn't watch the debates) were that I should vote for her because she's a woman who has a lot of experience in government. Even though she talked about the issues, she really didn't run on them. "I'm With Her" and the much too late "Stronger Together" didn't make me think she would be a good president. The issue with her candidacy is that people didn't trust her. For me it had more to do with the pandering I saw her do with respect to first amendment issues (check out when she agreed with Jack Thompson) while for others it was because of the FBI investigations and because she very much catered her messages to what she understood was popular at the time.
I understand why the people who voted for her are so upset. I kind of think there's a lot of over-dramatizing going on though regarding what this means for the country. Every time someone is elected, we see if they will live up to what they campaigned on. Most of the time we have doubts that they will. Donald Trump's behavior since the election (and I know it's only been days) as compared to when he was campaigning seems like night and day. I keep expecting him to say something really explosive about the protests against him or at least dismissive of those people's perspectives - and he hasn't. I read today that his campaign site took down some of his more extremist campaign policies around Muslims. There are signs that really, it won't be the extreme situation that was painted by both campaigns.
And yet, those who sided with the other gal, continue to be downright depressed acting like the world is over. It's not. I think we should save our energy for times when there is action that really is needed on our part such as if there are threats to civil rights seriously being discussed and considered by our lawmakers. My hope is that it won't happen, but if it does, that's the time for dramatics - not when you think the sky is falling, but when it really is.
The sky may actually fall. People are already being harassed and assaulted solely due to his being elected. Destroying the environment is prettttttty bad. The time for dramatics was probably 10 years ago honestly.
I remember pictures of Bush and Obama after they got that briefing and they both looked deeply disturbed like they had seen a ghost. I don't know what they tell people but its really kind of scary.
Also whatever it is, Hillary already knew it.
I doubt it's anything so nefarious. But I seriously doubt there's anything that would truly prepare someone for that position. That first briefing they get is probably filled with so much stuff they just hadn't even thought about. The sheer weight of what is entailed by being the President, even with all the checks and balances that are part of it, has got to be like having a lead jacket put on your shoulders.
Yeah, realisticaly it is probably something mundane like "every once in a while we will need someone to die for a critical piece of information for the good of the country, you get to make that call. Here is a list."
Turnout was higher this time. Her lead is going to grow. It might end up being \as big as Bush's in 2004.
Winning the popular vote by ~2% and still losing the election is utterly phenomenal to me. Bush/Gore was within half a percentage point and I recall that causing some major upset at the time.
Does Clinton have 2% more or 0.2% more?
There's literally millions of votes uncounted, largely but not exclusively from the west coast and the best analysis indicates its going to grow to the neighborhood of 2%
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
edited November 2016
My heart is breaking and I have to come to accept the fact that Hillary Clinton was not the right candidate for this time, even though I truly wanted her to be President, to celebrate the election of the first woman president, and to feel proud that my country had finally demonstrated it was ready to accept women as competitive members of public life. I am still absolutely crushed that it didn't happen. I am trying to accept that it was our fault for underestimating the willingness of otherwise reliable white working class Democrats to overlook the anti-establishment fervor in favor of a manifestly unqualified goon who promised the persecution of anyone who didn't look like them. They chose the goon because of their dissatisfaction over us. I am trying to be understanding of that. But it's incredibly hard. It feels like we've been sacrificed again at the altar of white nationalist grievance. We were that cheap.
I don't know if this was posted, but this was shared on my facebook; it has also been included in various articles earlier this year warning about the inevitability of Donald Trump. We could have foreseen this. We didn't want to. I feel an incredible need to self-flagellate, even though that won't be constructive. I just don't have much left.
Richard Rorty evidently, from “Achieving Our Country,” from 1998:
Many writers on socioeconomic policy have warned that the old industrialized democracies are heading into a Weimar-like period, one in which populist movements are likely to overturn constitutional governments. Edward Luttwak, for example, has suggested that fascism may be the American future. The point of his book The Endangered American Dream is that members of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.
At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic.
One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words “n*****” and “kike” will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.
We're looking at a terrifying future. I'm trying not to descend into the despair of self-loathing. I don't know what can be done. The world they want is one that doesn't include me, which relegates me to a secondary role. I don't know if I can ever accept that.
So can someone explain as neutrally as possible why with admissions FROM Russia re: interfacing with the trump campaign why there isn't some...legal system in place to press pause on everything and you know...maybe take a second look at installing a Russian mole?
Because it's a bad idea to put any part of the civil service between the will of the electorate and the president actually taking his or her seat. Our democracy has enough failure points as it is.
But isn't installing a Russian bootlicker just as much a failure?
The only solid admission is that they had contact. Trump had contact with the Mexican government as well. Obama visited Europe during his campaign. Unless something can be proven, there's nothing that can be done.
Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin political analyst, was jubilant at the result and said a Trump presidency would make it more likely the US would agree with Russia on Syria, where the two powers back different sides and Moscow has intervened decisively on behalf of the president, Bashar al-Assad.
Markov also said it would mean less American backing for “the terroristic junta in Ukraine”. He denied allegations of Russian interference in the election, but said “maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.”
I would not be shocked to find Comey was involved somehow either.
Russia working with Wikileaks doesn't directly implicate the Trump campaign. I mean, look we all know, but knowing and having proof are two different things.
I think we absolutely 100% have enough evidence to launch a formal investigation aaand the FBI closed the formal investigation huh that's weird hey look guys a helico
I am curious to see if after he gets the info for the President's ears only what will happen. He already looks totally miserable shaking Obama's hand. Wasn't their projection to lose too? I bet he didn't expect to win and was planning to go make a bunch of money and relax in fancy places and is now coming to terms with just what he's done. He's gonna find out aliens exist or something and just start sobbing on national television.
I remember pictures of Bush and Obama after they got that briefing and they both looked deeply disturbed like they had seen a ghost. I don't know what they tell people but its really kind of scary.
There's a lot to say about the election and what happened. Most of it was that Hilary Clinton was a horrible candidate, but somehow the golden girl of the DNC - I guess because she had paid her dues. The main messages I heard (note I didn't watch the debates) were that I should vote for her because she's a woman who has a lot of experience in government. Even though she talked about the issues, she really didn't run on them. "I'm With Her" and the much too late "Stronger Together" didn't make me think she would be a good president. The issue with her candidacy is that people didn't trust her. For me it had more to do with the pandering I saw her do with respect to first amendment issues (check out when she agreed with Jack Thompson) while for others it was because of the FBI investigations and because she very much catered her messages to what she understood was popular at the time.
I understand why the people who voted for her are so upset. I kind of think there's a lot of over-dramatizing going on though regarding what this means for the country. Every time someone is elected, we see if they will live up to what they campaigned on. Most of the time we have doubts that they will. Donald Trump's behavior since the election (and I know it's only been days) as compared to when he was campaigning seems like night and day. I keep expecting him to say something really explosive about the protests against him or at least dismissive of those people's perspectives - and he hasn't. I read today that his campaign site took down some of his more extremist campaign policies around Muslims. There are signs that really, it won't be the extreme situation that was painted by both campaigns.
And yet, those who sided with the other gal, continue to be downright depressed acting like the world is over. It's not. I think we should save our energy for times when there is action that really is needed on our part such as if there are threats to civil rights seriously being discussed and considered by our lawmakers. My hope is that it won't happen, but if it does, that's the time for dramatics - not when you think the sky is falling, but when it really is.
Clinton was not a horrible candidate. Clinton was a great candidate. The fact that people didn't trust her is pathetic.
Threats to your civil rights aren't just being discussed. Threats to your civil rights have already happened. Two key states saw mass voter disenfranchisement and turned red as a result of it. The very, VERY least you can expect is more of the same.
And it doesn't matter if Trump makes soothing noises and his staff delete the worst of his remarks. A candidate endorsed by the KKK is in the White House. Racism in America has never been more emboldened. The damage is done.
Am I the only one who doesn't buy that Comey was trying to rig the thing for Trump? He could have done a lot more damage than he did. He could have left the initial probe open until after the election. When it got re-opened, he could have left that open until after the election. If he reaaaaalllly wanted to help Trump, he could have recommended prosecution. It struck me like the FBI was trying to look like it was doing its job and leaving no stone unturned, while also having no intention of ever pressing charges.
Well he got Trump elected which is quite a lot of damage
Comey brought up the extra emails a week before the election against the direct recommendations of others in the FBI. He issued a retraction on a weekend. Her poll numbers plummeted after that. He could have done more but not without being more obvious. It was absolutely a calculated thing.
Good points, I wasn't aware that he did it against the wishes of other FBI people.
I still think that if he had done less, or brought up the additional emails after the election, it would have looked like one Obama administration member protecting another. But yeah in hind sight, if he wasn't pulling for Trump, he probably should have just taken that credibility hit.
Keep in mind that his letter was sent out before the FBI had looked at the contents of the laptop. To a lot of people what he said was "We found this cardboard box. We think it might contain a taped confession proving Hillary's guilt. Though we're not sure. We'll let you know."
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
There's a lot to say about the election and what happened. Most of it was that Hilary Clinton was a horrible candidate, but somehow the golden girl of the DNC - I guess because she had paid her dues. The main messages I heard (note I didn't watch the debates) were that I should vote for her because she's a woman who has a lot of experience in government. Even though she talked about the issues, she really didn't run on them. "I'm With Her" and the much too late "Stronger Together" didn't make me think she would be a good president. The issue with her candidacy is that people didn't trust her. For me it had more to do with the pandering I saw her do with respect to first amendment issues (check out when she agreed with Jack Thompson) while for others it was because of the FBI investigations and because she very much catered her messages to what she understood was popular at the time.
I understand why the people who voted for her are so upset. I kind of think there's a lot of over-dramatizing going on though regarding what this means for the country. Every time someone is elected, we see if they will live up to what they campaigned on. Most of the time we have doubts that they will. Donald Trump's behavior since the election (and I know it's only been days) as compared to when he was campaigning seems like night and day. I keep expecting him to say something really explosive about the protests against him or at least dismissive of those people's perspectives - and he hasn't. I read today that his campaign site took down some of his more extremist campaign policies around Muslims. There are signs that really, it won't be the extreme situation that was painted by both campaigns.
And yet, those who sided with the other gal, continue to be downright depressed acting like the world is over. It's not. I think we should save our energy for times when there is action that really is needed on our part such as if there are threats to civil rights seriously being discussed and considered by our lawmakers. My hope is that it won't happen, but if it does, that's the time for dramatics - not when you think the sky is falling, but when it really is.
And it doesn't matter if Trump makes soothing noises and his staff delete the worst of his remarks. A candidate endorsed by the KKK is in the White House. Racism in America has never been more emboldened. The damage is done.
Pretty sure the KKK always backs the Republican candidate these days.
So I have a few people in my Facebook feed that I haven't really interacted with in a very long time. One of them was a friend I met because he joined the same fraternity a lot of my other friends did. Yesterday a post from him came up as to why he supported Trump.
It was the most selfish, fuck you got mine screed I have read in a while. He wanted Obamacare repealed because he doesn't need it. He thinks Trump will be good for business, and he's in business. Trump won't enact free college education and this guy's job relies on for-profit institutions. Trump's against environmental regulation, and global warming won't matter during his lifetime. He disrespects women and immigrants and Muslims, but this guy is none of those and other social classes are not his priority. Trump is personally reprehensible, but he won't stick a government hand into my wallet.
It's funny how some liberals have learned nothing from losing this election and think that the answer is to double down on their hubris. The hypocrisy with these protests against what was a free and fair election is delicious.
Make no attempt to understand the other side. Keep those echo chambers smooth.
I'm speaking in general, not to any specific person here.
If the protests remain peaceful, then there is no hubris in conducting them. If these people want to spend the next 4 years, following Trump around by their 10s of thousands, protesting every event he attends, every moment of his presidency, reminding him every day how he lost the popular vote and does not have their permission to forget that, then providing they follow the instructions of the secret service and other law enforcement agencies to maintain Trumps safety, do not damage public or private property, and do not break any laws then Trump just has to sit and take it and there is absolutely no valid criticism of them other than...
"Aren't you kinda wasting your time?"
I mean, Trump should get used to it. I doubt he will be able to travel anywhere other than China, Russia or Saudi Arabia without facing titanic protests which would render his visit impossible.
And of course, Trump was saying 'I will win the popular vote and Hilary will steal the election!' to his followers. When in fact, Hilary has won the popular vote and he has 'taken' the election anyway. Now, I don't say that he did anything illegal. He didn't 'steal' the election. The law is the law. You must win the electoral college, not a mandate from the people. But the law can be wrong, and laws which are wrong should be subject to legal protest until they are changed. Losing the popular vote and winning the election is NOT a common thing in US history. It's happened 4 times, twice in living memory to Democrats. This is not working as intended.
Isn't one of the reasons we have an electoral college to prevent dangerously un-qualified people from being elected? Faithless electors at this point would be the electoral college working as intended.
There's a lot to say about the election and what happened. Most of it was that Hilary Clinton was a horrible candidate, but somehow the golden girl of the DNC - I guess because she had paid her dues. The main messages I heard (note I didn't watch the debates) were that I should vote for her because she's a woman who has a lot of experience in government. Even though she talked about the issues, she really didn't run on them. "I'm With Her" and the much too late "Stronger Together" didn't make me think she would be a good president. The issue with her candidacy is that people didn't trust her. For me it had more to do with the pandering I saw her do with respect to first amendment issues (check out when she agreed with Jack Thompson) while for others it was because of the FBI investigations and because she very much catered her messages to what she understood was popular at the time.
I understand why the people who voted for her are so upset. I kind of think there's a lot of over-dramatizing going on though regarding what this means for the country. Every time someone is elected, we see if they will live up to what they campaigned on. Most of the time we have doubts that they will. Donald Trump's behavior since the election (and I know it's only been days) as compared to when he was campaigning seems like night and day. I keep expecting him to say something really explosive about the protests against him or at least dismissive of those people's perspectives - and he hasn't. I read today that his campaign site took down some of his more extremist campaign policies around Muslims. There are signs that really, it won't be the extreme situation that was painted by both campaigns.
And yet, those who sided with the other gal, continue to be downright depressed acting like the world is over. It's not. I think we should save our energy for times when there is action that really is needed on our part such as if there are threats to civil rights seriously being discussed and considered by our lawmakers. My hope is that it won't happen, but if it does, that's the time for dramatics - not when you think the sky is falling, but when it really is.
And it doesn't matter if Trump makes soothing noises and his staff delete the worst of his remarks. A candidate endorsed by the KKK is in the White House. Racism in America has never been more emboldened. The damage is done.
Pretty sure the KKK always backs the Republican candidate these days.
The candidate's family retweets white supremacist memes and leaders. We don't have to split hairs on the details.
There's a lot to say about the election and what happened. Most of it was that Hilary Clinton was a horrible candidate, but somehow the golden girl of the DNC - I guess because she had paid her dues. The main messages I heard (note I didn't watch the debates) were that I should vote for her because she's a woman who has a lot of experience in government. Even though she talked about the issues, she really didn't run on them. "I'm With Her" and the much too late "Stronger Together" didn't make me think she would be a good president. The issue with her candidacy is that people didn't trust her. For me it had more to do with the pandering I saw her do with respect to first amendment issues (check out when she agreed with Jack Thompson) while for others it was because of the FBI investigations and because she very much catered her messages to what she understood was popular at the time.
I understand why the people who voted for her are so upset. I kind of think there's a lot of over-dramatizing going on though regarding what this means for the country. Every time someone is elected, we see if they will live up to what they campaigned on. Most of the time we have doubts that they will. Donald Trump's behavior since the election (and I know it's only been days) as compared to when he was campaigning seems like night and day. I keep expecting him to say something really explosive about the protests against him or at least dismissive of those people's perspectives - and he hasn't. I read today that his campaign site took down some of his more extremist campaign policies around Muslims. There are signs that really, it won't be the extreme situation that was painted by both campaigns.
And yet, those who sided with the other gal, continue to be downright depressed acting like the world is over. It's not. I think we should save our energy for times when there is action that really is needed on our part such as if there are threats to civil rights seriously being discussed and considered by our lawmakers. My hope is that it won't happen, but if it does, that's the time for dramatics - not when you think the sky is falling, but when it really is.
Clinton was not a horrible candidate. Clinton was a great candidate. The fact that people didn't trust her is pathetic.
Threats to your civil rights aren't just being discussed. Threats to your civil rights have already happened. Two key states saw mass voter disenfranchisement and turned red as a result of it. The very, VERY least you can expect is more of the same.
And it doesn't matter if Trump makes soothing noises and his staff delete the worst of his remarks. A candidate endorsed by the KKK is in the White House. Racism in America has never been more emboldened. The damage is done.
It's pretty easy to say Clinton is a great candidate, but I think she was the wrong candidate for the national mood
+15
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Guys I had this terrible fever dream that I woke up yesterday and we'd actually elected Donald Trump president.
There's a lot to say about the election and what happened. Most of it was that Hilary Clinton was a horrible candidate, but somehow the golden girl of the DNC - I guess because she had paid her dues. The main messages I heard (note I didn't watch the debates) were that I should vote for her because she's a woman who has a lot of experience in government. Even though she talked about the issues, she really didn't run on them. "I'm With Her" and the much too late "Stronger Together" didn't make me think she would be a good president. The issue with her candidacy is that people didn't trust her. For me it had more to do with the pandering I saw her do with respect to first amendment issues (check out when she agreed with Jack Thompson) while for others it was because of the FBI investigations and because she very much catered her messages to what she understood was popular at the time.
I understand why the people who voted for her are so upset. I kind of think there's a lot of over-dramatizing going on though regarding what this means for the country. Every time someone is elected, we see if they will live up to what they campaigned on. Most of the time we have doubts that they will. Donald Trump's behavior since the election (and I know it's only been days) as compared to when he was campaigning seems like night and day. I keep expecting him to say something really explosive about the protests against him or at least dismissive of those people's perspectives - and he hasn't. I read today that his campaign site took down some of his more extremist campaign policies around Muslims. There are signs that really, it won't be the extreme situation that was painted by both campaigns.
And yet, those who sided with the other gal, continue to be downright depressed acting like the world is over. It's not. I think we should save our energy for times when there is action that really is needed on our part such as if there are threats to civil rights seriously being discussed and considered by our lawmakers. My hope is that it won't happen, but if it does, that's the time for dramatics - not when you think the sky is falling, but when it really is.
Clinton was not a horrible candidate. Clinton was a great candidate. The fact that people didn't trust her is pathetic.
Threats to your civil rights aren't just being discussed. Threats to your civil rights have already happened. Two key states saw mass voter disenfranchisement and turned red as a result of it. The very, VERY least you can expect is more of the same.
And it doesn't matter if Trump makes soothing noises and his staff delete the worst of his remarks. A candidate endorsed by the KKK is in the White House. Racism in America has never been more emboldened. The damage is done.
It's pretty easy to say Clinton is a great candidate, but I think she was the wrong candidate for the national mood
Well the national mood put a sexual predator in charge instead so you're not wrong.
I think part of why Trump won both the primary and general is he was able to get a large chunk of lifetime non-voters to finally vote because "hurr hurr I like Trump you're fired Obama hurr hurr". The 4chan/reddit movements are absolutely evidence of this. Those guys didn't give a flying fuck about Mitt Romney or John McCain.
It's funny how some liberals have learned nothing from losing this election and think that the answer is to double down on their hubris. The hypocrisy with these protests against what was a free and fair election is delicious.
Make no attempt to understand the other side. Keep those echo chambers smooth.
I'm speaking in general, not to any specific person here.
If the protests remain peaceful, then there is no hubris in conducting them. If these people want to spend the next 4 years, following Trump around by their 10s of thousands, protesting every event he attends, every moment of his presidency, reminding him every day how he lost the popular vote and does not have their permission to forget that, then providing they follow the instructions of the secret service and other law enforcement agencies to maintain Trumps safety, do not damage public or private property, and do not break any laws then Trump just has to sit and take it and there is absolutely no valid criticism of them other than...
"Aren't you kinda wasting your time?"
I mean, Trump should get used to it. I doubt he will be able to travel anywhere other than China, Russia or Saudi Arabia without facing titanic protests which would render his visit impossible.
And of course, Trump was saying 'I will win the popular vote and Hilary will steal the election!' to his followers. When in fact, Hilary has won the popular vote and he has 'taken' the election anyway. Now, I don't say that he did anything illegal. He didn't 'steal' the election. The law is the law. You must win the electoral college, not a mandate from the people. But the law can be wrong, and laws which are wrong should be subject to legal protest until they are changed. Losing the popular vote and winning the election is NOT a common thing in US history. It's happened 4 times, twice in living memory to Democrats. This is not working as intended.
Isn't one of the reasons we have an electoral college to prevent dangerously un-qualified people from being elected? Faithless electors at this point would be the electoral college working as intended.
I just don't believe anything would guarantee Clinton was a 1 term president with a public backlash next cycle faster than installation via faithless elector against an unfriendly house and senate.
There's a lot to say about the election and what happened. Most of it was that Hilary Clinton was a horrible candidate, but somehow the golden girl of the DNC - I guess because she had paid her dues. The main messages I heard (note I didn't watch the debates) were that I should vote for her because she's a woman who has a lot of experience in government. Even though she talked about the issues, she really didn't run on them. "I'm With Her" and the much too late "Stronger Together" didn't make me think she would be a good president. The issue with her candidacy is that people didn't trust her. For me it had more to do with the pandering I saw her do with respect to first amendment issues (check out when she agreed with Jack Thompson) while for others it was because of the FBI investigations and because she very much catered her messages to what she understood was popular at the time.
I understand why the people who voted for her are so upset. I kind of think there's a lot of over-dramatizing going on though regarding what this means for the country. Every time someone is elected, we see if they will live up to what they campaigned on. Most of the time we have doubts that they will. Donald Trump's behavior since the election (and I know it's only been days) as compared to when he was campaigning seems like night and day. I keep expecting him to say something really explosive about the protests against him or at least dismissive of those people's perspectives - and he hasn't. I read today that his campaign site took down some of his more extremist campaign policies around Muslims. There are signs that really, it won't be the extreme situation that was painted by both campaigns.
And yet, those who sided with the other gal, continue to be downright depressed acting like the world is over. It's not. I think we should save our energy for times when there is action that really is needed on our part such as if there are threats to civil rights seriously being discussed and considered by our lawmakers. My hope is that it won't happen, but if it does, that's the time for dramatics - not when you think the sky is falling, but when it really is.
And it doesn't matter if Trump makes soothing noises and his staff delete the worst of his remarks. A candidate endorsed by the KKK is in the White House. Racism in America has never been more emboldened. The damage is done.
Pretty sure the KKK always backs the Republican candidate these days.
Usually not as loudly as they did this one, and generally the candidates don't even seemingly welcome the support.
Posts
(Another part - see below - wants to believe that "anyone can be President", even a guy just like us.)
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
If someone dies before the electoral college vote, they can change their votes to anyone on the ballot (and always could). If something happens after the electoral college vote, it should follow normal succession rules, President -> Vice President -> Speaker of the House -> etc.
Clinton has .2% more
or as Paul Ryan puts it, a clear mandate from the American people to remake the country
Final votes aren't tallied and they're likely to lean heavily towards Clinton. She's probably going to wind up with a 1 or 2% lead in the popular vote.
This was delivered to the AFL-CIO this afternoon.
I have to say, I'm pretty down with the "if Trump keeps his promise to try and make things better for working people" line we're going with. Because he won't, unless he's shamed into doing so by things like this.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
If the protests remain peaceful, then there is no hubris in conducting them. If these people want to spend the next 4 years, following Trump around by their 10s of thousands, protesting every event he attends, every moment of his presidency, reminding him every day how he lost the popular vote and does not have their permission to forget that, then providing they follow the instructions of the secret service and other law enforcement agencies to maintain Trumps safety, do not damage public or private property, and do not break any laws then Trump just has to sit and take it and there is absolutely no valid criticism of them other than...
"Aren't you kinda wasting your time?"
I mean, Trump should get used to it. I doubt he will be able to travel anywhere other than China, Russia or Saudi Arabia without facing titanic protests which would render his visit impossible.
And of course, Trump was saying 'I will win the popular vote and Hilary will steal the election!' to his followers. When in fact, Hilary has won the popular vote and he has 'taken' the election anyway. Now, I don't say that he did anything illegal. He didn't 'steal' the election. The law is the law. You must win the electoral college, not a mandate from the people. But the law can be wrong, and laws which are wrong should be subject to legal protest until they are changed. Losing the popular vote and winning the election is NOT a common thing in US history. It's happened 4 times, twice in living memory to Democrats. This is not working as intended.
Hence shitty midterm turnout. What's a congress? What's a Senate?
My family didn't know who Rick Scott was until I had to explain to her why her Obamacare was so expensive for her when my brother's and sister's were not.
We just came a hair's breadth from electing the spouse of a president just eight years after the son of a president finished his term (which was eight years after his father, and the intervening eight years was her husband). And we had another son running as well in the primary.
Maybe that's just an unrelated cluster. But it worries me.
Reality tv hosts as president worries me too, obviously.
I understand why the people who voted for her are so upset. I kind of think there's a lot of over-dramatizing going on though regarding what this means for the country. Every time someone is elected, we see if they will live up to what they campaigned on. Most of the time we have doubts that they will. Donald Trump's behavior since the election (and I know it's only been days) as compared to when he was campaigning seems like night and day. I keep expecting him to say something really explosive about the protests against him or at least dismissive of those people's perspectives - and he hasn't. I read today that his campaign site took down some of his more extremist campaign policies around Muslims. There are signs that really, it won't be the extreme situation that was painted by both campaigns.
And yet, those who sided with the other gal, continue to be downright depressed acting like the world is over. It's not. I think we should save our energy for times when there is action that really is needed on our part such as if there are threats to civil rights seriously being discussed and considered by our lawmakers. My hope is that it won't happen, but if it does, that's the time for dramatics - not when you think the sky is falling, but when it really is.
Yup. Keep hammering him on that one. Make it one promise, one contract he can't default on or weasel out of.
There's a reason I've been referring to him as "that man", earning the distinction of becoming the second person who's name I cannot bring myself to use.
(The first being the terrorist who killed 77 people (mostly teenagers at summer camp on Utøya) in Norway, 22 July 2011.)
No I don't. That's why I said that's what I want. I don't give two shits about likeability (bedside manner) when it comes to policy. Barney Frank was a shrill, angry and loudmouthed asshole and he's been my favorite politician in my lifetime.
They'll fight every step of the way? What steps? The Republicans control all branches of the government, and Trump controls the Republicans. The "steps" to him doing something are saying "I'm doing this" then doing it.
I doubt it's anything so nefarious. But I seriously doubt there's anything that would truly prepare someone for that position. That first briefing they get is probably filled with so much stuff they just hadn't even thought about. The sheer weight of what is entailed by being the President, even with all the checks and balances that are part of it, has got to be like having a lead jacket put on your shoulders.
http://www.vox.com/2016/11/9/13571318/donald-trump-disaster-climate
The sky may actually fall. People are already being harassed and assaulted solely due to his being elected. Destroying the environment is prettttttty bad. The time for dramatics was probably 10 years ago honestly.
Yeah, realisticaly it is probably something mundane like "every once in a while we will need someone to die for a critical piece of information for the good of the country, you get to make that call. Here is a list."
There's literally millions of votes uncounted, largely but not exclusively from the west coast and the best analysis indicates its going to grow to the neighborhood of 2%
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I don't know if this was posted, but this was shared on my facebook; it has also been included in various articles earlier this year warning about the inevitability of Donald Trump. We could have foreseen this. We didn't want to. I feel an incredible need to self-flagellate, even though that won't be constructive. I just don't have much left.
Richard Rorty evidently, from “Achieving Our Country,” from 1998:
We're looking at a terrifying future. I'm trying not to descend into the despair of self-loathing. I don't know what can be done. The world they want is one that doesn't include me, which relegates me to a secondary role. I don't know if I can ever accept that.
NNID: Hakkekage
What pictures are these?
This woman's anger is misplaced. The people who are fucking her over are the GOP house, not the Democratic president.
Clinton was not a horrible candidate. Clinton was a great candidate. The fact that people didn't trust her is pathetic.
Threats to your civil rights aren't just being discussed. Threats to your civil rights have already happened. Two key states saw mass voter disenfranchisement and turned red as a result of it. The very, VERY least you can expect is more of the same.
And it doesn't matter if Trump makes soothing noises and his staff delete the worst of his remarks. A candidate endorsed by the KKK is in the White House. Racism in America has never been more emboldened. The damage is done.
Keep in mind that his letter was sent out before the FBI had looked at the contents of the laptop. To a lot of people what he said was "We found this cardboard box. We think it might contain a taped confession proving Hillary's guilt. Though we're not sure. We'll let you know."
This makes me feel ill.
So does this.
Pretty sure the KKK always backs the Republican candidate these days.
It was the most selfish, fuck you got mine screed I have read in a while. He wanted Obamacare repealed because he doesn't need it. He thinks Trump will be good for business, and he's in business. Trump won't enact free college education and this guy's job relies on for-profit institutions. Trump's against environmental regulation, and global warming won't matter during his lifetime. He disrespects women and immigrants and Muslims, but this guy is none of those and other social classes are not his priority. Trump is personally reprehensible, but he won't stick a government hand into my wallet.
Fucking hell this guy.
Isn't one of the reasons we have an electoral college to prevent dangerously un-qualified people from being elected? Faithless electors at this point would be the electoral college working as intended.
The candidate's family retweets white supremacist memes and leaders. We don't have to split hairs on the details.
It's pretty easy to say Clinton is a great candidate, but I think she was the wrong candidate for the national mood
Go back to bed zepherin, you're drunk.
Well the national mood put a sexual predator in charge instead so you're not wrong.
I just don't believe anything would guarantee Clinton was a 1 term president with a public backlash next cycle faster than installation via faithless elector against an unfriendly house and senate.
Usually not as loudly as they did this one, and generally the candidates don't even seemingly welcome the support.