Cut the capital gains tax, privatize infrastructure development.
War, I assume. Screwed, angry bigots enjoy it for its own sake, and it's a good excuse for not doing anything else.
They won't believe it- fake news will tell them what they want to hear about the outside world, and to the extent that bad things happen to them that can't be ignored- unemployment, inflation, crappy investments- they'll blame the international bankers (you know who).
Oh, good lord. Literal open anti-Semitism from people in power. God only knows how that comes out.
I am never going anywhere I can't get to by subway ever again.
Hillary will be going to prison, or at least standing trial--and Guiliani will argue for pre-trial detention without bail, noting her ability to leave the country and many overseas contacts. Hillary is considering whether to leave the country the day before the inauguration. She is also considering whether to ask Obama for a preemptive pardon, and Obama is thinking about whether to give her one.
You ever watch that old Lucas film THX1138? Do you remember the television show that is simply some poor anonymous sap being beaten with nightsticks?
Trump understands his base viscerally. And he'll deliver what their viscera are crying out for. They will happily pay higher taxes and move under overpasses and mortgage their childrens' internal organs as long as they get front-row seats to the spectacle of the blacks and the browns and the gays getting hit with nightsticks.
7: They would be foolish not to consider it.
6: Trump will also be standing trial. One of his three trials on RICO charges of fraud and racketeering opens on 28 November.
7: Trump was perfectly clear about it, as apparently were the American people, and no one on his side of the aisle disagrees. On bail, pardon, or leaving the country I speculate.
Yes. Obama will either pardon Clinton, thus providing Trump the justification he needs to pardon his whole administration on the way out, or Clinton will be on trial, permanently poisoning the idea of peaceful, democratic transition of power.
10: I have a feeling no court will dare convict him. He has the wind in his sails and a mob at his back.
Civil rather than criminal charges, at present, so I don't think there's the possibility of jail. But it will be interesting to see what happens. This is Judge Curiel, remember, the one that Trump did his best to piss off in the campaign. And a San Diego jury.
Predictions:
A high end tax cut will take precedence over everything else.
The ACA will be repealed more slowly due to the need to replace it with something. Not even the most radical Republicans are going to be OK with throwing tens of millions of people off health insurance, if not due to compassion then due to the inevitable political backlash.
The nuclear deal with Iran will be repudiated and there will eventually be an attack on Iran later in the term.
Russia's right to meddle in the affairs of its immediate neighbors will become unofficial US policy - Georgia and Ukraine are hosed, and the Baltics need to start looking for new friends.
Immigration legislation will be passed making it pointlessly harder to enter the US and going after immigrants in the US illegally. There will be forced deportations all over the place, with news video of screaming kids being dragged away from their mothers and all those horrors. Liberals will interpret the images as extremely damaging to Trump. His supporters will smugly congratulate themselves on their toughness.
Apparently I cope by going balls-out optimistic. Here's what I keep thinking: Trump won't be worse than W. ACA will get destroyed, things will get destroyed, I can't think about this for very long. Moving along. The Democrats will unify behind the leftier side of things and come out swinging in 2020, and some of the gerrymandering will get fixed. Something better than ACA will have to get passed.
Please don't mistake this for actual optimism - it's more of a nervous tic.
Some possibility that Hillary will save face by finding a professional position at the UN or somewhere similar, Chief Justice of the International Curt of Justice, that is based outside of the U.S., and possibly gives her diplomatic immunity back home.
The ACA will be repealed more slowly due to the need to replace it with something.
Why? There was nothing there before in nearly all of the states that went for Trump.
I have a (vague, optimistic, etc) belief that Trump doesn't actually like his base, and he will have no respect for them because they're not a challenge to conquer anymore. So he'll bullshit for them when he needs to, but his next vanity project will be something else entirely.
Why? There was nothing there before in nearly all of the states that went for Trump.
You mean currently, right?
Bush 2.0. Kleptocracy, red meat for the base, invading some random countries in the Middle East, appointing unqualified ideologues to everything he can, defunding the social safety net, but even more of each. When the Democrats recover, it'll go much like 2008-2010 did.
I predicted two days ago that he would be worse than Bush but not as bad as Buchanan or the two or three right above him, and so far I'd stand by that. We probably won't literally have civil war, nuclear war, or a dictatorship. That's setting a very low bar, I realize, but the country survived Bush and it survived presidents even worse than Bush. For the record, this is the most authoritative ranking I know of. I'd make gay marriage the canary in the coal mine on this. (Sorry to put it like that to my gay friends and LGBTQ people in general, I know it'll suck for them either way, but...) I assume that for all the damage Republicans will do over the next four+ years, they won't overturn that SC precedent. If they do, then I revise my expectations downward and honestly would look into emigrating.
As for foreign policy, he's likely to have good relations with Russia. That's bad for eastern Europe and bad for human rights in general, but it does reduce the likelihood of a nuclear or otherwise really big war. (Yeah, I know, Russia small GDP, but I'd still rather have three Iraq Wars than one nuclear war.)
6: That sounds unlikely to me. True, Trump said she'd be in jail, which sounds fucking horrifying when you put it like that. But half the whole discussion is over his attention span, adherence to commitments, and what he really cares about. If he gets dictatorial with anyone, it'll be liberal firebrand activists, not moderates with money and lawyers. Let's consider Clinton another canary.
Fundamentally, it's just super-unstable. It runs the gamut from LePage-style incapacity to open avowed destruction of democracy. We have no way of knowing. But the modal domestic outcome is, yeah, probably GOP gutting of the safety net.
Within a week, Trump will hardly remember Clinton ever existed. As long as she stays out of the arena, she will be able to live out the rest of her days as a rich, old, white lady.
15: I think the portion allowing twenty year-olds to stay on their parents' plans will remain.
15: I think the portion allowing twenty year-olds to stay on their parents' plans will remain.
15: I think the portion allowing twenty year-olds to stay on their parents' plans will remain.
22: Because we basically have nothing except the bans on annual and yearly caps, and ban on preexisting conditions. So it doesn't seem farfetched to say there's no ACA (besides those popular pieces) currently in this red state.
I'm worried for anyone who is significantly dependent on social security for their retirement. If the Rs really want to destroy it, this is their chance.
My baseline assumption is that his first priorities other than a bit of red meat on immigration will be to pursue his various vendettas - against Clinton, against Ryan, against his accusers, against the press, against Mexico and China.
The ACA was a big expansion in coverage here.
One big thing to look for early wormsign on: whether Trump is in fact going to rubber-stamp Ryan's package, or upend everything in his own unique idiom.
Here ya go:
Private prison stocks are soaring after Donald Trump's election
Stocks of private prison companies are soaring the morning after the election of Donald Trump as the next US president.
Corrections Corporations of America was up close to 40% as of 9:49 a.m. ET. GEO Group, another prison provider, was up around 20%.
There's very little they can actually do for the people who voted for him, other than deliver a bunch of hate.
I think the hate is enough. The promise of Trump is to make life harder and meaner for blacks, Muslims, and Mexican-Americans, and he'll deliver on that promise. That's the attraction of fascism -- it feels so good to have the state hate the same people that you hate, and to watch the state actually hurt the people you hate.
In four years, when it turns out the administration has done nothing to improve the economy or the objective living conditions of his base, they won't care, or to the extent they do, they'll continue to blame it in on the state's pariahs.
Fred Clark posted Auden's September 1, 1939 and I thought it gave a lot to chew on.
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
I'm hoping (without any real basis for doing so) that the Democrats can learn very quickly how to be a real opposition party. I doesn't come naturally to them, and they generally suck at it.
"I'm hoping (without any real basis for doing so) that the Democrats can learn very quickly how to be a real opposition party. I doesn't come naturally to them, and they generally suck at it."
Nancy Pelosi is good at it and there is no 9/11 so hopefully everybody else will be as well.
That would be nice. It seems off-the-charts insane that we might approach the next four years with a compromise reach-across-the-aisle mindset, but who knows.
36: My only consolation right now is hoping that this will result in a serious move to left by the Democratic party, since their centrist more-of-the-same-with-maybe-some-small-adjustments campaign failed so abjectly.
Then I think about climate change and how we've probably just blown our last best chance to do anything about it and I realize that there is no consolation.
Baring an unprecedented series of defections, the Republicans don't need to compromise to get what they want.
"I'm worried for anyone who is significantly dependent on social security for their retirement. If the Rs really want to destroy it, this is their chance."
Trump is not that bad on social security. at least sometimes he isn't
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Social_Security.htm
He most certainly will attack Public lands administration.
But fuck it, who knows what the fuck he will do. Tired of thinking about it. The biggest thing he has already done is to validate some of the worst impulses of humanity.
No matter where; of comfort no man speak:
Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth
Fred Clark posted Auden's September 1, 1939 . . .
I've read that before, but it hits much harder this morning.
28: 22: Because we basically have nothing except the bans on annual and yearly caps, and ban on preexisting conditions. So it doesn't seem farfetched to say there's no ACA (besides those popular pieces) currently in this red state.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you somehow, but that's not at all true. There's no Medicaid expansion in Texas, but the exchanges are still operating, so folks with 133%-400% FDL income are still getting subsidies. This site claims that in 2016 84% of the 1.3 million Texans on the exchanges were getting subsidies, with an average premium subsidy of about $250/month. So that's about $3.25 billion in premium subsidies -- not counting copay subsidies.
That's not nothing.
Oh look, there's already an enemies list
Also, TPM might want to take down that sponsored Poll Tracker ad.
47: I for one am looking forward to seeing what Pet/er "I'm interested in drinking young people's blood" Th/iel is going to get for his $1.2 million.
Well we may soon have millions of child detainees...
I would actually be surprised if he was as disastrous as Bush. I can't see another Iraq-type war happening, and Iraq was really Bush's worst moment. Whatever people like to say, 9/11 would almost certainly still have happened under Gore, and so would the economic crisis, and Katrina might still have been a cockup, but Iraq wouldn't have happened, and Iraq was worse than all of those.
47: "Trump is also eyeing former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton." (for Secretary of State)
I stopped there and started moaning low, Oh Oh Oh Oh
Maybe the only American in fucking history I hate and fear more than Curtis LeMay is John Bolton. Bolton is two levels more bugfuck crazy than Condy Rice/Colin Powell or Cheney.
9/11 would not have happened under Gore.
Anyway, Trump will fuck up in some new way that we can't predict. I remember thinking, when Bush was elected, "He's a moron, so if something goes wrong we're fucked. But realisticallly what can go wrong?" I sure didn't see 9/11 coming, and I won't see whatever Trump cock-up happening either.
Can the US government legally ban Muslims? Would the current courts find it constitutional?
My prediction is that Trump and his cronies mainly concentrate on looting and carrying out grudges. So police brutalizing Black Lives Matters protestors with impunity, and accelerated voter suppression, but no mass deportations or Muslim ban.
Though I'm approach William Kristol levels of always being wrong, so that means a Muslim ban, but a Black Lives Matter representative being appointed Attorney General.
I don't even know which thread to put this on:
I was wrong. I am so shocked and horrified.
I am sorry to everyone I called a bedwetter, in text or in my head.
I will hedge my future predictions and re-calibrate my opinion of humanity.
I don't understand.
They can ban non-citizen Muslims. Non-citizens not physically in the US have no rights under the constitution.
Citizens or legal immigrants can certainly have their lives made much more difficult during travel under the enforcement discretion of DHS. And this is the scariest part for me- you clearly have a large segment of the FBI, military, and LEOs who at least felt somewhat constrained knowing that a Democratic / non authoritarian DOJ could theoretically smack them down. Now all restraints are off, and it's open season for whatever masochists can get away with, subject only the constraints of their local command structure or some state government oversight.
Between Pence and now seeing Bolton's name (I couldn't read any further) I think I was wildly underestimating the power and influence of the Evangelical Christian nutRight in this campaign and administration. And the threat to Muslims and Arab Americans. Bolton is a nightmare.
I don't know why Trump would be beholden and open to them, but we seem to be approaching being a Dominionist America.
Yeah. Go buy a gun.
Don't non-citizens have some rights? Could they constitutionally include a religion test for entry? I don't think it's clear that the courts would go for it.
59: Your optimism cheered me up for several days. That's not nothing.
The ACLU sees a Muslim ban as violating the 1st Amendment even for those without any legal status, and additionally the 5th and 14th if applied to citizens or permanent residents.
I have a close friend of Arab descent who I just had to reassure that she wouldn't end up in a concentration camp. (She's very pessimistic, and relies on me to play the Pollyanna role.) Fucking fuck. I mean, fuck the fucking fucking fuck. Fuck.
This is the dramatic way to put the Muslim problem.
My only consolation right now is hoping that this will result in a serious move to left by the Democratic party...
Like the move to the left by the Labour Party, which has been 16-20 points adrift in the polls for a year.
response to 60, as I fight despair with pedantry:
It's not at all clear whether the government can ban certain foreigners on the basis of their religion. The religious freedom clause of the first amendment on its face starts with "Congress shall make no law. . ." and does not limit those protected to citizens. This is different from Amendments 2 through 8, which protect people rather than restrict Congress. E.g. the Second Amendment (guns) and the Fourth Amendment (unlawful arrest and some other stuff), say "the right of the people . .." and are limited to the rights of the American people. As far as I know, the issue hasn't come up in a very long time, if ever.
Depends on the judge who gets the case, and the Supreme Court personnel when it comes up. Some of the right wing on the current court have taken unexpected positions in religion cases.
The ability of the U.S. government to ban foreigners based on nationality is well established.
In addition to ACA repeal, I expect a major roll-back of voting rights. We'll also see a ban on immigration by people who have lived in "terrorist" countries (a kinder gentler Muslim ban). Russia will invade at least one Eastern Europe country. Betweeen this and brexit, Germany and France will be forced into a substantial military buildup. Which will be great when Le Pen wins in France. Iran will get nukes.
35: That's optimistic. It's comforting to think that it all comes back around. That the bad guys get theirs in the end. (I'm not sure how optimistic that quote actually is if you think about it, but then again I'm not familiar the context of the poem beyond the obvious facts of the world in 1939. All I'm saying is that it seems to be expressing a general sentiment of justice in the long view if not immediately.) However, I don't know what basis it has in reality. In this world, the bad guys can win.
Maybe it's just because he hasn't yet had the chance to start wrecking things, but right at the moment I'm much less worried about terrible Trump policies than I am about 1) the same Republican House and Senate we've had, only now with no brake coming from the White House and a hobbled SC, and 2) half the electorate given over to magical thinking, anti-intellectualism, and racial resentment.
Trump is a problem that will fix itself in 4-8 years, but 1 can seriously amplify and project into the future the damage he can do, and 2 can go on indefinitely, producing ever more Trumps until at last it all burns down for good.
Like the move to the left by the Labour Party, which has been 16-20 points adrift in the polls for a year.
Moving left is necessary but not sufficient. We also need exciting, youthful politicians to sell the message. But even after eight years of Obama that bench seems remarkably thin. Maybe we could borrow Justin Trudeau?
Our biggest problem is that The Democratic Party is garbage, even when it wins a national campaign by 2 million votes it can't win either house of congress or even state-wide races in blue states. It can't even gerrymander big blue states like IL that go 65/35 nationally to not have republican house districts.
Unless I can talk millions in coming down to Texas and other states that can be flipped, Left Coasters and Noreasters should be seriously looking into secession, and providing a safe haven for refugees.
68: I expect a major roll-back of voting rights.
Yes, and it will be increasingly ramped up to combat demographic changes.
When democracy granted democratic methods for us in the times of opposition, this was bound to happen in a democratic system. However, we National Socialists never asserted that we represented a democratic point of view, but we have declared openly that we used democratic methods only in order to gain the power and that, after assuming the power, we would deny to our adversaries without any consideration the means which were granted to us in the times of opposition.
-- Goebbels
52
I would actually be surprised if he was as disastrous as Bush.
Like I said, I wouldn't. First, I don't get your confidence that we won't get another Iraq War. It's easy to find pretexts for war. How many countries are we bombing right now? And second, you dismiss 9/11, Katrina, and the recession. I'll grant that we can't be sure that another president would have prevented them or handled them better, but I think overall it's fairly likely, and either way Trump will have his own crises to mishandle.
72-73: I'm seeing a couple people talk, apparently seriously, about moving to purple states on Facebook. When Cassandane brought up emigrating to New Zealand, I countered with that myself. This is not an actual preference, just practicality. I remember observing wayyy back in 2000 that our two parties were the evil party and the stupid party, but somehow being the stupid party doesn't seem funny any more.
Then again, I can't blame anyone left of center for this more than myself. All I did in this election was vote. I know a lot of people who helped one way or another and I didn't. Too busy, in a safe district and don't own a car, but honestly, just lazy. Sorry.
Left Coasters and Noreasters should be seriously looking into secession
I have always wanted this and now I want it even more.
I don't know. Secession would give Trump a chance to live out his Bizzaro Lincoln fantasies.
My state of convenience went Hillary by < 1500 votes, so I'm doing my part on the purple thing.
I didn't realize it at the time, but I apparently did the purple state thing also.
Hi Megan at 59, I was wondering about you. Thanks for speaking up.
I don't even know which thread to put this on:
I was wrong. I am so shocked and horrified.
I am sorry to everyone I called a bedwetter, in text or in my head.
I will hedge my future predictions and re-calibrate my opinion of humanity.
I don't understand.
Sign on x 10. I've been an arrogant asshole for months, patting everyone on the head and telling them there's nothing to worry about.
Trump picks top climate sceptic to lead EPA transition team. In case there were any doubts about how fucked we are.
Long (long!) time lurker, first time commenter. Feels weird even writing this, like I'm butting in on a very private conversation, but...I am emboldened by the whiskey and so freaked out by this, that it feels somehow imperative to say that I think all (most) of you guys are vastly underestimating the consequences here. I hope to fucking god I am wrong, but this is not going to be W redux, and it's not about preparing for 2018 or 2020 and moving the Dems left. We are in wholly uncharted, dangerous territory. Ogged at 65 doesn't really seem all that dramatic, mutatis mutandis. Look at that emerging cabinet list at 47! I'm undoubtedly traumatized by events in my adopted country over the past five years (Egypt) and so am viewing things through a very skewed lens, but please you guys, take this shit seriously. Avoid the impulse of analytical over-analysis that tends to blunt horror (to be fair, I went through that stage at 7-9 am my time, while most of you were sleeping). Better to be paranoid and prepared and start organizing. By the time you realize the forces of reaction are upon you, you've already lost unrecoverable ground. We already have.
So two things:
Specifically to Megan: I was very worried, uneasy from about mid-summer, but even so, even when I wasn't convinced, your comments were a balm. We all need optimism of the will, and I hope you, like all of us, can harness your anger/disappointment/bafflement into something more productive than succession.
And second, someone linked this article in another thread:
Does anyone feel like talking about that? It's alarmist and paranoid, but better safe than sorry? I'll just say that no. 3 is really fucking hard, super hard, beyond imagining on the ground on an organizational level, but awfully important. Start now. Even on the most basic level of these comments.
Anyway, hi unfogged! And thanks for the years of comfort/debate/entertainment.
Can the US government legally ban Muslims? Would the current courts find it constitutional?
"John Roberts has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
Apparently that quote is apocryphal (per Wikipedia). Nevertheless, I still think the best historical analogy for Trump is Jackson. It is not a comforting one.
Co-signing with Megan and Sir Kraab. I can't believe how utterly wrong I was.
The link in 84 is very good, and I think basically right. (And welcome! I think we're out of fruit baskets, sorry.)
Feels weird even writing this, like I'm butting in on a very private conversation,
Don't feel weird -- having new people chime in is great! (unless they're terrible, but you don't immediately sound terrible.)
And I honestly don't have a feel for how apocalyptic to be about this all. It seems unlikely that looking into what Trump personally is likely to do tells us much, I don't think he's interested in running the country. But that means I have no idea at all what to expect, and straightforward fascism is a genuine possibility.
If he's not interested in running the country then why the fuck did he just run for president? Serious question.
why the fuck did he just run for president?
To prove he's better than you.
Damned if I know. I mean, I'm not claiming any deep insight into what's going on in his head, just that the way he talks about issues suggests that he's not interested enough in how things actually work to be capable of making real world decisions on anything but a random basis. I assume he's going to turn over substantive decisionmaking to someone, I guess Pence? But what happens then I don't know.
84: I think all (most) of you guys are vastly underestimating the consequences here.
I doubt it.
And welcome.
95 was me. No idea how I lost my sign.
Jesus. The "anti-democracy sentiment" link within the link in 84 is not stuff I had seen before.
Yes, I don't think Trump personally tells us too much about what's going happen. Could be a-ok, could be apocalyptic, but I do think US institutions are still functioning enough that it matters who is in charge in them, and the early indications of who he will put in charge of them are not good, to say the least. Honestly, given the size of the US (which is such an anomaly in democratic nation states), I think most unfoggeders, and others in coastal states, will be fine for quite a long time, but I don't think it's alarmist to predict that an informal but rigorously enforced new Jim Crow regime will take shape in the south and possibly other red states in the next couple of years. The exercise of power, and police power, is so diffuse in the US that different kinds of informal authoritarian arrangements can emerge.
And thanks for the (virtual/nonexistent) fruit basket, teo. I just got the last mangoes of the season here, so that's something. A bright spot.
Yes, I don't think Trump personally tells us too much about what's going happen. Could be a-ok, could be apocalyptic, but I do think US institutions are still functioning enough that it matters who is in charge in them, and the early indications of who he will put in charge of them are not good, to say the least. Honestly, given the size of the US (which is such an anomaly in democratic nation states), I think most unfoggeders, and others in coastal states, will be fine for quite a long time, but I don't think it's alarmist to predict that an informal but rigorously enforced new Jim Crow regime will take shape in the south and possibly other red states in the next couple of years. The exercise of power, and police power, is so diffuse in the US that different kinds of informal authoritarian arrangements can emerge.
And thanks for the (virtual/nonexistent) fruit basket, teo. I just got the last mangoes of the season here, so that's something. A bright spot.
I felt very strongly about that fruit basket evidently.
All signatures have been lost, it would seem.
On the plus side, now is probably a good time to buy guns for cheap. They were getting ready to sell a bunch of guns on "before Hillary can outlaw them" grounds and now they don't have a marketing hook.
I'm sorry for the hostility in 92. Unwarranted.
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/796406630103580674
103: Everyone gets all the slack in the world today for being a little wound up. God only knows I am.
103: I took the hostility to be directed towards the President-elect and to be entirely warranted.
As for the answer to 92, I think the answer is that he needs to be the center of attention.
98/99: Double posting makes you a true commenter. Welcome!
Me 98-100. Will bow out now.
And hostility in 92 is totally warranted, and more.
94 - he will turn over substantive decision making to whoever has talked to him last, and who gets to talk to him will change from week to week based on his whims and whether they have made him look good (according to his own perception) recently.
Congratulations on delurking, abgad hawaz!
One more thing to be thrilled about: The National Security State, as supported by both Obama and Hillary - together with all its accompanying mechanisms for harvesting all your emails, personal data, and sexts - are now in the hands of someone who is unlikely to give a shit about limiting the use of those mechanisms to those activities considered to be within the confines of the rule of law.
Thanks for the welcome, you guys.
What's it like for media-wise for you all you people who are outside the US?
Here in Egypt, the official channels triumphantly live streamed Trump's victory speech with on-the-spot translation (not a normal thing). And every channel tonight is talking about how great it is that Trump vanquished that not-so-secret Muslim Brotherhood drone Killary Clinton and the jihadi Barack Obama. Make America great again! It's like Fox News on steroids in Arabic. The top news story is that Sisi was the first foreign leader to have a one-on-one congratulatory phone call with Trump.
Don't know if that's true, but the scary part is the whole story is designed for domestic consumption.
Fuck me and this computer and my evident inability to use the internet. Sorry again. 112 was me.
43: He most certainly will attack Public lands administration.
Apparently Palin under consideration for Interior ...
The whole Brotherhood of Evil Bros (plus Theresa May) now running the world would have been completely unbelievable in fiction.
114/115: It does feel like a rogues' gallery, doesn't it?
It does feel like a rogues' gallery, doesn't it?
"Rogues' Gallery" gives too much credit. I'd go with "Parade of Clowns."
If he's not interested in running the country then why the fuck did he just run for president? Serious question.
To win the realest reality show ever.
"Rogues' Gallery" gives too much credit. I'd go with "Parade of Clowns."
Now that you mention it, I can't help thinking that the weird epidemic of scary clown sightings was some sort mass unconscious premonition.
Definition of kakistocracy
plural kakistocracies
: government by the worst people
I don't know whether I'm more scared of Trump or of the unleashing of legislative Republicans who stopped being reality-based some time ago. At the moment I'm feeling like the best-case scenario is some melding of GWB/Cheney foreign policy and civil liberties and Brownback's Kansas economics.
I think the odds of war in Eastern Europe or East Asia have gone up. Not that the US would be involved (at least initially). But the destabilization will be key. I'm reminded in part of Acheson's speech. I think Germany will increase its armed forces.
Yes. Germany and Japan will almost certainly increase their military. Also, Trump's election is in non-trivial increase in the odds of nuclear war.
My sister, crying this morning, said "Trump is going to start a bunch of wars and [older nephew] is just a few years away from being 18." I was glad to be able to reassure her. 'Oh no, baby sister. They won't be conventional wars.'
Also, Trump's election is in non-trivial increase in the odds of nuclear war.
At least the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists hasn't updated the doomsday clock yet. Maybe they're waiting until January.
Oh, sorry folks. I hadn't read back enough to see the responses to me. Honestly, I think they are more generous than is warranted. I can't feel bad about relying on polls; I mean, crap, I wasn't cherry picking. But you guys told me this was a possibility and I pooh-poohed that and I was wrong.
Can you imagine what a scandal-ridden mess the Trump White House is going to be? Look how scandalous his life has been just as a private citizen.
I'm sure the media will rake him over the coals for his indiscretions. Either that or titter indulgently; hard to say.
They did get noticeably harder on him toward the end of the campaign.
I wonder if once he gets in he's going to just drop all the trade and immigration stuff and focus on stuffing his pockets and taking revenge on his enemies. I could totally see that happening.
I mean, he can't deliver on any of his insane promises, because they're insane and it's not clear he's even thought them through on any level. So what's he going to actually do?
Tut. Tut. That Trump. What a rascal!
130: They did get noticeably harder on him toward the end of the campaign.
For a period of time after he pissed them off on the birther announcement and then got hit with the taxes and pussy tape. But after about mid-October there was a lot of how he had gotten more disciplined because ... I am not really sure why. Also see how his lies and word salad at the 2nd debate were initially treated as holding his own just because he did not go totally off tangent like he did in the 1st debate.
We're about 2/3rds of the way through a long, slow coup that started in the '90s with the impeachment....
132: What he's going to do is stuff his pockets, take revenge on his enemies, and let House and Senate Rs deliver on their insane promises.
It's just lucky that we have so many principled, bipartisan Democrats in Congress -- just think how awful it would be if our elected representatives actually tried to obstruct the will of the Republicans!
136: Of course, but their insane promises are mostly different from his, and they'll actually be able to deliver on some of them. (Not sure about repealing Obamacare, which both have promised. What would that even look like at this point?)
Trump doesn't have to do much on domestic policy as long as he doesn't veto reactionary Republican shit and pays little attention to appointees he pulls out of his support dumpster. The system doesn't need a strong president. In some ways the best hope is for an attentive and vindictive Trump to war with a small-minded and petty Congress trying to legislate the signage on bathroom doors.
legislate the signage on bathroom doors
Oh, dude, we are going to have so many shit-ins over the next 4 years. It's gonna be bigly yuge!
In some ways the best hope is for an attentive and vindictive Trump to war with a small-minded and petty Congress trying to legislate the signage on bathroom doors.
This occurred to me too. There doesn't seem to be much sign that he's given up on his feud with the GOP leadership, and he doesn't seem to care at all about their policy priorities.
138: My starting assumption is that he won't do the work to understand what they're putting in front him and how it relates to his stated promises, so he'll probably just end up signing what's put before him.
139.2, 141: And a pony.
He probably will fight with GOP leadership, but it won't be on taxes, social programs, or the military budget, which is where they'll do most of the work to wreck the economy and a lot of people's lives.
Not sure about repealing Obamacare, which both have promised. What would that even look like at this point?
Ending the mandate, rolling back the Medicaid expansion, shrinking subsidies, and allowing less comprehensive coverage.
Not sure about repealing Obamacare, which both have promised. What would that even look like at this point?)
He promised to repeal "every word". What's difficult about that? Reversion to 2009 status quo.
He promised to repeal "every word". What's difficult about that? Reversion to 2009 status quo.
Seems like it would be pretty hard in practice to actually revert to the status quo of 7 years ago.
he'll probably just end up signing what's put before him.
And, have no doubt, whats put before him will be festering, horrible, turd baskets of the worst legislation. First they will repeal ACA, probably in a haphazard way that maximizes suffering. Then they'll get to work on Paul Ryan's budget - tax cuts for the rich, voucherizing medicare, cutting Social Security benefits. Slashing funds to science and education while dumping cash on the military and border patrol. Trump will sign all that shit.
99 years since the October Revolution. That ol' Czar thought he was pretty tough.
But he just wasn't tough enough.
148: Exactly. Ds won't be able to do anything about most of it, but should be working from here forward to make it clear to Trump's dipshit voters that vouchers and privatization = Giving Your Money to Wall Street.
I am thinking they will try to allow cross-state insurance so some state will become the Delaware/South Dakota of health insurance by allowing really shitty coverage ... but cheap! Victory for privatization.
148 is right. Trump doesn't give the tiniest shit about policy. His job is going to be alienating allies and wrecking treaties. I expect Mike Pence is going to be the policy driver within the administration.
152: Right. Trump is just the hate speech loss leader.
I am thinking they will try to allow cross-state insurance so some state will become the Delaware/South Dakota of health insurance by allowing really shitty coverage
Cross-state health insurance should be federally regulated. That's a concession Democrats should push for when this comes up. They won't get it, but they should make a big deal out of it anyway.
Not sure about repealing Obamacare, which both have promised. What would that even look like at this point?
Sarah Kliff has your answer.
132 - he could always blame the economic elite for sabatoging his plans, and maybe try some kind of Putin-esque "anti-oligarch" crusade & get as much money/power as possible into the hands of his cronies/allies. It's possible that the American courts won't let him do that since it will be rich people getting victimized.
That seems like more work than he's generally willing to do.
99 years since the October Revolution. That ol' Czar thought he was pretty tough.
But he just wasn't tough enough.
The October Revolution did not, of course, get rid of the Czar.
Obviously the Communist Party spent a very long time trying to fool people into thinking it did, but it didn't. The Czar was forced to abdicate by the February Revolution, a broad-based popular revolt by a coalition of liberals, centrist reformers and socialists.
The October Revolution was a coup d'etat against the popular government of Russia, organised on almost pure Luttwak lines, and mounted by a small and highly motivated group of extremists whose leader had promised that they would "wade through blood" to achieve power. And they did.
I mean, Jesus Christ, not only wasn't Lenin responsible for getting the Czar out of power, he wasn't even in the bloody country at the time. He was sitting in a cafe in Zurich sipping his latte. He learned about the overthrow of the Czar from the bloody newspapers.
We had a book group about this and everything.
But that's not the way people like to think the world happens, is it? You can't have a tyrant being overthrown just by a bunch of protests and political movements. No, there has to be action and heroism and blood so we can make stern and noble faces about the tragic necessity of slaughter. That's the only kind of revolution that's really pure and right and, well, enjoyable. Enjoyable to read about anyway.
re: 66
To be fair, a big part of that is that Corbyn is the most pathetic senior politician I can remember in my lifetime.
In his defence, he may simply not believe that winning elections is important, or even desirable. Lots of his circle don't seem to. They think their job is to represent people and make their voices heard and argue for their cause, not to get a majority of MPs in the House.
But as von Braun said to the Navy rocketeers in the 1950s, who were arguing that it was more important to do proper science and gradual development rather than racing to put a man in space first, "but if you don't think it's important to beat them [the Soviets], can you please get out of the way of those of us who think it is very important indeed!"
re: 163
I suppose. I have a lot of broad sympathy for many of the Corbyn's personal positions on issues -- although not Europe, where his views on that alone make me incandescent -- and there's lots of space for left-wing* gadflys in the Labour party but if he can't raise himself to give a shit about opposing the Tories at Westminster, he should just fuck the fuck off.
* although he doesn't seem to actually give much of a shit about stopping the right wing agenda getting followed, or pushing things he himself believes in.
I endorse 165. I think a lot of that is just that he is bad at the mechanics of politics - he can't be bothered to learn how to make it work, because he never had to before and frankly it all seems rather grubby and beneath him.
164: I wonder if there's a similar quote from when he was working on the V2.
The V-2 is one of a very small group of weapon systems that have been used in combat and have killed more people on their own side than on the enemy's side.
Maybe von Braun had colleagues who were more interested in the basic science.
161: Protests were enough to do for the Czar, because he wasn't ready to wade through the blood of his own people. I don't think that's a problem for today's Republicans. I hope you're right, but I wouldn't bet on it.
132: Trump doesn't need to deliver. His voters are not rational. They want to believe that Trump is good for them, and all evidence to the contrary will simply strengthen their faith. I think the core problem for the Democrats here is that they're playing the wrong game. They think they need to win an argument among rational voters, when what they actually need to do is win a war, thus far, but not necessarily, limited to legal means. I don't want to be a dick, with the italics and all, but most of the discussion here seems still to be running on the assumption of business as usual: ok, another period of evil Republican ascendancy, but hey, this is a procedural democracy, in due course rational self-interest will produce a Democrat majority. Rational self-interest produced that majority decades ago. Why do Republicans keep wunning? Because they're playing a different game.
First, I don't get your confidence that we won't get another Iraq War. It's easy to find pretexts for war. How many countries are we bombing right now? And second, you dismiss 9/11, Katrina, and the recession. I'll grant that we can't be sure that another president would have prevented them or handled them better, but I think overall it's fairly likely, and either way Trump will have his own crises to mishandle.
OK, I'll address that. By "another Iraq War" I mean the unnecessary invasion and occupation of another country. I do not think Trump would do that. War in the sense of the occasional drone strike is different. Yes, he'll probably keep doing that. That is far less of a problem.
9/11: President Gore would have had the same incompetent FBI, CIA, USAF etc. The probability of the plot being stopped would have been slightly higher, but still minimal.
Katrina would still have happened (obviously) and would still have hit an incompetently-governed state. It would have been a disaster, maybe a smaller one due to better federal response.
The recession: the changes in financial regulatory policy that let it happen occurred under the Clinton administration. I can't see a Gore administration winding them back in any real way. Though he would definitely have handled the aftermath better.
Belatedly, welcome abgad! And thanks Megan for your graciousness. I can't imagine how bad you must be feeling now.
I think 174.1 is optimistic. Trump's ego alone could lead him into doing that in a matter of days, and Congress will line up behind him regardless of what it actually thinks, just like it did in this election.
The trouble is, Republican tactics can't work for Democrats because if Democrats accepted that kind of shit, they would basically be Republicans. Democrats try to have the debate on rational grounds because they are, mostly, the party of rationality. Republicans are the party of the id. Democrats can't go id because thats not what they are.
Right now, liberals value the democratic process and conservative authoritarians value whatever process allows them to get their way. If liberals adopted that strategy, they wouldn't be liberals any more.
177: You have had the debate on rational grounds, and won. But the political process is no longer (if it ever was) a debate, it's a fight, and you have lost. If you don't adopt the tactics of Republicans they will bury you, and no one will even have the chance to debate again.
If we adopted the tactics of Republicans, the party would fall apart.
Probably true. In which case, you're done. But I think we knew that anyway.
Well, there is no question the strategy needs to be changed. But the change can't be to adopt the Republicans game. We need to come up with a new game.
I have no idea how to do that.
Mate, a party which has won the national popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections is not "done", nor is it "buried", "demolished" or "destroyed".
For lack of other obvious options, maybe we start with institution building? Or focus on institutional reform? Our institutions are clearly shit.
six out of the last seven presidential elections is not "done", nor is it "buried", "demolished" or "destroyed".
And in two of those six we lost anyway, because we were fucked at a structural level.
185: and in the other four you won, because you... weren't?
I hope 183 is right, and please make allowances for despair talking, but I still think you're looking at the wrong measurement. Rs have 2, soon to be 3, branches of federal government, 31 states. Winning the election is not winning the game.
Ok, prediction, and hold me to it if any of us are still around. At minimum, we will see at least some violent voter suppression in R-governed states in 2020, with at least the acquiescence of local law enforcement. At maximum, we will start seeing routine violent intimidation in R states starting within a year, with acquiescence all the way up to federal law enforcement. Does anyone today think this at all unrealistic?
One of the other four we got lucky due to a third-party spoiler. Another one happened as Republicans were in the process of blowing up the economy. And the other two were re-elections, with Democratic presidents spending their second terms hamstrung by a recalcitrant legislature.
Trump doesn't c/are about any specific wars, but his people (Gingrich? Bolton?) will be gung-ho to gin up a war with Iran, and the real question is how long we can rely on the patience of Ali Khamenei before he snaps.
184: I think this is right. I also think that for somebody in my situation in life (employed but working reasonable hours, no small children, material security) this means there's no good justification to avoid formal and continual participation in local or state-wide party organizations. Which sucks, but I'm going to do it.
I think heebie has it exactly right. Re foreign affairs, a wise colleague pointed out yesterday that he seems to have an infinite capacity to convince himself he has won under any circumstances and all evidence to the contrary, so that perhaps bodes against full scale shooting wars but it sure sucks to be the baltic states.
Not feeling too cheerful about RBG right now, tho.
It's going to be so fucking annoying. It's all fussy old people, idealistic young people with no clue, and union guys who think I'm idealistic young people with no clue.
For a moment there I wondered how Trump could possibly have a strong opinion on color-space systems.
...but it sure sucks to be the baltic states
Regression to the mean.
You can vent all your snide comments here, while remaining civil and constructive in real life. And you can totally liveblog in meetings, for 'social media outreach'.
I don't like dealing with people while I'm not drunk.
Sometimes we can't have what we want.
At least in the short term, I can be drunk pretty much any time I want.
there's no good justification to avoid formal and continual participation in local or state-wide party organizations.
I think looking at it as just party organizations is too narrow. Yes, we need better party organizations. But we also need better media organizations, ones that talk about climate change instead of e-mail servers. We need a new blogosphere that's not a Facebook-mediated, clickbait-infested echo chamber. We need labor movements adapted to twenty-first century service-based industries - think Uber drivers, not steel workers. We need research organizations to develop policy agendas that have widespread appeal, even to voters in red states. We need educational institutions that promote liberal ideas and raise kids to question authority. We need strong public libraries that showcase the value provided by effective government institutions. We need legal organizations to defend people's rights. And we need NGOs and community organizations that can help the many, many people who are going to be hurt by the oncoming administration.
Party organizations. Yeah, we need that. But its the tip of the iceberg.
I think the labor movements is a very good idea. When it comes to research organizations and medial organizations, that's true on one sense. In another sense, there's already a bunch of this and the most likely result is more ineffective wankery directed at people who are going to vote Democrat anyway.
194: You could probably pass as a fussy old person if you wore a hat or something.
I'm sort of mentally committing to school board in two years. And Lee would like to flee the country, which would be great too.
I'm look at hats, but just can't pull the trigger.
I could probably get on the library board before then, but then I'd feel extra hypocritical about running up fines. I definitely pay more in fines than in taxes, I learned from my new tax bill.
I won't go near the school board. I suspect the need is real but I'd rather deal with all the fussy old people in the world than nervous UMC parents concerned about their children.
They've wanted me forever since I have cross-class appeal and I know more about what is going on and should be done than a few of the people on the board, but there's stuff I need to resolve in my personal life first (like being able to walk and function as a human being) and I'm so glad I didn't run this year.
lbut there's stuff I need to resolve in my personal life first (like being able to walk and function as a human being) and I'm so glad I didn't run this year.
Children, don't do what I have done
I couldn't walk and I tried to run
Ha, yeah, that was badly said on all fronts. I blame not getting good drugs for an annoying injury that probably didn't deserve them anyway.
I think libraries are key. Having a lot of books there is nice, but they also have huge value is as a locus for community organizing and cultural outreach.
209: No, Thorn, that was perfect!
And your annoying injury deserves the best drugs.
210: Columbus just spent a lot of money renovating and expanding its main library. I don't get what the designers/architects were thinking though - it's all huge empty spaces like they are planning on holding formal balls there.
Our county libraries are in good shape and everyone mobilized a few years ago when the Tea Party sued to destroy them and failed.
I just took an Advil, peep. Woohoo!
212: plan for the book collection you want to have, not the book collection you have.
I voted resentfully for the library renovation bill -- I won't be happy when they do it because the old library is right around the corner and the new one will be a number of blocks away, so not reachable within two minutes door to door. But I decided earthquake safety was a higher priority.
Last night I realized consciously that the Walker years in Wisconsin are the model of what I expect from a Trump presidency domestically: defund your enemies, reward your friends, dismantle democratic institutions, break the spirit of liberal constituents and when possible drive them out of the state. I've considered moving to Canada because I've been considering moving anyway, not because I think it's tactically wise or practically necessary. But once I imagined myself on the exile-side shore of any of the Great Lakes it was too sickening to bear. There's no way I would have left Wisconsin under Walker, and in certain ways I judge the family friends who did (they were perfectly safe).
I have many thoughts about the way forward for the Democrats but "this is war" and "it's complicated because we're the party of reason" are both well-taken points. We do not need more liberal media. I'll flog the Bloomberg piece I linked in the other thread one last time and then take the needle up off the broken record.
(not the library in Columbus, obvs, but the one in my town)
The whole Brotherhood of Evil Bros (plus Theresa May) now running the world would have been completely unbelievable in fiction.
It's going to be even more ridiculous by next year given the elections in France, Austria and the Netherlands.
"Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer. To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him."
Cabinet post for Bernie?
Germany as the world's final bastion of social liberalism is an interesting twist.
Nice edit job on that quote ajay.
viz leaving out the very next sentence - "if you pursue racist, xenophobic, and anti-environment policies we will vigorously oppose you"
Yes, I took out the final sentence where he takes a heroic stand against racism. So he didn't actually express vigorous and unsolicited support for Donald Trump's beliefs in every sentence of the statement. Just almost every one.
"We are sick and tired of seeing the Chinese and other foreigners taking jobs that should by rights belong to Americans. PS I am not a xenophobe."
No, you don't sound like one, mate.
218: Bernie did a lot right, and that's really a perfect statement by him. The odds of Bernie being in the Cabinet - or otherwise being taken seriously by Trump - exist exactly "[T]o the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country."
He really didn't. He said that Trump tapped into the anger of people who are getting screwed. And he said that he'd work with Trump if Trump pursued policies on behalf of those voters that he agreed with. That's a far cry from endorsing anything Trump himself has said.
225 to 222, and I agree with 224.
I agree it's a good statement. Everybody sane and aware will hear "the if you pursue racist, xenophobic, and anti-environment policies we will vigorously oppose you" as "we are going to vigorously oppose you because you've promised to pursue racist, xenophobic, and anti-envirnoment policies." Some asshole is Johnstown or whatever might be persuaded.
It's Bernie laying down a marker for his job for the next few years - constantly saying "you promised to help working Americans but you've screwed them over in x, y, and z ways".
Hillary and Obama, likewise, are saying superficially conciliatory things that are, like Bernie's statement, nonetheless pointed rejections of Trumpism.
There's a serious argument to be made that Hillary and Obama are full of shit - that the only available recourse at this point is maximum resistance by everyone. But I understand why they (and Bernie) act the way they do. On balance, I think I agree with Obama, Hillary and Bernie the really incendiary resistance (at this stage) is best left to other people.
By virtue of his position, Bernie was able to be more rude than Hillary and Obama, and others can talk even more directly about Trump than Bernie..
I really am hoping that Obama swings straight into (rhetorical) bomb-throwing as the leader of the opposition. It's not a role we've historically had, strongly, but I think he could be very effective.
159: I think you may have missed an implication there.
223: That's not xenophobia, it's a perfectly legitimate point that people are fucking tired of watching good factory jobs get exported just to see those products sold back to us at the exact same price so that the company can collect a higher profit margin or if the price is lower it's so that Walmart can offer a toaster for ten bucks. It's been great for China, and I don't care. China building a middle class is their problem and I expect my country to protect it's working classes.
231: you think? I think it's Bernie managing to restrain himself for almost 36 hours before shitting all over his party and their nominee again.
He's saying "Clinton was wrong and Trump was right about the causes of all the big problems facing the country. In fact, Clinton, and her policies, and her allies are the cause of a lot of the big problems facing the country. I think some of Trump's solutions to those problems are right too, and I'll support them; I think some of his solutions are wrong and bad and I'll oppose those ones."
When it became obvious that Clinton was going to be the nominee, he went on campaigning against her for about two months, using a lot of the same lines of attack that Trump used so successfully. Trump won't even be inaugurated for another two months and already Bernie's saying "you know, this guy has a lot of good ideas."
215: The Bloomberg is my favorite piece of the week, and I will re-read it many times. Thank you.
Billions of people on facebook twitter 24/7/365 and we need more liberal media? We need to more effectively use the freely available technologies and social structures. Without knowing the Democratic version of the stuff in the article, I still assume they are one step behind Republicans.
But one thing I do know is that there is a universe of alternative discourses that are not showing up in my surfing including on old media like slate wapo vox salon.
It is said that the neocons gained advantage during the 70s and 80s by applying Trotsky. The science in the Bloomberg article is known to me, just a little, as recent schools of media studies, cultural theory, digital studies, cyberfeminism etc and almost exclusively consider themselves on the far left. I see, well it is Marxist dogma, that ideologies are technologies, and technologies are ideologies.
Kotsko this morning narrates the Democratic Party as the fatally and immorally conservative party. Bout time Democrats admitted that Republicans are smarter, more up to date, and more open to methodological adjustments than Democrats. They are dominant. They have earned it.
Again, he's really, really not. He's saying that Trump's voters have a lot of real problems, that he's interested in addressing, and if Trump wants to address the problems Sanders sees, in ways Sanders approves of, he'll work with Trump.
I don't see a single thing in that quote that says or implies that "I think some of Trump's solutions to those problems are right too" or "this guy has a lot of good ideas".
I don't see a single thing in that quote that says or implies that "I think some of Trump's solutions to those problems are right too"
Implied in "To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him", no? I mean, that statement implies that he thinks some of Trump's proposed policies would improve the lives of working families if enacted, and Bernie's going to support their enactment. If Bernie believed that none of Trump's proposals would do anything but harm working families, he wouldn't have said that.
or "this guy has a lot of good ideas"
He echoes those ideas in the statement, in approving context. "a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media" - that's what Trump thinks the situation is, and Bernie thinks that's a good description. He thinks Trump knows what's going on. Certainly better than Clinton does, because Clinton never said anything like that.
He's merely leaving open the possibility that Trump might at some date propose something useful.
Seeing new comments (and news) since I starting typing, it appears the Kotsko is more pertinent.
Some Schmittian reflections on the election
"The Democrats are trying to preserve the state in two senses. First, they are determined to shore up the ongoing legitimacy of American constitutional arrangements. People understandably call for the Democrats to "play hardball" in response to Republican weaponization of various institutional quirks, but the problem is that if both sides are doing that, then you lose the sense that there is a neutral, non-partisan institutional framework."
"Second, the neoliberal Democrats (and few remaining "moderate Republicans") are attempting to preserve the state in another sense. Unlike the anarchistic libertarianism of extreme Tea Party Republicans, neoliberalism acknowledges the artificial and constructed nature of the market and the need for a strong state to maintain market norms."
240: Saying that he agrees that Trump voters exist and do have some valid grievances does not imply either that he agrees with Trump about what those valid grievances are, or, much more strongly, that he agrees with Trump about how to address them.
239, 241: Moby has it. He is staking out the position that he wants to help the same people Trump claims to be championing, and that if Trump ever proposes something that Sanders believes is good for those people, he'll be on board. This sets Sanders up to attack Trump as betraying the people who voted for him, without putting Sanders in the position of attacking those voters.
Is this some kind of trans-Atlantic rhetorical problem -- like, something about the wording sounds different from a UK perspective? I cannot imagine reading those words, in context, as an actual endorsement by Sanders of Trump or anything Trump advocates, and I'm having trouble understanding how you could be so tonedeaf.
I always feel bad about quoting a nutgraph, like looking at the end of a book, but since people don't follow my links or read my comments
Kotsko
And this brings us to the final step. If you are really determined to preserve Constitutional continuity no matter what, if the bare existence of some order, any order is better than the risk of civil war or revolution, then I think you back yourself into a corner where you have to say to black people in this country: "I'm sorry this sucks so much for you, but your suffering, your humiliation, your thwarted life, is the foundation of this structure that is barely holding together as it is. You and your children and your children's children will just have to bear that burden, because if we acknowledged your demand for justice, then everything would be over." And that's the moment when all your effort at staving off the worst becomes support for the very worst.
Politics starts outside the law, outside the state. Everything lawful is economic, negotiated in a marketplace. Schmitt, Agamben?
243.2 is what I see as the only possible successful Democratic strategy for 2018/2020, baring Trump starts a nuclear war or something. I can call these voters racist, sexist, fucknuts. You can too. In fact, I encourage it. But people running for office can't.
Unless you think that starting a race war is going to work out well for black people.
He's merely leaving open the possibility that Trump might at some date propose something useful.
Its worth noting that there is some real possibility of this.
Trump is a horrible authoritarian bigoted asshole, and is going to propose a number of horrible authoritarian bigoted asshole policies. But he's also not a movement conservative, so its possible that some of his policies may not be exclusively focused on helping rich people (or rather, on helping rich people not named Trump). Like, Trump has said that he's opposed to raising the retirement age of Social Security. If that's actually true, its the kind of thing may be useful in blunting the worst excesses of the Republican congress.
I don't think not being a movement conservative is grounds enough for rational hope.
Really, to the extent that any semblance of civilization can be saved, its going to have to rely on playing Trump and the Republicans in Congress against each other.
I just think it's better tactics to wait for the other side to take an actual step before launching your full attack.
Oh, more than just a setup by Bernie, unfortunately.
There is a lot of discussion as to whether Trump is actually going to demand a motherfucking massive infrastructure initiative as the price for signing the Congressional agenda. It may include clean energy and mass transit. Funded who knows how.
Creating millions of new well-paying jobs.
Think of Germany in the early 30s, Keynes before Keynes, Japan. Trump keeps Mein Kampf by his bedside.
You still want laugh at the orange clown?
Also he's not shitting all over his party. He sits in the Senate as an Independent and he ran in the Democratic primary because you can do that kind of thing in American politics, where the rules seem to have been written by the Mad Hatter on an off day. From the PoV of an Independent, it's probably as good a posotion statement as he could make.
Spike is right in 247-9.
Elizabeth Warren, apparently another sellout Democrat, says this:
"President-Elect Trump promised to rebuild our economy for working people, and I offer to put aside our differences and work with him on that task."
Saying that he agrees that Trump voters exist and do have some valid grievances does not imply either that he agrees with Trump about what those valid grievances are
Well, it kind of does because he describes them as "a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media".
What's establishment politics? The RNC, the DNC, and the DNC's chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton. Who was setting himself up as the anti-establishment voice? Trump.
Who did the establishment media endorse? Clinton or Trump? Overwhelmingly, Clinton.
What's establishment economics? Who had the economic establishment from Larry Summers to Paul Krugman on their side, Clinton or Trump? Clinton again.
He didn't have to use those words. He could have said something to the effect that the declining middle class are right to be angry, but that Trump identified the wrong things for them to be angry with. But the thing is that, in terms of their descriptions of the state of the US - what the problems are and what causes them - Bernie thinks that Trump is closer to correct than Clinton is.
253, on the other hand, is fine. Warren isn't endorsing Trump's bizarre view of the world at all, she's saying "well, if he proposes some good policies, I'll support them".
What, it never crossed your mind that Republicans in dominance and undivided gov't, could enact Paul Krugman's economic wetdream?
That there is anything inherently "liberal" about allowing inflation, infrastructure spending, gov't deficits? That the Reagan-Art Laffer-George Bush small gov't conservatism was the only variety?
That Republicans are too dumb or greedy to know how to gain the loyalty of their pretty broad base for decades?
Peace and Prosperity are on their way. Trump is too old to want world domination, but I suspect it is available now (in alliance with Russia, China, Turkey)
Welcome to Fascism. Get used to it.
254: To put it mildly, I think you're misreading him. Bookmark this discussion, and see, over the next four years, if you think Sanders is being supportive of Trump, or even wishywashy about opposing his pernicious policies. Given (as I am morally certain) that he won't be, the possibilities are that this statement is a poor representation of what he intends to do, or that you have very seriously misread him.
The reporters are for Clinton. I've got my doubts about the owners of the media. Even the more liberal of our two local dailies had an editorial that all but endorsed Trump, because of fucking Blocks.
And, I think Sander is saying what he diagnoses as the views of those who voted for Trump.
Also he's not shitting all over his party. He sits in the Senate as an Independent
He became a registered Democrat in order to run in the New Hampshire primary. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2015/11/05/sanders-declares-democrat-nh-primary/75242938/
Sanders, a long-time Independent, declared himself a Democrat while filing on Thursday.Sanders says he'll run as a Democrat in future elections.
He says, "I am running as a Democrat obviously, I am a Democrat now."
259 is right. But he's still not shitting all over this party. He's trying to move it to the left on a couple of issues without giving ammunition to people who are reading his every sentence looking for a way to attack him as elitist or anti-American.
257: we could both be right on that. I'm sure Sanders will oppose Trump's worst policies. But he's still endorsing a lot of his worldview, in particular those which depict his own party's nominee as a corrupt member of a corrupt establishment. He's not doing an Obama and saying "America already is great." He's saying "Yes, we need to make America great again, Crooked Hillary is part of the problem, but I have my own ideas on how to solve things."
Well, it kind of does because he describes them as "a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media".
Taking note of 255, I'll say that in this respect, I agree that Trump and Sanders share a bit of worldview, but disagree that this worldview is "bizarre." Sanders may be projecting his own views on Trump a bit, but I agree with Sanders that there is a
1. declining middle class that is sick and tired of
2. establishment economics
3. establishment politics and
4. establishment media
Now okay, maybe Trump doesn't really believe this, but he says it, and Sanders is proposing to hold Trump to his word on these issues.
The Establishment media can issue all the endorsements it wants to; in day-to-day coverage, its agenda was both dishonest and dictated by Trump.
Larry Summers has a lot to answer for, and Krugman isn't in any sense part of the governing establishment. Establishment economics (Rubin, Summers, Greenspan and their European counterparts) gave us the 2008 meltdown. Establishment economics ensured that the recovery was muted, delayed or (in some places) simply nonexistent.
And yes, the RNC and DNC have significant problems -- a fact that even proud supporters of Hillary, like Bernie and me, have no problem acknowledging.
The reporters are for Clinton. I've got my doubts about the owners of the media.
US political reporting is inherently corrupt. It doesn't matter how reporters feel if they insist on privileging e-mails over substantive issues.
Okay, I think I'm understanding you better now. Yes, Trump thinks there are problems with establishment politics, and says so. Sanders also thinks there are problems with establishment politics, and says so. I think there are problems with establishment politics, both the Democrats and the Republicans, and this is me saying so.
I'm not endorsing Trump's beliefs about what those problems are, and neither is Sanders. Your reasons for thinking Sanders is in non-trivial agreement with Trump are no better than your reasons for thinking I am.
259: You could both be right if you weren't wrong. It's not like Sanders sprung fully-formed from an off barrel of cider in 2012.
Although that's a hell of an origin myth. Maybe "When someone dropped a radioactive kosher pickle in a vat of maple syrup"?
I assume Sanders is more than willing to throw gun control under the bus to win an election, but then so am I.
257: we could both be right on that. I'm sure Sanders will oppose Trump's worst policies. But he's still endorsing a lot of his worldview, in particular those which depict his own party's nominee as a corrupt member of a corrupt establishment. He's not doing an Obama and saying "America already is great." He's saying "Yes, we need to make America great again, Crooked Hillary is part of the problem, but I have my own ideas on how to solve things."
I actually think this is right, but I'm not sure why it's a problem for him to be doing this now.
The true villain of this election -- Colin Kaepernick http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/10/colin_kaepernick_didn_t_vote.html
I also hope Obama throws TPP under the bus.
The DNC has a real problem turning majority support in national elections into political wins. Personally I don't think the primarily structural it's their unwillingness to play hardball or devote resources at the state level, this stems from the leadership wanting to be the party of NYC, DC, the nicer parts of LA, and the President.
It is way to early to judge or analyze Sanders, or anybody else. Who this week said we will all be soon confronted with excruciating ethical questions on a daily basis.
Sanders cares about people. If Trumpist fascism delivers peace and prosperity, increasing standards of living and global hegemony
to 80% of Americans at the horrific expense of the subaltern 20%
as opposed to the old politics, which delivered 80% of generated wealth to to the top 20% of Americans
does Bernie die to take from 80% of Americans to protect the bottom 20%? Or help in a civil or global war that kills millions from both the oppressors and oppressed?
Easy question to answer now. Wait a few years.
For example as a marker here, I don't think the dem senate will even obstruct in the minority like the republicans did in the early Obama administration, presumably forcing the end of the filibuster.
That is, I don't see how refusing to obstruct could be seen as forcing the end of the filibuster. Not that I think the filibuster won't die. I think the Democrats will force the end of the filibuster by obstructing in the minority or that the Republicans will just end the filibuster as soon as the session opens.
I get a weird sense of relief from reading ajay. My experience is that my fellow Bernie supporters have engaged in a lot of frivolous, tendentious readings of Hillary's words, so it's oddly comforting when a Hillary booster engages in a bit of this kind of silliness. Makes me feel a little less embarrassed about my fellow travelers.
I'm personally looking for the rising leaders to see who to support. I'm leaning toward picking whichever one uses "subaltern" the most in a speech.
Sorry, phone typing. I mean the dems won't obstruct, they'll roll over and the filibuster will still be there when they retake the senate. Restarting the unofficial supermajority requirement for democratic presidents to pass anything, which I am still pissed about as acquiescence to this is why the dems got killed in 2010, even with full control of fed. Gov they passed shit. Naively, you'd look back 7 years and say we don't have to worry about Trump doing anything radical through legislation, because the minority senate party can obstruct, Republicans pulled it off with 7 less senators.
"Kris Kobach added to Trump transition team joins Pence, Sessions, Meese, Blackwell in growing hard Christian Right contingent."
Wasn't there a lot of talk in the last decade about the dangers of letting illiberal factions and parties be elected into power? Iran, Tunisia, Moursi in Egypt.
Politics is over, people.
It's kind of remarkable that you didn't mention a single country that went from liberal to illiberal in the last decade.
278: I don't see why they'd do that. It would give the Republicans all the advantages of removing the filibuster and them no advantages if they got to 51.
Damn, y'all are crazy in denial. I no longer care about Sanders, Clinton, Obama save to curse their names.
the 279 "Christian Hard Right" (it appears Trump is letting Pence run things) is not going to let you regain power. And they will stop in ways much more dispiriting ways than leaking emails.
As in obstruct Trumpism in Congress next year, you're physically dead after the unanimous by acclamation Presidential re-election.
God help the world, we are in a Dominionist dictatorship.
Looking for the rising leaders to see who to support. I'm leaning toward picking whichever one uses "subaltern" the most in a speech.
Populist people of color with enough cultural markers (e.g., being a veteran or athlete, land grant school educational background) to not completely alienate non-college whites.
Tulsi Gabbard or Tammy Duckworth seem like the right kind of people, but they're not remotely ready to be national leaders.
We will see, but I have no faith in the national dem party.
Bob, if you sound any more like the undercover FBI agents who encourage the protesting kids to commit felonies, I'll assume you work for the tzar.
285:Shrugs.
It doesn't matter anymore.
Democrats are incapable of organizing a resistance. I recommend the Kotsko, although in ways nothing there is news to me. Communists (socialists, anarchists) are always the core of resistance, and usually die.
Obstructing in Congress?
Try helping people leave the country.
The core of most resistance movements is people who have written extensively about Larry David.
283: Tulsi Gabbard? Really?
A Hare Krishna?
but they're not remotely ready to be national leaders
Apparently the rules regarding this sort of thing have been updated recently.
289: Yeah, leaders emerge. Leave aside Trump. Obama became a national leader by just doing it.
One does get the sense that there's a huge opportunity now in the Democratic Party. My guess? In four years, Elizabeth Warren will only be a little older than Trump is now.
I love her, but no. Someone under seventy. Ideally, someone under sixty.
Embarcadero shut down by marchers here.
291: It'd be nice, and there's plenty of time for someone to emerge, but of the ones who are currently reasonably prominent, they will all be older than 60 in 2020.
Andrew Cuomo will only be 62, though.
Oooh. I forgot Corey Booker.
Andrew Cuomo will only be 62, though.
Not even funny.
This tweetstorm or thread or decatenated blog post or whatever the kidz call it seems very reasonable but hurts the wrong people's feelings so isn't allowed to be part of the narrative. Empathy for thee not for me.
And they're calling calling the transition website greatagain.gov
288: And an empty suit. But photogenic!
297: If anyone else has this question, this is the answer. Before you get a mass migration back to purple states you need to get "coastal" jobs to migrate, and pry apart the heavily clustered sectors in large blue cities. I can certainly think of one that is ripe for prying, with adjacent cities actually suing each other for encouraging excessive local job development.
297: Same guy wrote up the tweetstorm in conventional prose for the tweethaters among us.
A tough job - sending cold recruitment emails to big law attorneys in coastal CA offices pitching a move to ... Tampa. Ummm no sweetie, have no desire to relocate to soon-to-be-inundated Red State.
It can't be that hard to find a job in Ohio. I did it, like three or four times.
301: yeah so my point may actually have been that this is very unlikely to happen
299: Haven't heard of either project, but got to go with Santa Clara's for being on the light rail. Santana Row was a doubling down on building away from transportation infrastructure.
Isn't Tampa actively awful in a way that say, Cleveland, wouldn't be.
People like that fuckhead in 297 should drown themselves. Hey, let's ask these people to reach inside for empathy for the coastals in the same breath that we note we left because there's 0 jobs to be had.
Telling poor oppressed people that they should somehow boot-strap themselves out of their own poverty and oppression so that they can vote for a party that doesn't plan to help them and has a predujiced garbage view of them isn't any more attractive when republicans say it about black people.
I live in the rural Midwest it for the most part isn't the poor working people around here that are the super racists. It's they local "rich" who hate bigger cities because they don't have the money to travel in rich circles there. We don't need most white s to vote for us to win, but we do need 35% of them or so. I think maybe we should run on some shit that will help them.
they can vote for a party that doesn't plan to help them
Except that they're wrong about this -- Democrats are trying to help them, certainly more than the alternative. The ACA is the most recent good evidence of that, but it's not popular among those poor oppressed people. It's hard to tell why, exactly, they're wrong in each individual case, but demonstrably doing shit for them is not enough to make them happy.
I'm frustrated right now, so I'm not being as gentle as I might be, but while we certainly should "run on some shit that will help them" because it's the right thing to do and maybe they'll get their heads out of their asses, saying that they feel abandoned and concluding that the Democratic party has abandoned them is buying into a delusional worldview.
I just heard it on good authority that Wall Street is salivating over the prospect of a repeal of Dodd-Frank.
I lived in Ohio for 7 years, and in Nebraska for 3 years before that. Can I say that I've done my bit?
It's hard to tell why, exactly, they're wrong in each individual case, but demonstrably doing shit for them is not enough to make them happy.
In retrospect, maybe forcing people to pay for shitty, high deductible health insurance policies wasn't the best idea.
310: That's nothing. 7 years in Ohio and 21 in Nebraska.
Hmm, thanks to stupid Twitter layout I missed the last third where he gets more into the economic stuff. To the cultural stuff I said no shit, fuck their special Real Americanism if they have no interest in learning about anyone else.
302- No wonder no one else can, you took them all.
297: Vermont: rural, white, almost totally blue. Conversely, several other states have regions that vote Republican in the end but don't remotely fit the "middle America" stereotype. I don't have anyone in my social network sharing that "learn about rural America" stuff in earnest, for obvious reasons, but it just doesn't fit the facts.
It's vaguely interesting that poor white people without college degrees living in areas with hollowed-out industrial bases have recently joined the Republican coalition of racists, religious nuts, and big business, but that sub-sub-sub-demographic makes up roughly 1 percent of America by population and 2 percent of the Republican coalition. We'll see how much they get what they want from them.
306: Oh FFS. I spent the weekend with my folks in rural Trumpland. They're happy to talk about how the problem with city people on welfare is that they don't want to move to where the jobs are. That "fuckhead" is right on target: empathy for me, but not for thee.
Nobody should have to move to Tampa.
I keep trying to write comments in this thread, and then giving up and going back to the Escapism thread.
Liz. I agree with you completely the democrats are, in general, a better deal for them. But 1. a lot of them do vote democratic, and 2 the ones that don't, don't think this is true. exactly why they don't think so is confusing, but basically I'll boils down to marketing, and a cohort effect, lots of people around them vote republican (especially their parents) so it seems natural to do so.
I'm not expressing this right, but I think Democrats are trying to help economically depressed areas* but somehow don't want to be seen doing it (backing off of health care, not campaigning on trying to make it better) while Republicans aren't helping (Brownback, Jindal) but put a lot of work into looking like they are.
*not enough, but not nothing
I'm clinging to the hope that Trump will nominate Ivanka for everything--SC, DOJ, SOC. This will start a fight with Republicans in congress, and we'll end up with a 4 year stalemate. Trump won't back down, and no positions will get filled and nothing will get done. We'll limp out with the Obama legacy largely intact. 2020 will bring about a Democratic presidency and an undoing of current gerrymandering.
My more realistic optimistic scenario is Trump's narcissism and megalomania will mean he'll spend four years getting in petty feuds with congressional Republicans. He'll decide that screwing over Paul Ryan is more important than getting anything done, and he'll indiscriminately veto anything coming out of a Republican congress. Republicans will treat him like a Democrat, which will make Trump even angrier. The Republican party falls apart, preventing them from getting anything done. If we're lucky, we get some progressive legislation passed solely out of spite by a fundamentally apolitical Trump.
exactly why they don't think so is confusing
It's not! It's all about motherfucking JOBS. We have a multi decade erosion of exactly that going on and our party decided to put up round 2 of the Clintons, who last time gave us NAFTA, preferred trade with China, and banking deregulation. You think people didn't notice that flip flop on the Trans Pacific Partnership?
Add to 321 congressional Republicans getting into feuds with each other now that they actually have to agree to do something positive and et cetera et cetera and you have my best-case scenario. Pretty sure the ACA is toast regardless, though.
317: yeah, I wasn't blown away by the tweets (I believe the guy that his friends were receptive) and 301/306/316 don't take it in a particularly good direction, but a) it's absurd and counterproductive to keep packing offices into Silicon Valley -- there is just no room for the cars and salaries really have to be above $150K to get a person into the recognizeable middle class -- and b) many people who migrate to urban areas for jobs would be willing to migrate back home/elsewhere if there were better, cheaper living opportunities. Many of them post here. (At some point, dairy queen, Mister Smearcase's eyes will roll back to their normal position.... although actually "rolled" might be the normal position.)
This election + unrelated stress has turned my private agonies over moving into an impressive multi-level 4-D enhanced version, as I have said.
322: For that to make sense, the Republicans would have to look better to them on jobs than the Democrats do.
It's all about motherfucking JOBS.
I think it's just as much cultural resentment about being a minority on social issues where what was majority/minority just flipped in the last 10 years.
325: Not Republicans, Trump. Bernie was the only other major candidate talking directly about how economic policies of the last several decades had fucked these people.
Okay, gswift, I'll bite. Have the Republicans done anything to deserve their reputation for protecting (mistyped "projecting") the white working class, other than looking less punchable and guilty than the Dems? Are they just beloved because they suppress competition from liberals for scarce resources?
Should have previewed. But "suppress competition" is what they're likely to get, and it's certainly the main thing the Walker voters have gotten AFAIK.
+1 to 322. Here's a pretty illustrative anecdote of the larger phenomenon.
327: But then where's the split-ticket voting for downballot Democrats?
One thing that seems to keep getting left out of these discussions is that Trump, like all winning candidates, won with a broad coalition of different kinds of people who voted for him for different reasons. You can't understand how he won and how to defeat him next time by zooming in on just one faction in that coalition. You need to look at all of them and see which ones have potential to flip next time and which don't.
Last flight I was on the in-flight magazine had a spread on how great Kansas was now for tech. I wished it were true (really!) and maybe it will be, but shortly after landing I saw an article about the Kansas government deciding to stop some economic report they were going to do regularly because it was starting to show bad news.
332: You need to look at all of them and see which ones have potential to flip next time and which don't.
I think we'd be good with the minorities and rust-belters who voted for Clinton in significantly less numbers than they did for Obama. Maybe offer them something more than the opportunity to be a part of the Clintons' self-actualisation.
Trump's narcissism and megalomania will mean he'll spend four years getting in petty feuds with congressional Republicans
I'm wondering if he can be goaded into it by Tweets. Or some strategic combination of flattering articles and articles reporting that his Cabinet members laugh at him or Congresspeople disrespect him. I can't believe life has brought me to this thought.
330: But that they aren't poor enough to get cheap healthcare under Obamacare at $19,000/year isn't Democratic policy. It's the deliberate results of attempts to sabotage Obamacare through lawsuits and Republican-controlled state governments.
336: Oh, good. I hope they find that out somehow.
335
It seems worth a shot, given the minimal effort it would require on our part. Even just a tabloid headline along the lines of "Breaking! Paul Ryan claimed hand size is indicative of penis size!" I feel like that could get us at least 3 months of gridlock. Remember, Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, and McCain the POW coward-loser are going to be the people he's ostensibly working with. These people hate his guts on a visceral level, and Trump is DEFINITELY not mature enough to rise above personal differences.
This is the hope I have to cling to.
Of course they hate his guts on a visceral level, but they also hate Cruz's guts (except possibly Cruz) and still work with him.
306, 322: a) Many people respond to disaster in one place by moving to a different one.
b) Nobody is bringing back well-paid factory work, any more than the once-lucrative whaling industry. Any positive response for the displaced would be a good thing-- the ACA was a compromise with the republican congress.
c) Black people who aren't rich have the same economic problems, but they by and large didn't respond to the problem by voting for a lying reality show guy out of spite.
The liberal side of the spectrum definitely needs some fake news sites. I mean if a bunch of broke Macedonians can get millions of hits surely someone here can figure it out.
Make the NW Territories Great Again! Bring back the beaver hat industry!
339
Yeah, but Cruz is far more disciplined and committed to the cause. Trump cares far more about smiting his enemies than repealing the welfare state.
If enough people become neo-Victorian hipsters, it might revive the long dormant buggy whip industry.
Also, PSA, if you have documentable Sephardic ancestry, no matter how tenuous, you are eligible for Spanish citizenship. My Ashkenazi friend had a Romanian great-grandmother with a Spanish surname, and that was considered adequate. He got his Spanish citizenship this July, after passing a language exam, citizenship exam, and a brief oral interview.
I've also wondered if he'd rather govern from the Trump Tower. Or if he'd nuke DC. How have we arrived here?
Have the Republicans done anything to deserve their reputation for protecting ... the white working class...?
Deserving's got nothing to do with it.
Not me, but other family members are the kind of dark-haired Irish that makes people talk about ancestry from the Spanish Armada. You think that'd work?
I have been making jokes about goldleafing the White House for a year now. I have to admit that I'm a little curious about what's going to happen as a pure matter of interior decorating.
I'm more than a little worried he's going to gold leaf the White house, and install a giant flashing Trump sign. It's going to be called the Gold House, and the interior redecoration is going to make Central Asian dictators drool with envy. Cheetahs with jeweled collars are going to guard the oval office. They'll be watched over by his elite crack team of bikini-clad Slavic supermodels.
Goddammit! pwned on Trump's gold leaf/bikini model/cheetah comment! What a world we live in.
I would be completely fine with all of that if I could count on his tearing off the latex mask and revealing that he was Halford all along.
348
You should try writing to the Spanish government. Although if you have Irish grandparents, aren't you eligible for Irish citizenship? If you have Italian grandparents on your paternal side (not sure about father's mother, but definitely father's father) you can get Italian citizenship.
My mother is researching Swedish citizenship. She can get permanent residency in Finland, but is worried about learning Finnish. I'm seriously considering marrying my boyfriend when I visit him in Prague next month so I can get Italian citizenship.
The ACA wasn't a compromise with a Republican Congress. It's looking like it'll go down as ultimately nothing because Democrats who were going to lose reelection if anything, however weak, passed still insisted on weakening it instead of going out of office passing something everyone could at least try to defend in the 2010 midterms.
If it's really impossible to have real income growth and better job conditions for the bottom 90% we might as well pack it in and let the fascists take over because that's the ball game.
353: I am pretty sure that if I put the effort into it, I could get Irish citizenship, bu tit doesn't do me any good because my kids couldn't (my grandparents were Irish, but theirs weren't, and my becoming a citizen later in life doesn't make them eligible.)
347: let me make it explicit that that was mostly a rhetorical question and only intended for one person. I am not a naïf sincerely and sadly wondering about this. Life is too short to apologize for phrasing though.
349, 350 - I've been thinking that gold might be a sound investment at the moment, not only because of uncertainty, but because just imagine how much gold leaf is going to be applied over the next four years.
354: Sure, the ACA was a bit of a mess. every large complicated bill is. They all need some good faith adjustments after the fact to work. The ACA got none. And far from there being any pressure brought to bear on the Repubs for their recalcitrance from media etc., there was the opposite, a pile on about how bad the bill was.
Just wait for...Gold Force 1!!! They'll sell Airforce 2 to pay for it. Pence will have to fly coach.
If we're going to be a fascist dictatorship, I hope we get the giant synchronized dance shows that go along with it. I'm talking thousands of children in gold leotards performing on our new national holiday, Donald J. Trump day.
We're also going to get mandatory gold leaf 80 ft tall Trump statues outside of each state capitol building.
The last time he had adorable children performing for him, he didn't pay them, if I recall correctly. Didn't he have a trio of moppets in red white and blue singing at a rally who later had to sue him or something to get paid?
363: Yep. They sued him but I don't know how far the case has gone. Either way, I doubt they've been paid.
Shervin Pishevar wants to help California secede from the US
"Venture capitalist and Hyperloop One co-founder Shervin Pishevar said he wants to help California to secede from the United States and a Donald Trump presidency.
Pishevar tweeted Tuesday night as the election was unfolding that he will be "announcing and funding a legitimate campaign for California to become its own nation," if Trump won the race."
Sheet, legal pot? I'll finish out my days living in my car on the Santa Cruz cliffs.
My Facebook feed wants to push back against gswift's idea that Trump nearly got more votes than Hillary because of Trump's superior stance on jobs. Almost nobody in my feed has anything at all to say about Trump - either before or after the election.
It's all e-mails and the $6 billion she lost in the State Department and her desire to grab your guns. In other words, it's all about crazy hate for Hillary. There's basically no other content.
Now we can debate what inspires all that hate, but people aren't voting for Donald Trump because they resent rich people who game the system.
355- I don't think that is an acceptable answer. We are a civilization in decline things are going to get worse. As a result people are generally going to get meaner. We still have to try to do what we can to ameliorate things.
Thanks for your contribution Bob. I hope you are wrong.
It's all e-mails and the $6 billion she lost in the State Department and her desire to grab your guns.
You think that explains 30 percent Hispanics and 43 percent of women breaking for Trump?
This race was so close there are a bunch of individual things that if they broke differently she would of won. But lots of people in the rust belt voting for Obama and then not voting for her or staying home seems hard to pin on racism.
You think that explains 30 percent Hispanics
Saw something today that said that the exit polls were wrong on that and that it was closer to 18 percent who voted for Trump. Which sounds more likely.
My wife had a weird encounter today with a woman who voted for Trump that made is sound like it was her husband's choice.
372: Yes, initial exit polls tend to be wrong. We won't have good information on exactly what happened in this election for quite a while.
People in my FB feed who voted for Trump seem to have derived 100% of their enthusiasm for doing so based on the knowledge that it would make liberals cry. It's hippie punching, plain and simple. They hate Hillary, sure, but their enthusiasm for Trump is exclusively based on the anguish he is causing for liberals.* (Yes, that anguish gives them glee.) None seem to have any illusion that he's actually going to do anything to help them.
*If I thought Trump was a political savant, I might even think he was deliberately offensive not only to create disproportionate media attention but also precisely in order to make liberals upset, in the knowledge that doing so would create enthusiasm among his hippie punching base. But I don't actually give him that much credit... I think he's just naturally offensive.
342: I would certainly buy a Trump Beaver Hat.
It all goes back to the Republican noise machine. The Hillary hatred, the belief that job losses in farming and resource extraction are because of excessive regulation and not changing markets, the gun control phobia, blaming Washington gridlock on Ds, etc, etc, ad nauseam.
I think you can argue that Trump squeaked by on the strength of people who were thinking of economic and welfare state issues and don't believe that the overt racism and sexism of many of his supporters is representative of his support, and at the same time say that many of his supporters are overtly racist and sexist and would believe what they believe almost regardless of their economic situation. I'm more inclined to say the racism and sexism needs to be pointed out and fought for what it is on its own, rather than trying to make it stand in for all Trump voters everywhere. It really does seem to be strategically a losing argument to blanket state that all Trump support is that. Even though I think it's true that if you go into coalition with hate you provide cover for it, whether or not you mean to.
Racism and sexism are a continuum, too, not an either/or. There are an awful lot of people who behave perfectly well toward the people they know personally and are very insulted by the idea of being called out as racist or sexist for using "politically incorrect" vocabulary if no member of the group being demeaned is around to hear it, or for denying "inner city" people the empathy that they extend to people who are struggling in their own communities.
Yeah, not buying the "just because we are in league with evil, doesn't mean we are evil." I mean, I could see telling yourself that to help you sleep at night, but that doesn't make it true.
I'm not saying it's true. I'm not sure what I'm saying, exactly, except saying Trump support is just about white nationalism isn't going to persuade supporters who don't see themselves as white nationalists, while I have some hope that pointing to the clealy white nationalist Trump supporters and asking, is this who you want your coalition to support might have some hope of reaching people.
And you know most of my family isn't white, although I think at this point everyone is a US citizen, so even though racial ambiguity and California's diversity at a time of growing tolerance, and having a European last name have helped me a lot, I do feel worried both for relatives and maybe even personally, as well as more generally, about the rise in hate. I want to believe that some people are persuadable, that's it's not just people who were waiting for the moment when they didn't have to dogwhistle anymore and could say what they really believe.
I think I need to get off the internet for a bit.
People, I love you, but it is sort of killing me how many collective hours/weeks/days you have all put into reading the hypothetical minds of hypothetical Trump voters. It is not possible to arrive at accuracy or certainty about the motives of imaginary composites of real people.
Tim Burke's post about Salaita and so on is worth quoting but I have to run
I thought I was mostly just insulting them.
I don't think I'm the only one that's extrapolating from non-hypothetical people that I know well, some of whom voting for Trump and some who didn't despite being very tribal Republicans.
You can tell that I've been around Trump voters recently because I can't grammar good.
/Coastal elitist
Moving top Canada is for shit. I just discovered Labatt bottles are only 11.5 ounces
I'm not sure what I'm saying, exactly, except saying Trump support is just about white nationalism isn't going to persuade supporters who don't see themselves as white nationalists, while I have some hope that pointing to the clealy white nationalist Trump supporters and asking, is this who you want your coalition to support might have some hope of reaching people.
I'm struggling with how to deal with these issues too. It's difficult because, like I said above, the Trump coalition includes a lot of different kinds of people who voted for him for different reasons. We don't yet have enough information to know what the composition of that coalition looks like, and what the relative proportions are. It's clear that open white nationalists are one faction, but not at all clear what percentage of Trump voters they are. It's not yet clear what the other factions even are, let alone how big they are. But this is all important to know for strategy going forward. If the explicit racists are, like, 90% of the total, then the best strategy is probably to say "fuck you guys" and focus on boosting youth and minority turnout, especially if it turns out that it was significantly down from previous elections. But if the deplorables are only, like, 10% of the Trump vote despite being so loud, then outreach to the other factions makes sense if we can figure out why they voted for Trump and what might persuade them to vote Dem next time.
But at this point we don't know any of that stuff. Hopefully we'll get more information at some point to clarify all this.
Having read too much post-election analysis, I was still surprised by this: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-were-no-purple-states-on-tuesday/
I feel increasingly committed to the position that my political intuitions are not very accurate or useful.
I'm surprised by 391. That seemed pretty obvious to me even before the night was over on Tuesday. And it fits closely with the narrative of increased partisan polarization which has been the pattern of the past few decades. And, I mean, it just makes sense, in the way that Parliamentary systems make sense compared to whatever the fuck it is we have in this country. Trump is not at all out of the mainstream of the GOP, as represented by its voters rather than its legislators.
If folks want to follow the ballot counts as they trickle in, Dave Wasserman keeps the definitive spreadsheet here. They are now both over 60M votes, HRC up by nearly 440K. My prediction is that she will get to 2M margine. Major source of uncounted ballots can be seen here (CA Unprocessed Ballots Report). Show 4.3M estimated remaining with at least 3-400K more when San Diego which has reported unprocessed ballots shows up. Washington and Arizona also both have well over 500K left.
Good to check before posting a moronic hot take on turnout or relative vote totals. (Total vote now at 127M vs. 129M in 2012--will easily surpass, but not sure on a % of electorate basis.)
Supposedly Ryan is now saying Obamacare repeal will include Medicare privatisation, though the only direct quote I can find is a bit more indirect. I presume he's referring to the plan he put forward earlier this year, which does feature privatisation.
You think that explains 30 percent Hispanics and 43 percent of women breaking for Trump?
Of course, I'm only citing my Facebook feed, but the women and Hispanics in it who support Trump explain it this way themselves. I repeat:
It's all e-mails and the $6 billion she lost in the State Department and her desire to grab your guns. In other words, it's all about crazy hate for Hillary. There's basically no other content.
That's women and Hispanics saying that. And their continued focus is on Hillary and all the losers who are going to vote for her. I see plenty of Hillary supporters mourning the loss of Roe v. Wade or climate action or whatever. What the Trump supporters in my feed are doing is celebrating that Hillary and her supporters lost - to the point of bragging about how the electoral college was so titled against cities. They aren't talking about the wall or whatever.
Kevin Drum makes the argument that the Comey letter might have swayed the election.
FWIW (not much) I'm of the opinion that the election was not only winnable but that Clinton almost won -- that in retrospect the outcome should still feel surprising rather than inevitable.
Oh, I think Comey should be fired. There's no way to tell if the letter flipped the election, but it's well within the realm of possibility that it did.
Is Trump going to drop his Trump TV plans? Or is he going to go through with them and just cut out the media?
As mentioned, my former roommate's Mexican-American relatives on the Texas border are all Trump supporters. They see him as a straight talking business man, not an elite politician. They run a restaurant that's being undercut by a (I think) Sinaloa cartel front, so they're pretty down with him cracking down on immigration. They see themselves as "Americans" and the cartel as "Mexicans," and they're ok with Trump calling "Mexicans" rapists and criminals.
I do have to say, one thing I've learned as an anthropologist is that identity is a tricky thing to parse.
I keep thinking about Megan's suggestion, and I vote we start are own fake news sites. Or we hire some Macedonian teenagers spouting all sorts of anti Trump stuff coming from the Republican establishment. We get Trump and/or his supporters dead set against Republican leadership. We turn the executive and congressional branches against each other in a personal feud, and jam up the system in the most toxic way possible. I think it's our best hope to come out of these four years with Obama's legacy intact. Also, enough of this high road bullshit.
Oh, I think Comey should be fired. There's no way to tell if the letter flipped the election, but it's well within the realm of possibility that it did.
I mean, it was close enough that there are at least half a dozen, and maybe 20, different things that plausibly would have swayed it if they had happened differently. Trying to pin the result on any one thing seems like a fool's errand to me, though some maybe had a bigger impact than others.
Sure. But of those 10-20 things, where one of them is a violation of government policy by a powerful government official, he should be fired for it with a clear statement that using the powers of his office in a way plausibly likely to swing an election is important misconduct whether or not it worked.
Masha Gessen, a lesbian, Jewish, Russian-American dissident
Trump Election Autocracy Rules for Survival ...NYRB, sample
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you. It took Putin a year to take over the Russian media and four years to dismantle its electoral system; the judiciary collapsed unnoticed. The capture of institutions in Turkey has been carried out even faster, by a man once celebrated as the democrat to lead Turkey into the EU. Poland has in less than a year undone half of a quarter century's accomplishments in building a constitutional democracy.
Of course, the United States has much stronger institutions than Germany did in the 1930s, or Russia does today. Both Clinton and Obama in their speeches stressed the importance and strength of these institutions. The problem, however, is that many of these institutions are enshrined in political culture rather than in law, and all of them--including the ones enshrined in law--depend on the good faith of all actors to fulfill their purpose and uphold the Constitution.
The national press is likely to be among the first institutional victims of Trumpism. There is no law that requires the presidential administration to hold daily briefings, none that guarantees media access to the White House. Many journalists may soon face a dilemma long familiar to those of us who have worked under autocracies: fall in line or forfeit access. There is no good solution (even if there is a right answer), for journalism is difficult and sometimes impossible without access to information.
The power of the investigative press--whose adherence to fact has already been severely challenged by the conspiracy-minded, lie-spinning Trump campaign--will grow weaker. The world will grow murkier. Even in the unlikely event that some mainstream media outlets decide to declare themselves in opposition to the current government, or even simply to report its abuses and failings, the president will get to frame many issues.
401: My best friend growing up back in Alabama is half-Mexican, looks Mexican, has a Mexican last name. Also hates Mexican immigrants and wants them all deported - he works in non-union heavy manufacturing and is in near daily contact with them, as well. I haven't talked to him about the election, but if he voted at all, the chance he voted for Clinton is as good as zero.
From the best estimates of the final tally that I can find, it looks like Trump got 1.3 million fewer votes than Romney did in 2012, but Clinton got 6 million fewer votes than Obama in 2012.
In terms of how they did among the people who actually showed up to vote on Tuesday, it looks like the supposedly unique characteristics of the 2 candidates (Clinton potentially the first woman president, Trump an insane douchebag & etc.) made no difference at all. They both performed essentially as generic D or R candidates with the various demographics.
But seriously. How hard is it to get a web domain and set up a fake news site anonymously? Do we need to contract the work out to Macedonia?
Speaking of media stuff, I wonder if somebody couldn't please do a Gawker on the National Enquirer?
I was just going to post the link in 405 but bob did it for me. It is a good overview.
407: No. No hot takes on turnout allowed at this time. She will get 3M more he will get 1.5 to 2M more.
I'm skeptical about stuff like the link in 405 because it assumes that Trump's goals are the same as those of a typical autocrat. Also, what does it even mean to "listen to what he says" when he contradicts himself constantly and goes back and forth all the time even on his core issues? He's already backtracking on repealing Obamacare, for example.
Which is not to say that his unpredictability makes him less dangerous than a typical autocrat, of course. If anything it makes him more dangerous.
May I suggest that we stop looking at or using National Polling or Exit Polling numbers?
Probably the most important lesson of this election is that Wisconsin is not California, and aggregating their polls confuse us more than enlighten, just as polls of Dixie can lead outsiders to forget that there are blacks and minorities in the South, and a lot of Texan White Men voted for Obama and Clinton.
Mississippi is not racist. White men in Mississippi are not racist. Most white men is Mississippi are racist, but if you want the votes of those who aren't, it is probably strategic to say "Some"
David Wong at Cracked escaped from flyover country, and tries to explain it.
412- That gave me pause as well. It is clear that Trump doesn't care about the truth, and will say whatever gets him his way. That means you shouldn't believe him when he says something popular and rational. But you can't afford not to believe him when he says something crazy and unacceptable.
Besides it doesn't really matter that much if he 'really' supports hate crimes or not. He has emboldened the evildoers and will have a hard time getting them to stop even when he tries.
My son was on a Minecraft server today and there were bullies messing around with his plot and boasting about Trump winning.
412: Also, what does it even mean to "listen to what he says" when he contradicts himself constantly and goes back and forth all the time even on his core issues? He's already backtracking on repealing Obamacare, for example.
I realize this is off-point, but for god's sake, backtracking on letting people with pre-existing conditions "keep" their health insurance is hardly comforting: if the subsidies go, and such people (I myself) are farmed off to high-risk pools without meaningfully funded subsidies, the whole thing is shit. It means nothing. A salve, a balm to allow those who want to throw us under the bus tell themselves that they aren't assholes, no, not at all.
Anyway, as you were.
417: Yeah, fair enough. It's still very likely that he's going to do all sorts of terrible shit even if it's not the exact same terrible shit he campaigned on. This slight backtrack just demonstrates that he has no sincere commitment to any of this. I have no idea what that means for how he's going to govern.
I'm trying to save all my pontificating about the election for Facebook, though. I think people here are sick of thinking about it. (As are a lot of people there, but I've also been seeing some great posts and productive conversations.)
I'd be curious what you're thinking. This is an older post, I feel like people can ignore political comments if they want . . .
Thanks! I don't have anything fully fleshed-out yet, but I may repost some things here if people are interested. (Or feel free to friend me on FB. I'm easy to find.)
And all my posts are public, so you don't even have to friend me, actually.
That offer applies to everyone, btw.
CROWDS: Lock her up! Lock her up!
REPUBLICANS: Your chants are intriguing to us and we wish you would subscribe to out direct mailings.
DEMOCRATS: ...
CROWDS: We march for equality and tolerance and against hate.
REPUBLICANS: Now the masks are off and the true face of fascism is revealed for all to see.
DEMOCRATS: ...
Was this thread supposed to be for predictions? Here's my dystopian prediction (one of many possible dystopian scenarios!):
What if Trump was actually serious about building a wall on the Mexican border and *making* Mexico pay for it? "Believe me, they'll pay for it," he said, while repeatedly insisting that our government strikes bad deals because our politicians are terrible negotiators. (Unlike, Putin, who's a real leader.)
Liberals laughed at Trump when he said this, but the formative years of Trump's career were in real estate development, which is an amoral world where bare knuckles, hyper-aggressive, pure-power negotiation is common. Relationship building with anyone who can do something for you (or to you); exerting maximal leverage to screw everyone else to the greatest extent possible. All accounts I've seen of Trump's career suggest this is exactly how he is used to operating. And I certainly don't think he's guided by any strong moral compass.
Trump needs nothing from Mexico. So he starts building the wall, and he demands payment from Mexico. They laugh and refuse. Trump, both out of a habit of tough negotiation and to show the rest of world he "means business" when he makes demands, responds by threatening a nuclear strike on Mexico City if they don't pay. International outrage and UN condemnation follows, of course, but Trump sticks to his demand. He's doesn't actually want to nuke Mexico City, but he fully expects them to cave if he maintains the bluff. And most of all he doesn't want to back down from the threat and lose face internationally (and with his domestic base). After a tense standoff, with Mexico still recalcitrant, Trump fires a "warning shot" at Monterrey. Nearly 1MM die. A shocked and panicked Mexico caves and agrees to pay for the wall. Trump wins that negotiation.
This prediction may not play out in exactly this manner, of course. But is any part of it out of character?
That would, I think, not happen because a military dictatorship would take over somewhere before the nuking. It would be almost impossible to go back to a democracy after that.
None of it out of character, but his cabinet, however evil they may be, will still want to sell shit to Europe and China, who would embargo the US if he did this. So they won't let him. Most likely he'll just impose a unilateral duty on Mexican imports and pretend it's going to finance the wall.
Well, yeah, my second dystopian scenario is that Trump gets some crazy idea like this stuck in his head and we end up with a military coup.
425: Trump is apparently bringing in Jamie Dimon as Treasury
Trump doesn't need to threaten nukes. He can simply pull a Eu/Greece on Mexico. Financial Imperialism, Economic/Cultural became the primary weapons of American Slavocracy long ago. Now the plantations are in China, Foxconn.
American liberals and oppressed minorities nod sagely at their I-phones and go for Thai. Ain't that a shame. Must be racism.
Thai food has peanuts but no jelly and coconut.
A couple quotes from LGM
This is one of the many examples of why comparing Trump to Hitler is inappropriate. Hitler had a fucking plan, and he was ready. ...Shakezula
This why what scares me most is Pence, and Trump's apparent willingness to delegate to Pence. My bet is that the hard Christian Right do have a plan, detailed and ready.
I am watching this pretty closely. There are already signs that Pence is reaching and Trump pushing back, though not very hard. Trump added his children to Pence's transition team.
I don't get it. Maybe the Christian Right has something on Trump, or maybe Trump learned from Mein Kampf about the need for some kind of unifying mysticism in a fascist dictatorship. Scares me shitless.
And for God's sake, quit misunderestimating Trump. Start from the premise that he is very smart, and you are the dumb one who doesn't understand how he works his will.
I think his plan is to shut down remittances to Mexico until they feel the economic squeeze enough to pay for it. Remittances from the US are a vital part of the Mexican economy, especially in rural areas. Cut those off, and it causes a lot of pain. Which will in turn cause political instability. And, ironically, more pressure at the border.
I hate to admit it, but Bitcoin and similar technologies may be useful to the resistance here. If funds can flow to Mexico through unregulated channels, it can blunt the damage of Trumps embargo. Unfortunately, despite a lot of hype, Bitcoin's actual utility as a remittance tool has, to date, proved underwhelming.
Yes, the cutting of remittances is his stated plan. His estimates assume the cost of the wall is low enough that it would only be a fraction of annual remittances to Mexico. I have no idea what an actual wall sufficient to appreciably slow immigration would cost, but it would certainly be more than one year of remittances to Mexico ($50 billion). I have no idea what Mexico's response would be (or that of India and other countries with larger amounts of remittances), but there will be considerable damage to the U.S. economy in any plausible scenario. Not that this means Trump won't do just that, but it does mean that the political consequences will be very different from German-Greece relations.
Sorry. $50 billion is the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico. Remittances are lower. I was looking at both because I'm also unsure how you control remittances when so much is flowing out for the trade deficit. The obvious answer is "control the trade deficit also," but a huge amount of it is money going from one part of a U.S. multinational to another part of it.
I don't see how I can do anything to help Mexicans, but I certainly can see how you can exploit politically whatever economic consequences this kind of thing produces in America.
Something I find weird and inexplicable: Even though people are big on decrying racism in the abstract, they don't seem as interested in speaking out against hate crimes either happening now or those yet to come.
The wall is estimated to cost about $25 billion I think? And will be exactly as successful as all other similar walls.
432: Bitcoin is one option but I suspect hawaala networks would be easier to put in place.
Predictions? I'll try my hand:
Trump is freaked out by the newfound responsibility he's now in possession of. He'll become increasingly gaunt. He'll try to rally for some time, hoping that he's put "good people" in place to take some of the burden from him, but it won't work very well: everybody will constantly be coming at him, noting that their constituents are yelling and screaming, the this-or-that plan isn't going to work, and so on.
Obama will continue to whisper in his ear. Paul Ryan and Stephen Moore will continue to whisper in his ear.
Mike Pence will start to grate on him. Ivanka wants more women-friendly policies! Pence wants to fuck women over in a big way, and thinks the new Supreme Court should overturn gay marriage! Fuck that shit, Trump thinks to himself.
He flounders. He reminds himself that he's the president, for god's sake. Everybody is annoying to him, except maybe Obama, who keeps a calming tone: Yep, being president is really stressful, Don. The responsibility is immense: it changes your life forever. One thing you can never do is make decisions lightly or quickly, Don.
I'm also unsure how you control remittances when so much is flowing out for the trade deficit.
A huge proportion of remittances go through two companies - Western Union and MoneyGram. Its basically a duopoly because establishing widespread distribution networks in recipient countries turns out to be very difficult. The federal government has to tools to lean on them quite a bit, for example through the abuse of regulations meant to control money laundering. The Treasury Department could insist on requiring a full background check on every Mexican peasant receiving funds. That would quickly make their business uneconomical.
I'm going to believe 438.5 with the same intensity that I once believed in Santa Claus and the essential decency of the American people.
If I'm Mike Pence right now, I'm totally plotting a coup.
440: Which part of it? That Obama won't be whispering in his ear? But wasn't there some news that past Presidents routinely speak to one another? "We're a small tribe, Don. Not many of us who truly understand the burden and the responsibility. We're here any time to workshop this with you, just say the word."
Eh, this is just my latest version of denial.
It is denial, but there's also reality underneath. eg. Kennedy ending up leaning heavily on Eisenhower for foreign policy advice.
441: Yeah, insofar as that would be in concert with the Congressional powers that be, I ... well, my current fantasy world includes the notion that Trump won't go down easily.
Honestly: I don't think he'll be the rubber stamp they're hoping or assuming he will be. Obviously we'll see.
442: ? Does the word "believe" mean something different now, in a post-Trump world?
444- I feel like I have to burst your bubble here. Trump is willing to make deals. You offer him enough of what he wants and you get what you want. Unless he sees the opportunity to cheat you that is.
Everything I see says Trump is petty and vindictive, shares few if any beliefs with the movement conservatives in Congress, and is in his person profoundly offensive to most of them. Words will be said, Trump's feelings will be hurt.
Unless they all learn to knuckle under in a hurry, which, being themselves petty tyrants, they will.
Inspired by Parsimon's entirely reasonable observation that given what we know about Trump's personality, he is likely to find presidential responsibility a burden, or at least an irritation, I'll make a prediction:
Trump will have some serious, possibly fatal, health setback during his first term. He's old, he's fat, and he does not strike one as a man who has the discipline for consistent exercise or healthy eating. And now he's going to be stressed as fuck, if not from an actual sense of responsibility, then from all the people who will be constantly up his ass from now on. He'll crack up in some way and if it doesn't kill him, it will leave him totally disengaged and totally over the fun of presidenting.
Before this is mistaken for wishful thinking, I do not actually think this will be a good thing as it would put that god-bothering ghoul of a VP even more firmly in charge.
I think the best we can possibly hope for is 4 years of embarrassing and outrageous, but hopefully mostly reversible policy shitshows, with Trump inadvertently acting as an obstacle to the cretins actually driving policy as he becomes more annoyed by everyone around him and sadder that he's not feeling the kind of love from the people that he did at his rallies. Then he either can't or won't run again in 4 years during which his administration has sufficiently horrified the public without actually permanently wrecking anything that can't be fixed, at which point Fox has had 4 more years of audience die-off and everyone 14-18 now can vote and the Republicans get turfed out in a substantial way. That's the rosiest scenario I can conceive.
445: Oh, I'm sorry. I took your "I'll believe that" to mean: I'm never going to believe that. I took it to be a statement of disbelief.
449.last was my line of thinking, yes. The biggest obstacle to it (aside from the possibility that Trump doesn't actually experience a decline), is that many of his supporters probably won't realize that he -- or the Republican Congress and Trump's appointees -- have wrecked everything. They'll blame a possible recession on Obama, e.g. Health insurance premiums skyrocket? Obamacare did that. etc.
People are pretty stupid. I think that's what's shocked me the most.
There is evidence that Trump wants out, by the way.
450: I guess it was ambiguous. I really did once believe in the essential decency of the American people.
It's rumored that Trump is going to appoint Jamie Dimon Secretary of the Treasury. Please, please, please, please. The fix is in, motherfuckers!
452: Why "Please, please, please"?
I think whatever happens now, the Republicans are going to get the blame/credit. If I want to be optimistic, I would predict: everything goes to shit, the Democrats clean-sweep in 2020 at almost all levels of government, and undo as much of the damage as they can. Then 2028 rolls around, everyone decides there's no difference between the parties, and we get to do it again. All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.
I'd never before rooted for the deep state. Sadly, I suspect it's better at resisting liberals than fascists.
449- From your keyboard to Allah's eyes. We should be so lucky.
Because the CEO of JP Morgan is literally the opposite of everything Trump promised.
On the other hand, if your plan is to institute fascism, getting Big Finance on your side is key.
457: Nobody who voted for him is going to notice or care.
They're all remarkably stupid, and ignorant. They've been trained to assume that nothing that happens on a federal level has any particular effect. I listened to some idiotic person who remarked that while she liked Clinton's policies overall, Hillary just wasn't very charming, you know, so if only she'd gone on a few more talk shows or something, maybe she'd have inspired something. And some other guy who giggled and chuckled his way through explaining that due mostly to laziness, he hadn't bothered to register to vote, so whatever.
The worst of this is: many people who hadn't already adopted this attitude are going to move to an Every Man and Woman for him/herself. Themselves.
It makes me incredibly sad. It's happening in my own life already.
459: It's still funny. We need to take our joy wherever we can find it.
Trump voters are probably less well-informed about politics than the corvids. That's why the corvids will win.
My only prediction is the overwhelming nausea & despair I'll feel when he makes his statement after the next mass shooting.
Despite 425, what I actually mostly predict is grift and government looting on an unprecedented scale. Like so many things about Trump, this will in essence be nothing more than a continuation of Republican standard operating procedures for the last 20+ years, but in Trump's administration it will be bigger and more brazen than anything that's come before. I expect his regulatory agencies to do more or less nothing except give favors and handouts to well-connected industries.
I've got another one:
Trump and the R house and senate will pass this infrastructure spending splurge and bigass tax cut he's talking about, which will cause an economic boom that will last just long enough to get Trump into a 2nd term (assuming he's still alive), shortly after which some Very Serious People will get up the courage to scold the administration about the deficit/debt. This will be used as a pretence to aggressively cut entitlements (further) and just as the bond market starts to crap its pants, the Tories will point to the American economy as an excuse to cut the shit out of rich people's taxes, and at the American deficit as an excuse to slash benefits at the same time.
That's not even a prediction, is it? Just stating the obvious? Yeah, never mind.
The one policy I have every confidence that Trump will deliver on is treating people of color like shit.
466: He won't even need to do it himself. His supporters are totally on it.
Anyway, I went to the state Young Democrats' monthly meeting today and there were huge numbers of new people. Total attendance was four or five times what we had last month. We had to move to a bigger space. It ended up being a good meeting, too, with lots of good discussion.
That's why the corvids will win.
Don't be too quick to count out raccoons.
If I'm Mike Pence right now, I'm totally plotting a coup.
It has effectively happened already. He's taking over the transition and God knows Trump is no kind of policy guy. Pence is a cuddlier Cheney, but repping JesusCorp instead of Big Oil.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/11/12/ya-think-3/
Makes sense.
470: Saw that, the article was great.
Is the takeaway "irredeemable monsters" or "why do they hate we elites?"
I will go along with "monsters" and the "racism" narratives for the indeterminable moment in protection of and solidarity with those ethnic minorities who are being immediately threatened and attacked, reserving partial counter-narratives for intra-party struggles.
Well obviously there is a lot of cause for hatred, but it doesn't always serve your interests to go there.
http://charleseisenstein.net/hategriefandanewstory/
1) "I'm a big fan of Donald Trump," Carlsen told Norway's TV2 in March (in Norwegian). "Trump is incredibly good at finding opponents' weaknesses. He speaks only about that the other candidates are stupid or smelly. There should be more of this in chess, too." Carlsen then offered a Trumpism of his own: "Karjakin is incredibly boring!" Karjakin, for his political part, is an avowed supporter of Vladimir Putin.
We are so so fucked.
2) For those who think it was a close Presidential election that hinged on Comey or the Electoral College
The Republicans are very close to controlling enough State Legislatures to start passing Constitutional Amendments. When do demographics give us 37 State Legislatures to start overturning Mike Pence's Constitution?
Let that be the stuff of your nightmares. That is the reason blue dots in a Red Sea is suicidal in America.
One answer as I said is the return to the country. I have been reading about the New Great Migration, blacks returning to Georgia, Texas, North Carolina.
As I said, I trust in AA's and other ethnic groups being the face of the Democratic Party, and consider it a moral necessity in the age of Trump.
About armed insurrection before Pence passes "White Christian Nation" and "Right to Life" and "Right to Work" constitutional amendments...
472: Somebody linked to that elsewhere. It made me so angry.
I guess Mike Pences Constitiution would be a nightmare to most of the Unfoggedatariat, but as an American Muslim my nightmares are more concrete. Trump kept Mein Kampf on his bedside for years and has made his plan to force us to register plain.
This speaks to me: http://www.kameronhurley.com/apocalypse-nation-nowhere-run/
Let me write this up here before transferring it to Crooked Timber...
"Wait, you want kick women out of the Democratic Party? This catastrophic loss wasn't our fault in any way whatsoever, not that anything is ever our fault."
No. I don't
White women do not represent all women.
White upper-middle class women do not represent all women.
White UMC women with advanced degrees who are feminists and live on the coasts do not represent all women.
White UMC women with Ivy League degrees who are feminists and live on the coasts who gleefully and unrepentantly take millions from Wall Street Banks for fluffing do not represent all women.
African-Americans consistently and for decades have delivered ~90% of their voters to Democrats, across all income brackets and social distinctions.
Donald Trump won white non-college women by 62 to
34 points, a 28 point gap.
This is a catastrophic longterm generational failure for American feminism, both on the level of compassion and the level of politics. And this is their level of responsibility and outreach
White Women Sold Out the Sisterhood By Voting For Trump
"What leads a woman to vote for a man who has made it very clear that he believes she is subhuman? Self-loathing. Hypocrisy. And, of course, a racist view of the world that privileges white supremacy over every other issue."
No. Won't help. Take a rest, Brazille.
(The interesting question, probably generational, is whether African-Americans think they need the Clintonite feminists in their coalition, and whether there is any resentment.
The sign that Black Lives Matter is strongly pushing back against Keith Ellison as DNC Chairman, well, is a sign. Thinking on that, the Muslim and youth was in his favor. But listening hard.)
Long piece for the laydeez
There has been a lot of talk in this election about Hillary Clinton's failure to adequately appeal to America's working-class white men, who are suffering from the collapse of manufacturing and coal industries and plagued by a heroin epidemic. But maybe a woman trying to build a coalition of marginalized groups, and espousing policies that would help those groups, simply could never have appealed to Trump's base -- even though those policies would also have helped that base.
Right, (all) working class white men = Trump's base = Stormfront and Breitbart
Fuck you, I ain't voting with people who think that I, because of my gender and race, although I have voted Democratic for forty years, am a secret Nazi waiting for the right candidate.
We need new feminists.
There are going to be some unsavory characters in any electoral coalition big enough to have a chance at the White House. I will probably support the Democrats until they become a pro-torture party like the Republicans already are.
Bob expects nice, middle class white women to remain quite while they are insulted and to not dare insult anybody back. Because only white men can haz feelings.
Charles Stross published this cheery missive at making light. I reproduce it here without permission, for convenience.
#26 ::: Charlie Stross ::: (view all by) ::: November 14, 2016, 09:29 AM:
I hesitate to write this, because spreading dismay and despair only aids the bad guys, but I fear that you are all (mostly) optimists.
A few years ago, wandering around the net, I stumbled on a page titled "Why Japan lost the Second World War". (Sorry, I can't find the URL.) It held two photographs. The first was a map of the Pacific Theater used by the Japanese General Staff. It extended from Sakhalin in the north to Australia in the south, from what we now call Bangladesh in the west, to Hawaii in the east. The second photograph was the map of the war in the White House. A Mercator projection showing the entire planet. And the juxtaposition explained in one striking visual exactly why the Japanese military adventure against the United States was doomed from the outset: they weren't even aware of the true size of the battleground.
I'd like you to imagine what it must have been like to be a Japanese staff officer. Because that's where we're standing today.
This is not just about America. This is one move -- a very significant one, bishop-takes-queen maybe -- in a long-drawn-out geopolitical chess game. It's being fought around the world: Brexit was one move, the election and massacres of Dutarte in the Philippines were another, the post-coup crackdown in Turkey is a third. The possible election of Marine Le Pen -- a no-shit out-of-the-closet fascist -- as President of France next year is more of this stuff. The eldritch knot of connections between Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Da'esh in the wreckage of Syria is icing on top. It's happening all over and this is not a coincidence.
Part of it is about the geopolitics of climate change (and mass migration and water wars). Part of it is about the jarring transition from an oil-based economy (opposed by the factions who sell oil and sponsor denial climate change, from Exxon-Mobil to the Kremlin) to a carbon-neutral one.
Part of it is the hellbrew of racism and resentment stirred up by loss of relative advantage, by the stagnation of wages in the west and the perception that other people somewhere else are stealing all the money -- Chinese factories, Wall Street bankers, the faceless Other.
Another big of it is Russia's long-drawn out revenge for the wild ride of misrule the neoconservatives inflicted on the former USSR in the 1990s. Stripped of communism, the old ideologues didn't take their asset-stripping lying down; they no more morphed into whitebread Americans than the Iraqis did during the occupation. They're running the playbook from The Foundations of Geopolitics by Alexander Dugin -- a set text at the Russian staff college for the past two decades -- waging a global ideological war against people like us: "In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution. ... The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union."
I don't want to sound like a warmed-over cold warrior, but this faction is ascendent in Putin's Russia, and their leaders remember how the KGB (newly reformed last month) handled black propaganda and disinformation, and they have people who know how new media work and who are updating the old time Moscow rules for a new century. Trump's Russian connections aren't an accident -- they may be the most important thing about him, and Russia's sponsorship of extreme right neo-fascist movements throughout Europe is an alarming part of the picture. China isn't helping, either: they're backing authoritarian regimes wherever they seem useful, for the same reason the US State Department under Henry Kissinger backed fascists throughout central and south America in the 1970s -- it took a generation to fix the damage from Operation Condor, and that was local (at least, to a single continent).
And trying to defeat this kind of attack through grass-roots action at local level ... well, it's not useless, it's brave and it's good, but it's also Quixotic. With hindsight, the period from December 26th, 1991 to September 11th, 2001, wasn't the end of history; it was the Weimar Republic repeating itself, and now we're in the dirty thirties. It's going to take more than local action if we're to climb out of the mass grave the fascists have been digging for us these past decades. It's going to take international solidarity and a coherent global movement and policies and structures I can barely envisage if we're going to rebuild the framework of shared progressive values that have been so fatally undermined.
We haven't lost yet.
But if we focus too narrowly on the local context, we will lose, because there is now a de facto global fascist international at work, they've got a game plan, they're quite capable of applying the methods of Operation Condor in the north, and if we don't work out how to push back globally fast there will be nobody to remember our graves.