Mourning in America - Trump Year One: November '16 to

i was specifically responding to the 'global supremacy' and invasion thing but yes you're right many things happened quite quickly

xpost

Point made upthread about older people struggling to make sense of information from the internet seems very very otm to me - consider so much material just churned out to get clicks, the writers and editors even less accountable than the paper press. And then the self-confidence and savvy it takes to be properly suspicious, then how easy it is to fall into a caricature of reasonable suspicion (so you end up believing in conspiracies).

yes, exactly, thank you

Don't most Silicon Valley companies employee large numbers of H1B tech workers at below market rates? I would assume anything there would vastly outweigh "agtech disruption" possibilities.

NY Times reporter on Keith Ellison pick-

https://twitter.com/jonathanweisman/status/797120114042793984

I think he's just going to turn out to be your bog standard shithead republican who everyone will learn to hate when he doesn't deliver manufacturing to everyone, and will be done in 4 years.

yeah maybe his approval ratings will tank once he fucks up the economy.. then again, plenty of scapegoats to go around

thinking maybe he'll have a lot more people (dem pols) talking down to him / screaming directly in his face than he's used to.. not that it matters

That's a grotesque tweet, brownie.

yep, the comments are otm

Many xpost to Tracer Hand: that's the point, for a large number of people facts don't matter, truth doesn't matter. Image and personality matters, and so do memes in the original sense: viral ideas. Dems don't seem to understand that. What this does not mean is that the left should abandon the truth; it means we need to be better at making truth sticky - as shamelessly manipulative about it as the right is about their lies (and as they are about the truth when they get hold of it once in a while). It's a tough job, yeah, but I think it would make everything a hell of a lot better. And we'd win more often, because truth is stronger than lies and love is stronger than hate.

Being deliberately reductive here for the sake of rhetoric.

buried in this puff piece by town and fucking country on hope hicks, the likely new press secretary, are the words "there were early signs that the woman Trump has described as a "beautiful beauty" would climb onto the political stage."

http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a7274/hope-hicks-donald-trump/

But I'll take the black congressmen from Milwaukee.

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, November 11, 2016 2:19 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

cmon man, milwaukee??

@hardcore dilettante:

But I would like to hear it from a Trump voter's mouth, or, as I'm typing from the UK, from a Leave voter's mouth, that facts don't matter, truth doesn't matter, to them. Before signing up 100% to the argument that we've moved into a post-fact age.

From what I can gather, most of them think they are in fact in possession of the 'real' facts and the 'real' truth (and are in a dire situation where an evil establishment is always trying to pry this truth out of their hands). That facts don't matter to them, is something that gets said about them.

The thing about 'truth is stronger than lies' is that it's a lie. The truth is that lies are stronger than truth. And I've been telling people this over and over, but it never takes. Because, well, you know...

NY Times reporter on Keith Ellison pick-

https://twitter.com/jonathanweisman/status/797120114042793984

― brownie, Friday, November 11, 2016 7:43 PM (sixteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

guessing nyt didn't take too long on picking out the lewandowski picture for that article

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/11/11/us/11transitionbriefing4/11transitionbriefing4-master675.jpg

xp to self Obvs it's not likely that someone would outright say 'I don't care about facts' because if you didn't, you wouldn't know it. But it looks to me like the fear comes first, and out of that, a mad rush to what looks like safety, where there's no time to look at all these statistics and facts and figures

The thing about 'truth is stronger than lies' is that it's a lie. The truth is that lies are stronger than truth.

Think this is contextual tbh

e.g. 'The sky is green' is a weak lie, 'X and Y and Z are coming to get you!' is a strong lie if said to the right people

Climate-change is a plot by the Chinese, vaccines cause autism, 9/11 is an inside job, etc. etc.

The wells were poisoned years ago

http://cdn.nexternal.com/mef/images/ToxicSludgeIsGoodForYou250.jpg

Many xpost to Tracer Hand: that's the point, for a large number of people facts don't matter, truth doesn't matter. Image and personality matters, and so do memes in the original sense: viral ideas. Dems don't seem to understand that. What this does not mean is that the left should abandon the truth; it means we need to be better at making truth sticky - as shamelessly manipulative about it as the right is about their lies (and as they are about the truth when they get hold of it once in a while). It's a tough job, yeah, but I think it would make everything a hell of a lot better. And we'd win more often, because truth is stronger than lies and love is stronger than hate.

Being deliberately reductive here for the sake of rhetoric.

― hardcore dilettante, Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:52 AM (eighteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

is it the delivery, or is it the Democratic/liberal establishment is so willfully detached from the public they lost the election because of.

lena dunham rapping. nothing else needs to be said on that.

I hate the counterfactuals but I've decided that while no one can know whether Bernie woulda won (just too much Knightian uncertainty) Martin O'Malley or Joe Biden would be president today if Clinton or Sanders hadn't run. my read of the data is that it was low-enthusiasm for Clinton due to scandals; she ran the best campaign she could have (quibbles aside) and yet still the rep stuck.

is it the delivery, or is it the Democratic/liberal establishment is so willfully detached from the public they lost the election because of.

none of the various establishments expected this

these various establishment obviously wrong then, because now we have the first Infowars.com president

it looks to me like the fear comes first, and out of that, a mad rush to what looks like safety, where there's no time to look at all these statistics and facts and figures

― Never changed username before (cardamon), Friday, November 11, 2016 6:03 PM

I go through it over and over in my head, and nothing that the supporters said about Sanders I found unconvincing back then sounds more convincing now. But I return to this: I'm 100% convinced he would have campaigned in the midwest. Hillary did not. He would have done it for the wrong reasons - because he felt comfortable there, because he was doing rallies and west coast + midwest was good turf - but he would have done it none the less. And that would have made the difference. He would have lost Florida, Georgia, Texas, Arizona by much more, it's possible he would have lost in 2020 where Hillary has helped create fertile ground for the next candidate in those states, who knows, but he wouldn't have lost in the Midwest. And the only conclusion I'm able to come to is: Fuck this shit. It would have been SO GOOD if it had worked, but it backfired, and nobody got why. Except Michael Moore.

People who perceive that 'the streets are dangerous' normally knows exactly what story they want to soothe that fear, and no democrat should be willing to offer that bullshit story anymore. But I think the fact that so many BLM stories has happened in the Midwest, and this giant whitelash happened in the Midwest as well, is underacknowledged.

And this is not to attack you, hd, just to point out how difficult it is to appeal to both the people convinced that 'street crime' is out of control, and also the people who will hurt disproportionally by every measure proposed to deal with that - irrational - conviction. Coalition politics is so much harder than just appealing to the basest instincts of the majority.

And the reality is that STORIES are stronger than either truth or lies. The reason lies seem stronger is because they're easier to make good simple stories out of. But good stories made of truth are better than good stories made of lies, because they're true and will remain true when examined, will remain true after the need for the story is gone, whereas false stories eventually dissipate like smoke.

Agreed in the main, esp on the BLM front, Frederik B

People who perceive that 'the streets are dangerous' normally knows exactly what story they want to soothe that fear, and no democrat should be willing to offer that bullshit story anymore. But I think the fact that so many BLM stories has happened in the Midwest, and this giant whitelash happened in the Midwest as well, is underacknowledged.

― Frederik B, Friday, November 11, 2016 8:35 PM (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

seriously everybody I miss the days of receiving backlash over my white belt :-((

Absolutely. And part of where Clinton's campaign failed is that there was almost no acknowledgement of that fear in Middle America, and no story to tell that said, "If you give us your vote, we'll fix it for you." Facts and statistics are useless If they don't tell a story that people want to believe. When you perceive that the streets are dangerous - when the news and the net are telling you about mass shootings and gang violence, pointing to a statistic that says violent crime is down does nothing to soothe that fear; instead it says "I don't care about your concerns." Trump stepped into that gap with "You're right! Things are fucked! But I can MAGA etc"

― hardcore dilettante, Saturday, November 12, 2016 1:30 AM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the whole framing of this was a big problem of the campaign. instead of the main concern being messaging, they could've offered something substantive to help people, or at least show them they're still a part of the process of american governance. voter turnout was lowest in 20 years, it's like people didn't see anything at stake in this election despite Trump being an absolutely insane choice. for years people have complained about feeling abandoned by the establishment, and Clinton was the absolute embodiment of this, and how the primaries and media acted about it only confirmed this view. it's hard to blame people for not giving a crap.

it's hard to blame people for not giving a crap.

it isn't, really

so what are you going to do, shame them to death?

larry, I know we're all playing armchair campaign manager here, but when you, and everyone else for that matter, talk about what could be done, it's not that helpful to say she should have offered 'something substantive' to people. What would that be? And I write this mostly because people like Old Lunch, and all the rest of us, are currently trying to figure out exactly what the path forward should be, in the US, where all of you are, but also in Denmark, where we have many of the same problems. What does anyone think could have been offered to those white rural midwest communities, to make them vote for her?

Here's a bit of what she offered: A 12$ federal minimum wage, up from 8,50 in Michigan and 7,25 in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. A 125 billion $ plan for investment under her 'Breaking Every Barrier' program (talk about bad framing and messaging...) that included 50 billion in investments in youth employment, and 50 billion in infrastructure investments. And that's the bits I could find with two google searches. But instead the midwest voted for loss of Obamacare - including medicaid expansions in both Michigan and Pennsylvania - probably medicare as well, if Ryan gets his way, and tax cuts for the rich.

i'm not trying to be like DAMN YR EYES, DOWNTRODDEN AMERICAN, YOU SHOULD HAVE VOTED!

but one of the candidates was a ridiculous and compulsively lying clown with no experience but a gold-plated bathroom and a reality television show who doesn't respect the rule of law and any number of racist and sexist statements to his credit. and yeah, people should fucking vote against that, whether the opposition is 'inspiring' or not

Good policy has to be a cornerstone, and those are good policies! But she wasn't hearing what people wanted, which was .. Well, they wanted "not crooked Hillary" for one, but way more than that, they wanted someone to tell them that things were going to change for them for the better. Those numbers are pretty abstract for a lot of folks but she could have told them in Garrison Keillor terms what that was going to do for them.

Fred otm.

These Trump voters didn't vote that way because they were serious about improving the lot of working people. They did so because they're assholes.

Just curious how much do you guys pay for insurance? Is ilx in agreement that Obamacare doesn't need to be fix? Last year when I filed my taxes I was penalized due to not having coverage on myself, a little more than $600. That doesn't sit well with me.

They're not children or morons. They chose to indulge their darkest instincts, embracing blind anger over pragmatism.

Fuck. Them.

Not working people, but Trump voters. Although there is overlap, they're not the same, and the Trump voters have now hurt working people more than Hilary ever could.

premiums would have come down if congress was able to address the issue in good faith. It's a big in the system they don't want to address because they want the system to fail. That's what the Republican party is about

*bug in the system

It's interesting that the error that caused many poll aggregators to overstate their confidence is the same mathematical error that caused the rating agencies to give AAA ratings to mortgage CDOs that turned out to be junk, which led directly to the 2008 financial crisis:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161111-election-models-polling-data/

Is ilx in agreement that Obamacare doesn't need to be fix?

i would imagine that ilx is in agreement that it should have been one-payer to begin with. but yeah changes would have ultimately been necessary (and worthwhile) before sad paul ryan destroys it

i had obamacare for one month after years of paying out of pocket; the plan was considerably cheaper and better than that which i'd previously been paying for, but i live in a state that offered significant choices.

That's not my issue. I would prefer to pay out of pocket. Hospitals prefer to work with you than wait on insurance companies to pay them. Now I have to have coverage or the government takes my tax return. To cover my family and myself, I pay $1383.57 a month. I use to pay $640 for my wife and child before Obamacare really kick in. I'm willing to admit I'm ill informed about what exactly has happened, but I know it was better before.

I get a tax credit with my plan. It's affordable and good.

I don't want a tax credit and I would prefer to not have insurance for myself. But now I have to or I pay the government a fee every year.

i mean yes, healthcare costs are constantly rising; obamacare has kept it below the otherwise prevailing rate. and anyone who thinks that government 'death panels' are going to screw them more than rapacious health insurers is mistaken.

nor does health care offer an opportunity for the magical fucking hand of the market to work -- patients have neither the knowledge nor the time to shop around

That's part of the way the system was designed. Without the mandate (ie. fines), you can't offer coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, because otherwise people just wait till their very sick to get coverage. xp

What does single payer involve?