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

(sorry for all the dictation typos)

Now I'm conflicted because I do think we need powerful voices of dissent.

When you find one, let the rest of us know.

someone needs to put some ground-up shrooms on Donald Trump's Whopper Jr. right before the inauguration.

would prefer ground up glass, personally

JFC

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/11/team-trumps-new-deal-for-african-americans

I appreciate the quiet NYT joeks:

At times, Mr. Priebus, whose first name rhymes with “pints,”

????

oh, first name

NYT can't beat Charles Pierce's moniker ("Obvious anagram Reince Preibus")

uric penis beer

epic brine user

Can't see a link anywhere to this Ezra Klein piece--excellent.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13578618/why-did-trump-win

"It's easy to come up with stories where Clinton could have gained 2 points, or to theorize that another candidate could have gained 4. But on the merits, this should have been 60-40, or 50-40-10...I can’t confidently explain his win."

he won because of the electoral college. he lost the popular vote. can we stop trying to explain something that didn't happen in terms other than the stupid procedural relic that actually led to this?

Guys.

This is the worst thing I've read this weekend -- and not unexpected.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/ryan-plans-to-phase-out-medicare-in-2017

Can't imagine the AARP and all the other old-people won't melt down at that.

Seriously

Honestly that's given me more hope than most stories I've read in the last 5 days, if there's anything that sends a message to Trump voters of "this is what these fuckers will do to you if you give them enough power" it's that.

He's such a vacant piece of shit

But this won't affect Trump's voter base. It's the rest of us.

Democrats however should act as if we're all in danger.

SS privatization didn't go well for the GOP IIRC

yeah there is no surer way to sink trump's first term + the republican congress than attacking medicare. there are *tons* of things they can get away with because they affect people indirectly instead of directly e.g. gutting dodd frank, anything global warming. starting things out by touching medicare is suicidal and only someone who's a true-believer like ryan would attempt it.

and I mean whatever if they succeed they'll probably just end up killing all of their voters anyway.

But this won't affect Trump's voter base. It's the rest of us.

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

ALfred's right, they are going to phase it out for anybody who wants to GO on Medicare going forward, not for the people who already have it

i.e. my wife, who plans to retire within 4 years.

dubya's social security plan was similarly phase in. didn't matter.

http://66.media.tumblr.com/18fb83a620eecd2e6466d05b5927a3ad/tumblr_oglqt3vo631u5f06vo1_1280.jpg

riotous!

If you want to accept the narrative of working-class whites yada yada yada, I'd say that the only government programs most have actually seen and understood clearly were Medicare and Social Security. Phase-in, immediate stop, whatever, most people instinctively know those things as the checks and care that kept grandma and grandpa alive.

didn't Trump stress that he wouldn't change Medicare? just don't see this happening but hey, anything is possible now

Maybe Ryan thinks if they only have a 2-year window then this is his only chance to get that one thing he's always more than anything in the world

can we stop trying to explain something that didn't happen in terms other than the stupid procedural relic that actually led to this?

I think that's an issue separate from what Klein's trying to figure out, which is why it wasn't "60-40, or 50-40-10."

they are going to phase it out for anybody who wants to GO on Medicare going forward, not for the people who already have it

demographics are really working against this idea.

The only glimmer of hope in this beyond the obvious overreach: it's possible Ryan wasn't even consulting Trump on this matter, so disorganized and lazy is Trump's transition.

It's not below for a President Trump to dismiss in public even someone of his own putative party. I see this a lot in 2017, actually, especially if the polls show that this dissent plays well with his new Wisconsin constituency.

*it's not below the line, that is

good lord that guy even looks like Goebbels!

60 Minutes on now

oh god

would it surprise anyone if ryan is looking at trump like an easily manipulable boy king

The police report about Steve Bannon for domestic violence, if anyone is interested: http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-c3f8-dd14-abfe-fbfbbe310001

Steve Bannon should be rejected for so many reasons, but that a report like this exists for a special adviser to the president elect is not normal.

Donald Trump raped his ex wife.

It makes sense that a vicious thug would surround himself with similar types of people.

extravagantly wealthy men who have never heard the word no

Well, yeah, and it's not normal to have a vicious thug in the white house, obviously. But you'd think the media would think the pick of Bannon would be a scandal because of that report. But no.

'New Trump appointee has a history of domestic violence

...yadayadayada....

The president elect himself was accused by his first ex-wife of spousal rape in 1991, and during the election a taped recording showed him bragging about getting away with sexual assault. Later ten women came forth with accusations of sexual assault.

Steve Bannon is expected to start at...'

Like, that's the story. That's why if you've got a history of attacks against women, you don't hire people with a history of attacks against women as your special adviser.

Argh, I'm going insane, why am I writing this to you? As if anyone here disagrees. As if anyone in the media disagrees. And yet they won't write about it.

Don't worry, the fun cover story on Bannon in next week's People will help us all see what a good choice he is. Look, he's relaxing in a pool, just like regular folks!

P.S. I am melting down and worrying about my long-term physical health and starting to sincerely wonder whether I'm going to survive four years of this.

it's not normal to have a vicious thug in the white house

Are we sure about this, really? I feel like we're deciding to treat mid-20th Century values (like, say, FDR through LBJ) as the norm. Trump is probably not all that different from politicians of the 19th and early 20th Centuries.

the office had less power during those periods

Andrews Jackson and Johnson, Harding, and Nixon are three of the most perfidious Oval Office inhabitants, but at least Harding had a sentimental streak.

No, in the long perspective, a lot of them probably were spousal rapists, and Andrew Jackson straight up killed a guy for insulting him.

i see that 60 minutes has decided to get into the PR business

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT0Rjc6jKCg