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

in the end clinton's image was successfully tarnished by those right-wing talking points, so it seems like 'not-not a thing' that the left spent the primary tearing her image down

is that same peter daou!!!!? i interviewed him (and vanessa) in the 80s re some dance records they made for nu-groove

i guess that was a very long time ago

who even thought Clinton was a true progressive? I mean, there were plenty of people on the left bringing out right-wing talking points to discredit her, some of them scarily false -- scary, in that I had hoped people on the left would "know better." But she was/is a moderate, and the argument in her favor was pragmatic.

K3vin get's it. The answer to the election of Donald Trump is obviously to care less about misogyny.

i see you've been running my posts through google translate again

k3v, do you watch the History Channel show, Vikings?

a lot of mistakes were made in the democratic primary, the first one being forgetting that the purpose of running a primary is to gauge what your electorate wants, not to confirm that they want what you want them to want

I'm not going to sit here and say that progressive concerns about Clinton's closeness to big finance (for example) weren't sincere or warranted, or can just be dismissed as internalized right-wing talking points; but in the cold light of day, SECRET SPEECHES TO GOLDMAN SACHS looks like pretty weak tea next to "Trump may name Jamie Dimon as Sec. of the Treasury."

i do not xxp

My anecdotal evidence is that the democrats who didn't vote for Bernie in the primary did so in large part because "he can't win the general election". Any stats back this up?

idk I voted for Bernie in the primary, even though I didn't think he could win the general election, but I thought that showing that a lot of people were concerned about the issues he was talking about could influence the party platform in the general election.

looks like pretty weak tea next to "Trump may name Jamie Dimon as Sec. of the Treasury."

admittedly, that is just as scary as "Obama may name Jamie Dimon as Sec. of the Treasury" was 8 years ago.

k3v: Whatever. If you really think dem women will respond to the election of Donald Trump, a man who bragged about sexual assault, by being less likely to see sexism or misogyny amongst candidates, enjoy losing the next primary as well.

Sanders lost because he lost the black vote, mainly. And he never really cared about outreach and dismissed the south as unimportant, so there was no surprise there.

xp same here as what sarahell just said

k3v: Whatever. If you really think dem women will respond to the election of Donald Trump, a man who bragged about sexual assault, by being less likely to see sexism or misogyny amongst candidates, enjoy losing the next primary as well.

i honestly don't know what this is even in response to

bunch of xposts -- trump likely has a better shot at passing a big infrastructure bill than hrc would have. Dems like Sanders/Warren could present him with a plan and say "All Dems will vote for this, now we just to peel off a bunch of Repubs." Trump could then tell Ryan, "look, if you don't go along w/ me on infrastructure, the Dems will be getting credit for it." And then maybe the Repubs do end up backing it. i don't know if Trump has it in him to do this though.

hearts and minds!

i voted for Sanders in the primaries because i thought he had the best chance of winning the election, same as with Obama in 2008

My anecdotal evidence is that the democrats who didn't vote for Bernie in the primary did so in large part because "he can't win the general election". Any stats back this up?

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger),

I'm not sure I can have this argument again.

xxpost The election was cult of personality vs. cult of no personality. As warm and funny as many close to Clinton claim she is, none of that has ever come across in her public persona.

And not to say that Trump isn't a scumbag (or douchebag or any other type of disreputable bag), but "bragging about sexual assault" struck me as left-wing overreach (no pun intended), the kind of thing that fires up the right. He was talking about the perks of celebrity, that women give men — even ratty 70-year-olds — sexual consent they wouldn't give ordinary people. I mean, Ron Wood just fathered twins for fuck's sake!

GOP hates infrastructure projects, that isn't going to happen

― Οὖτις, Monday, November 14, 2016 2:40 PM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This means they're definitely going to happen right

I'm not going to sit here and say that progressive concerns about Clinton's closeness to big finance (for example) weren't sincere or warranted, or can just be dismissed as internalized right-wing talking points; but in the cold light of day, SECRET SPEECHES TO GOLDMAN SACHS looks like pretty weak tea next to "Trump may name Jamie Dimon as Sec. of the Treasury."

― and this section is called boner (Phil D.), Monday, November 14, 2016 2:50 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Seriously? The current treasury secretary is the former COO of Citigroup

sorry, of a Citigroup subsidiary

one small silver lining of this election is that I finally feel freed to completely ignore all Frederik B posts about US Politics

lolling @ a car that looks like Trump

Assuming the yellowish color is tacky gold leaf it's probably this:

http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/homer_front1.jpg

Frederik's posts will from now on pass across my eyes like the reflections of clouds drifting across window panes

I hate to use the word "optics" but there's a continuum from "any former C-level banking exec" to "guy whose name is nearly synonymous with the Great Recession and billionaire whining."

the "infrastructure projects" about which the MSN is going on about are tax credits to private business, i.e. a bunch of bullshit

well Paulson was CEO of Goldman Sachs. Pre crisis, but there's definitely a precedent for big wall street guys as treasury.

is that same peter daou!!!!? i interviewed him (and vanessa) in the 80s re some dance records they made for nu-groove

i guess that was a very long time ago

― mark s, Monday, November 14, 2016 1:47 PM (eighteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes that's him! i've tried his music and it is lolzy at best.

aaand he was also in (i think) a falangist militia in lebanon as a young man. life takes many turns dunnit.

Yeah, right, man alive. I should be so lucky. You will complain and nag as much as you've always done.

dinnerboat: He said he didn't even wait. There was no consent involved, no time for it, and the many women who came forth and said he'd assaulted them proved that point very well.

Daou went pretty quickly from boasting about fighting terrorists as a falangist to claiming that he was conscripted for military service and didn't harm a fly. The latter seems more probable.

Xp

(xps to Alfred)

so it's usaid for the homeland, iow

Is it tax credits now? I thought the plan was reducing credits and subsidies and lowering the overall business tax rate, as well as major legislation related to offshoring assets.

Frederik B: But the question of consent is complicated by his wealth and fame and power. Would these assault allegations have stood up in court? Again, not defending him, I just think it wasn't nearly as cut & dried as the "unrepentant rapist" narrative implied, which I think further alienated many voters.

he used to go into dressing rooms to peek at naked 15 year old girls wtf is wrong with you

I've been thinking about how Democrats used to own the trade issue. Most free trade deals were opposed by the majority of rank and file Democrats in roll calls, and they were passed only by wide Republican support with a few cross-overs. Every one of them created winners and losers, and the winners were in the financial industry that mediated the flow of American capital to overseas factories, creating greater inequality. Here, Trump adopted what was once a Democratic issue, one we abandoned.

As technocrats, the Clintons and other DLC Democrats could point to the consensus among economists, but 1) much neoliberal economics has the character of religious dogma, where many arguments arrayed in its favor full of unfounded assumptions and logical gaps, and 2) there has always been an undercurrent of heterodox economists willing to poke holes, like Steve Keen and Ian Fletcher.

If Democrats choose to focus on bread and butter issues over the odd policy side dishes of safety nets + identity politics, I hope we start taking what the heterodox economists have been saying seriously. The arguments for neoliberal economics rarely address economic inequality, and I think we've made mistakes assuming that maximizing average standard of living and attempting to address the resultant increasing inequality with policy band-aids offers the same qualitative good as trade policies that ensure American high-employment businesses are competitive. Other countries we compete with aren't nearly so beholden to neoliberal economic dogmas and do intervene in these ways.

And not to say that Trump isn't a scumbag (or douchebag or any other type of disreputable bag), but "bragging about sexual assault" struck me as left-wing overreach (no pun intended), the kind of thing that fires up the right. He was talking about the perks of celebrity, that women give men — even ratty 70-year-olds — sexual consent they wouldn't give ordinary people. I mean, Ron Wood just fathered twins for fuck's sake!

yeah I've heard a lot of people defending this as "no this is what it's like for celebrities" but there have been stories for years and years about Trump assaulting women. tons of them came out during the campaign. it's not hard to believe Trump having some serious PUA-style beliefs - "every woman wants to sleep with you, even if they say they don't"

I thought the plan was reducing credits and subsidies

The plan is whatever somebody last pitched to Trump. Eventually the Congress will come up with something they can pass. Trump's role will be to make contradictory announcements, create a huge hubbub, then take full credit for everything that people like about the new tax plan, plus take extra credit for things that didn't happen, but sound really good.

not only that but Trump always seemed like the type who would gauge his entire self-worth by the number of attractive women he's slept with, and he definitely assumed that others would see him the same way. hence the whole "John Barron" thing.

"jpod blames obama for the failures of the dem party -- lots to take exception with in that article but i do wonder what ppl think - does obama bear responsibility for the epic collapse of democratic political power in the US?

― Mordy"

one last time to say "THANKS OBAMA"

"I had a dream about a news story featuring the pictures of Trump's cabinet appointments, which included both Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope and which seems both horrifically on-the-nose but also way off the mark inasmuch as they, unlike most of Trump's cronies, have in the past demonstrated some intellectual curiosity re: magnets and what have you.

― i need microsoft installed on my desktop, can you help (Old Lunch)"

let's be fair compared to trump violent j and shaggy 2 dope are voices of dignity and reason

facebook friend posted this umberto eco article from '95. good read.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

idk I voted for Bernie in the primary, even though I didn't think he could win the general election, but I thought that showing that a lot of people were concerned about the issues he was talking about could influence the party platform in the general election.

― sarahell, Monday, 14 November 2016 19:52 (twenty-eight minutes ago) Permalink

yep

oddly, I was kind of worried about him getting an actual infrastructure plan through, might really boost the economy and gain him support for all kinds of other horrible shit

btw, as trump accomplishes little, but makes a lot of noise doing it, the Plain People of America who voted for him will see all the noise and confusion as evidence that trump is hard at work on their behalf to disrupt Business As Usual and to #MAGA.

Have the odds of Obama pardoning Snowden increased, as a 'signal' to potential whistleblowers in the upcoming era? Seems utterly fantastical given O's historic number of 'blower prosecutions, but I saw someone musing on it...

I was wondering about that too

it would be a good move if he pardoned Snowden and officially went against the DAPL.

hey so somebody in another thread told me to shut the fuck up so i wrote an etiquette guide on the topic. i want to paraphrase part ii, "when to tell somebody to shut the fuck up"

there are two circumstances under which it's advisable to tell somebody to shut the fuck up. they are:

1. you are drunk
2. the person you are talking to has grossly insulted you, your loved ones, or your most precious values, and you really never want to talk to them or have to look at their stupid face again

if someone is being an obnoxious prick and really pissing you off, on the other hand, probably better to ignore them and/or walk away.

i wrote this for my own benefit so if you disagree, feel free to tell me to shut the fuck up, and by the guidelines of part i, i will.

I'd post odds of Snowden pardon at 10 to 1 against. Obama would worry about impairing the effectiveness of the new administration, not seeing trump as irreparably dangerous and illegitimate, and therefore would not see it as his duty to pre-emptively undermine trump's inevitable abuses.

not seeing trump as irreparably dangerous and illegitimate

idk about that tbh