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

the argument w/in black studies etc is that the truth is the reverse; race is a deeper, more deeply rooted issue w/in western philosophy that pre dates capitalism as currently constituted. The argument wd be that class is "conflict" & can be addressed through regulation and reform, but race is an antagonism, unresolvable w/in the current paradigm

D-40 do you have any recommendations for people/pieces addressing this? I've been reading a lot of colonial & imperial history recently but have not come across anything quite like this

― ogmor, Tuesday, November 22, 2016 7:17 AM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

charles mills the racial contract is a pretty important work wrt this argument i think

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Racial_Contract

But there was definitely a lot of stuff about Bush denying access to those he didn't like. I remember people raising a big stink about it at the time. I've also read that Nixon did the same. Just trying to keep some historical perspective here to not completely freak out.

yea i dont think trump is actually going to "rewrite libel laws" to destroy 1st amendment but it is pretty clear that he will strive to fully delegitimize any press that is critical of him (and kind of already has at least in the minds of half the country)

I think Trump is a genuine threat to the 1st Amendment, which I don't remember ever thinking about Bush.

― i need microsoft installed on my desktop, can you help (Old Lunch), Tuesday, November 22, 2016 9:37 AM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Ironically he loves taking advantage of it personally

― Evan, Tuesday, November 22, 2016 8:41 AM (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, yes, he is of that contingent that engages in the cognitive dissonance of berating certain "liberal" values that they then whine about not being allowed to enjoy themselves ("Safe spaces are for cucks! But it's unfair that I don't have a safe space to complain about safe spaces!").

Nixon had an enemy's list. He declared open war against the press.

If Donald Trump lives to be 78, I can at least content myself with the knowledge that it wasn't because I didn't pray every day for him to pass away peacefully in his sleep.

I think Trump is a genuine threat to the 1st Amendment, which I don't remember ever thinking about Bush.

well Bush's press secretary said that people should "watch what they say" right after 9/11. It was a bit of a concern for some people.

Josh Marshall:

I talked to a number of people in a position to shed light on the meeting. What I was able to gather was that to a significant extent the Post account is accurate - to the extent of Trump's remarks about the lying press, the deceitful, dishonest press and the like, calling out individuals. But from what I can gather the tone of the encounter was significantly different.

Trump wasn't a on rage bender. He didn't yell. His face wasn't red. It was more razzing and taunting than an angry tirade. This wasn't a different Trump, rising to or chastened by the realities of the presidential office. It was exactly the same Trump we've seen for the last 18 months and perhaps the last 40 years: I won. You lost. Now I call the shots. You're all liars and dishonest and it's terrible. So you need to fall in line.

The key thing that came out to me from multiple conversations is one basic message from Trump. To Trump, the fact that most of the news media missed his surprise win (thinking until early election night that Clinton was a strong favorite to win) means that all their pre-election coverage is therefore discredited. It was bad and it was wrong. To be clear, not the horse race or polling coverage which certainly took a real hit - but all the non-horse race reporting. And because all their coverage is discredited - Katy Tur's, CNN's, everybody's - that the news media owes him an apology moving forward.

Bill Clinton talking about punching a journalist who called Hillary a liar seems to have fallen out of common memory

Trump has no power over libel laws, it's a state law issue.

not even close to the same thing

xpost to keyes

Also worth noting that the NYTimes already doesn't have credibility with the Trump electorate. It was never popular there and the right has been waging a campaign to further discredit it for decades. It is to them what Fox News is to us.

yea i dont think trump is actually going to "rewrite libel laws" to destroy 1st amendment but it is pretty clear that he will strive to fully delegitimize any press that is critical of him (and kind of already has at least in the minds of half the country)

― I've read Ta-nehisi Coates. (marcos), Tuesday, November 22, 2016 9:47 AM

so what he will legitimize them and freeze them out all while giving full access to breitbart and legitimizing their crap. fuck this shit !

Remnick has a different account:

nother participant at the meeting said that Trump’s behavior was “totally inappropriate” and “fucking outrageous.” The television people thought that they were being summoned to ask questions; Trump has not held a press conference since late July. Instead, they were subjected to a stream of insults and complaints—and not everyone absorbed it with pleasure.

“I have to tell you, I am emotionally fucking pissed,” another participant said. “How can this not influence coverage? I am being totally honest with you. Toward the end of the campaign, it got to a point where I thought that the coverage was all about [Trump’s] flaws and problems. And that’s legit. But, I thought, O.K., let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. After the meeting today, though—and I am being human with you here—I think, Fuck him! I know I am being emotional about it. And I know I will get over it in a couple of days after Thanksgiving. But I really am offended. This was unprecedented. Outrageous!”

And I know I will get over it i

please don't

Seriously. Take it as fucking personally as it was intended and rake his ass over the coals.

yea i dont think trump is actually going to "rewrite libel laws" to destroy 1st amendment but it is pretty clear that he will strive to fully delegitimize any press that is critical of him (and kind of already has at least in the minds of half the country)

― I've read Ta-nehisi Coates. (marcos), Tuesday, November 22, 2016 9:47 AM

so what he will legitimize them and freeze them out all while giving full access to breitbart and legitimizing their crap. fuck this shit !

― (•̪●) (carne asada), Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:00 AM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's hard for me to imagine a world where Breitbart becomes a news source for anyone but the loyal unless it drops all of its misogyny, racism, etc., and that seems unlikely to happen. However maybe they find some other outlets that have a slightly more legitimate patina, or their cronies start one.

Like I don't think a lot of people not in Trump's base are going to be scrolling through "Why Women Are Happier in the Kitchen" articles by Milo just so they can get exciting white house coverage.

That's nuts, I can totally see it! One, all Trump has to do is give exclusive interviews/access to Breitbart. And two, clearly no one cares about the misogyny, racism, etc, or Trump wouldn't be president.

Trump has to do is give exclusive interviews/access to Breitbar

that's what i was thinking

Let's not get carried away. Even RT tries to present itself as a legit news source, and sometimes presents accurate coverage of things that don't negatively impact Putin. Right now it's a much more sophisticated operation than Breitbart imo. Breitbart would really have to massively change for that to work. Not saying it can't happen, just not in its current form.

BTW, guess who doesn't have a problem calling the "alt-right" neo-nazis, unlike the craven American press:
https://www.rt.com/viral/367766-cnn-jews-people-reaction/

It's alarming to me how much I've let myself forget about the W presidency, which spakred near-daily frustration and rage and anxiety at various levels for basically the entire eight years. At first, regarding the press, all I could remember was the disgusting embedded-journalist scam for good coverage (basically an extension of the carefully-managed press pools of Gulf War I) and Bush and Cheney being caught on a hot mic calling Adam Clymer a ''major league asshole from the New York Times'' or whatever it was.

Still I think what Trump is doing is much more broadly corrosive to democracy and civic discourse. It's not *new* - as others have pointed out, it just extends the dismissal of fact-based reporting that we've long become accustomed to from the right-wing media sphere - but coming from the soon-to-be President.... like, there are huge swaths of this country that have spent years handwaving away any contrary evidence with ''oh well, the New York TIMES, that's just a liberal tabloid'' and now that's to be even more permanently cemented.... ughghghghghghhghgg. I mean there is so much to be anxious and enraged about with where things are headed, but this is the one tensing my shoulders and stomach today. Fuck, four years of this!

yea it is bad

Correction, EIGHT years. Didn't you see Trumps's tweet?

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has had a strained relationship with the U.S. since taking office in June, mainly because of U.S. criticism of his controversial — and often brutal — war on drugs. But he says he's hoping to get along with President-elect Trump.

Toward that end, he's appointed real estate magnate Jose E.B. Antonio as a special trade envoy to the U.S. — and he just so happens to be the man building Trump Tower Manila.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/11/22/502895797/whos-the-new-philippine-envoy-the-man-building-trump-tower-manila

I think nearly the entire media being owned by 3 conglomerates is a genuine threat to the 1st Amendment

and he just so happens to be the man building Trump Tower Manila.

the stark, horrific reality of a trump presidency is going to far outstrip the creative efforts of all the people who've imagined 'lol president trump' scenarios over the years, isn't it

too bad the Dems ran some awful Senate candidates (eg Evan Bayh) so can't impeach, right?

xxpost These are by no means mutually exclusive threats.

Worst, when we emerge from this daily disaster, the tendrils of Trump will be everywhere, from the top down, from the government to private sector, from media to the courts. He and his family will be richer, more powerful, more pervasive, and installed in the fucking Hall of Presidents at Disneyworld.

the stark, horrific reality of a trump presidency is going to far outstrip the creative efforts of all the people who've imagined 'lol president trump' scenarios over the years, isn't it

― trump le monde (bizarro gazzara), Tuesday, November 22, 2016 9:28 AM (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

On the plus side, the man's ego has ensured that every one of his properties is clearly labeled when shit gets real and people are weighing their property damage options.

The attraction will close on January 17, 2017 for refurbishment and the addition of Donald Trump as a new audio-animatronic figure. It will reopen on June 30, 2017.

Yeah, he'll probably make that. In order for him to leave office early he'd need:

• Something that offends the Democrats enough to start impeachment proceedings.
• Something that offends enough Republicans enough to join impeachment proceedings.
• Something where it would be of more benefit to the Republican party to have President Mike Pence.
• Something that drops his popularity with his base enough that neither side is worried about re-election.

I can't see him not hitting that combo some time in the first four years.

Democrats can't start impeachment proceedings unless they control the House

I think reelection is the only reason most Republicans would think twice about preferring a President Pence.

With great reservation, I'd prefer a President Pence too -- less of a wild card and easier to defeat in 2020.

But I guess this is all going to depend on how Trump plays ball with the GOP.

yea it would have to be something truly toxic for it to be mutually beneficial to have impeachment proceedings xps

Pence is a known quantity within the standard GOP party structure, in that sense he represents a preferable opponent

http://i.imgur.com/C09oz2A.png

breitbart not going easy on thier guy!

no one knows what can happen next year, let alone 2020.

Pence is a known quantity within the standard GOP party structure, in that sense he represents a preferable opponent

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:55 AM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Pence would probably have zero appeal outside the predictable GOP base, which IMO means he probably loses. Trump is a walking question mark. So I don't know who the GOP prefers but I know who I'd rather face. Ever actually listen to Pence speak? He has this timeless creepiness in affect and diction, like it could just as easily be the 1950s.

i think pence is pretty dangerous actually, that VP debate when he lied about basically everything w/ smooth confidence is cheney-esque

Democrats can't start impeachment proceedings unless they control the House

Anyone can start impeachment proceedings - they have to clear the House, but it's a safe bet that they'll get a majority of Democrats, no?

I think reelection is the only reason most Republicans would think twice about preferring a President Pence.

This is probably true - but they don't need most Republicans.

Bah, misread that last one, sorry man alive.

Yeah he is dangerous, but I also don't see him having the appeal of a Trump. Neither are great, just saying I think Pence is easier to beat in an election because his record is clear, it matches the way he looks and speaks, and he's not the kind of galvanizer Trump is. You're not going to see 30K people showing up for Pence rallies.

otm

I guess his biggest threat is big turnout among the evangelical base. He was probably a smart pick for the Trump ticket in that regard. He'd be very strong with the old republican coalition but no crossover appeal imo. My guess is that's not enough to win presidential elections anymore, granted I don't want to sound too sure of anything right now. He's certainly slick and polished and intelligent and has some amount of charisma, I just think there are a lot of Trump voters who wouldn't go for him.

But I guess this is all going to depend on how Trump plays ball with the GOP.

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Tuesday, November 22, 2016 9:54 AM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

He's going to start behaving presidentially any day now, I just know it.

In an election season chock full of things that defy belief, I think the most shocking thing to me is that people still harbor any illusions that Trump is anything other than the narcissistic black hole that he's nakedly presented himself as for years.