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

Fave twitter response is "omg Bookchin expressed my problems with Bernie when I was still a child," since the actual article is basically 'he's not a REAL socialist" and too business friendly.

on this race vs class thing I think the real question is 'is it still better to put such a public emphasis on race/gender/etc. issues even if it proves to be a strategy that loses elections outside of ca/ny?'

and 'we could find a way to make poor rural white people care' is just skirting the question. it's ~conceivable~ that poor white people just don't care about policy that doesn't benefit them. and they're the voting bloc that gets to pick our government.

otm

that said I think there's a decent chance that trump's white nationalist populist government is such an obvious failure that in 2 years technocrat democrats who talk about diversity a lot might seem more attractive to voters than any candidate who runs a trump-esque populist campaign. maybe. xp

I don't see a need for a dichotomy there - the Democrats don't have to run a Trump-y populist (Bernie or otherwise) to speak to the disenfranchised or demotivated. The Chapo Trap House people had a good point about Clinton's "America Already Is Great" line - coming from an identity angle or a class angle, who actually believes that other than the minority of people who've benefitted economically from Clinton onward AND aren't prey to any of the standard bigotries of American life?

^

does ignoring racial stuff in the heartland not immediately make the heartland vulnerable to someone like Trump?

im not saying because i know, I'm just saying I think it's more complicated than simply choosing to ignore or embrace progressive language around race & gender, there's an obviously bad way (cf "america is already great") but I think it's a lot more complicated & simply *abandoning* discussions of these issues, ie police shootings, is not a tenable position period.

(& the GOP will continually try to bait these issues if the democrats try to skirt them, anyway)

how easy is it to deemphasize discussion of racial issues when innocent people are shot in ferguson, MO? It's not convenient for electoral politics but it's not like the choice is between "have no position" and "lecture small town americans about trigger warnings." you have to come up with something that addresses the issue

I have never seen that suggested

Seen what suggested? I'm trying to reframe the debate from iatee's binary because I don't think what he's suggesting is a very viable position

The abandonment of discussing police shootings etc

on this race vs class thing I think the real question is 'is it still better to put such a public emphasis on race/gender/etc. issues even if it proves to be a strategy that loses elections outside of ca/ny?'

― iatee, Wednesday, November 23, 2016 6:30 PM (fifty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I feel like 'deemphasize discussion of racial issues" isn't a thing on the plate for anyone but a few people pining for blue dog Democrats - you can ramp up an economic message without backing off for a second from the need to talk about race and gender and gay rights and etc..

Exactly

I grew up in Toronto, live in New York. I went the Toronto Stars homepage today and the headline was 'Peel police board chair accused of ‘uncomfortable’ hug'' There's currently Canadian politicians aping Trumps rhetoric. I don't think journalism like that helps. I also think the discussion about courts and sexual assault trials that arose around Jian Ghomeshi was extremely important

you can ramp up an economic message without backing off for a second from the need to talk about race and gender and gay rights and etc..

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, November 23, 2016 7:28 PM (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes i mean i basically agree 100% this is what needs to be done, maybe a little more emphasis on creating smart ways to talk about race & gender & gay rights instead of whether or not we should

Someone in Ohio did that recently -- she was as member of the Cuyahoga County Republican Committee and ran for the Ohio House as a Republican. She lost to the incumbent Democrat, then resigned and revealed that she herself is actually a Democrat. Not that incumbents generally have any trouble getting re-elected, but see if you can locate a reason why Republicans may not have been running to vote for her in droves:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/11/cuyahoga_county_gop_central_co.html

― and this section is called boner (Phil D.), Wednesday, November 23, 2016 12:54 PM (seven hours ago)

this story is freaking crazy btw!

im not saying because i know, I'm just saying I think it's more complicated than simply choosing to ignore or embrace progressive language around race & gender, there's an obviously bad way (cf "america is already great") but I think it's a lot more complicated & simply *abandoning* discussions of these issues, ie police shootings, is not a tenable position period.

I'm not suggesting abandoning anything. I am saying we may live in a world where there are trade-offs and certain issues that we choose to focus on could ultimately cost us votes/elections. that doesn't necessarily mean it's the wrong thing to do. maybe there aren't trade-offs and we can have it all with some perfect messaging. I don't think that's obviously true.

I think Obama's election was a perfect example of how that could work. I mean, the argument in '08 was that only Hillary could get that disenfranchised rust belt vote that was Obama's "weak spot." If he'd lost, we'd be telling ourselves a different story about it right now

I dunno if any of Obama's campaigns had clear messages, like if someone had to describe 'what he ran on' in retrospect it's kinda fuzzy / not much different from Clinton's campaign messages. but he was a magnetic figure in a lot of ways she wasn't.

so maybe we should stop caring about the message and just find more charismatic leaders. like I said upthread...Bruce Springsteen.

Care about the message inasumuch as id like the candidate to broadly stand for what is important to me but yes I agree that focusing on the performance of campaigning is essential

(I meant people said no one would elect a black president bc of the same dynamic you're concerned with now, but as was proven by both Obama and trump campaigns it's very easy to over determine what ppl will or won't vote for )

Psyched on this skynews doc "TRUMP: Making America Great Again?" In depth doc on the last two weeks. Illuminating interviews w Trump voters.

On police shootings, I'm not sure it's a coincidence that so many of the worst police shootings has happened in the Midwest, that's where the focus and the battles have been most intense, and that's also where Trump did surprisingly well. There's a very real chance that BLM is costing the democrats important votes. But what to do about it, less focus on BLM, and the party base won't turn out to vote. It's a conundrum. However, everyone should remember the changing demographics, the US is becoming more and more diverse each day, so hopefully it will be less and less of a dilemma. Already Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 2,5 million votes, and everyone seems to agree she was the worst candidate ever who ran the worst campaign with the worst messaging and she did absolutely nothing right. So hey, there's hope for 2020!

Good points (ymmv):

-electing him was achievement enough, like Michael Moore said, it was the biggest Fuck You in recorded history.
-mother: "I wouldn't want him to be my kids' Sunday School teacher...but I trust him to be President.
-treating millions of people as a monolith, whether it's trump voters or women or minorities, is wrong and misguided
-people focus on the white working class rust belt voters bc they're the ones that decided the election
-father of cop (voted Obama 08) crying talking about BLM "putting targets on officers' heads", and Obama and HRC "being OK with that"

Good insight, I should say. Bits I don't agree with in there obv...

https://newrepublic.com/article/138955/happens-trumps-populism-collides-ryans-austerity

What Happens When Trump’s Populism Collides with Ryan’s Austerity?
A battle over infrastructure could be the start of a big, bloody, intraparty war.

is there going to be "a big, bloody, intraparty war" y/n

Republicans never give a damn about deficits under Republican Presidents and what passes for infrastructure will be for-profit deals that benefit Republican suburbanites and rich donors, so no.

this is impressively shameless

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307462-trump-adviser-tells-house-republicans-youre-no-longer-reagans-party#.WDZK2iSZXRh.twitter

Moore has spent much of his career advocating for huge tax and spending cuts and free trade. He’s been as close to a purist ideological conservative as they come, but he says the experience of traveling around Rust Belt states to support Trump has altered his politics.

After such a transformative experience — and after witnessing Trump’s stunning victory — Moore now believes Republican House members should be less ideologically pure and instead help Trump give the voters what he promised them.

“He wants to spend all this money on infrastructure,” Moore said, referring to Trump’s potentially trillion-dollar infrastructure package.

It’s a massive spending bill that naturally appeals far more to Democrats than Republicans. Moore, who has worked for the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, is not a fan of the stimulus package, but he is prepared to support it.

“I don’t want to spend all that money on infrastructure,” Moore said. “I think it’s mostly a waste of money. But if the voters want it, they should get it.”

I dunno. The entire GOP at this point is a game where wingnut grifters try to outdo each other in performative displays of outrage; never forget that.

I was genuinely surprised when there was right wing backlash against the comments that he wouldn't pursue criminal charges against Hillary, because I had got my "dumbasses who don't really care about anything" Trump voters mixed up with the actual political right.

this seems impressively shameless

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307462-trump-adviser-tells-house-republicans-youre-no-longer-reagans-party#.WDZK2iSZXRh.twitter

Moore has spent much of his career advocating for huge tax and spending cuts and free trade. He’s been as close to a purist ideological conservative as they come, but he says the experience of traveling around Rust Belt states to support Trump has altered his politics.

After such a transformative experience — and after witnessing Trump’s stunning victory — Moore now believes Republican House members should be less ideologically pure and instead help Trump give the voters what he promised them.

“He wants to spend all this money on infrastructure,” Moore said, referring to Trump’s potentially trillion-dollar infrastructure package.

It’s a massive spending bill that naturally appeals far more to Democrats than Republicans. Moore, who has worked for the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, is not a fan of the stimulus package, but he is prepared to support it.

“I don’t want to spend all that money on infrastructure,” Moore said. “I think it’s mostly a waste of money. But if the voters want it, they should get it.”

The only way a trillion dollars of federal infrastructure spending would be a waste of money is if it were all siphoned off by graft and profiteering…oh wait

is there going to be "a big, bloody, intraparty war" y/n

imo this will depend on whether anyone gets in the driver's seat of trump's enormous, but delicate, ego. if no one person figures out how to consistently steer trump's ego, like a mahout steers his elephant or Rasputin steered the Czarina, then trump's erratic moods are going to cause a massive amount of turbulence and turmoil in Washington. Whether this sparks a big, bloody intraparty war will depend on how much the party leaders fear Trump.

this article assumes that the Trump team and Republicans are at odds in any meaningful way. Trump will propose a giant infrastructure bill that will be a bunch of kickbacks to developers and construction companies and massive privatization of public land, and the Republican Congress will happily make it a reality. They do not care about the cost as long as it enriches their patrons. The only question is how willing Democrats will be to play ball too.

If the bill looks like that i doubt the progressive dems who are talking about maybe cooperating will go for it. I think they're calling his bluff.

this rules http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/opinion/no-trump-we-cant-just-get-along.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

it rules so much

I think that's my favorite column of the year

by anyone

This kinda throws it into sharp relief:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-identity-politics-trump-election-20161123-story.html

"You can blame us self-absorbed Berkeley liberals for the election results — but not our identity politics"

charles blow otm xp.

even if trump decides to govern as a moderate -- he won't -- that wouldn't excuse what he has already done by running a campaign based on hatred, exclusion, paranoia and lies

Can someone C&P the best bits from that Times column? Have reached the end of my NYT allowance for the month....

Stein is closing in on the full $2.5mn goal for three recounts. This should be an epic shitshow.

Here's the Blow column in full:

Donald Trump schlepped across town on Tuesday to meet with the publisher of The New York Times and some editors, columnists and reporters at the paper.

As The Times reported, Trump actually seemed to soften some of his positions:

He seemed to indicate that he wouldn’t seek to prosecute Hillary Clinton. But he should never have said that he was going to do that in the first place.

He seemed to indicate that he wouldn’t encourage the military to use torture. But he should never have said that he would do that in the first place.

He said that he would have an “open mind” on climate change. But that should always have been his position.

You don’t get a pat on the back for ratcheting down from rabid after exploiting that very radicalism to your advantage. Unrepentant opportunism belies a staggering lack of character and caring that can’t simply be vanquished from memory. You did real harm to this country and many of its citizens, and I will never — never — forget that.

As I read the transcript and then listened to the audio, the slime factor was overwhelming.

After a campaign of bashing The Times relentlessly, in the face of the actual journalists, he tempered his whining with flattery.

At one point he said:

“I just appreciate the meeting and I have great respect for The New York Times. Tremendous respect. It’s very special. Always has been very special.”

He ended the meeting by saying:

“I will say, The Times is, it’s a great, great American jewel. A world jewel. And I hope we can all get along well.”

I will say proudly and happily that I was not present at this meeting. The very idea of sitting across the table from a demagogue who preyed on racial, ethnic and religious hostilities and treating him with decorum and social grace fills me with disgust, to the point of overflowing. Let me tell you here where I stand on your “I hope we can all get along” plea: Never.

You are an aberration and abomination who is willing to do and say anything — no matter whom it aligns you with and whom it hurts — to satisfy your ambitions.

I don’t believe you care much at all about this country or your party or the American people. I believe that the only thing you care about is self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment. Your strongest allegiance is to your own cupidity.

I also believe that much of your campaign was an act of psychological projection, as we are now learning that many of the things you slammed Clinton for are things of which you may actually be guilty.

You slammed Clinton for destroying emails, then Newsweek reported last month that your companies “destroyed emails in defiance of court orders.” You slammed Clinton and the Clinton Foundation for paid speeches and conflicts of interest, then it turned out that, as BuzzFeed reported, the Trump Foundation received a $150,000 donation in exchange for your giving a 2015 speech made by video to a conference in Ukraine. You slammed Clinton about conflicts of interest while she was secretary of state, and now your possible conflicts of interest are popping up like mushrooms in a marsh.

You are a fraud and a charlatan. Yes, you will be president, but you will not get any breaks just because one branch of your forked tongue is silver.

I am not easily duped by dopes.

I have not only an ethical and professional duty to call out how obscene your very existence is at the top of American government; I have a moral obligation to do so.

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, but rather to speak up for truth and honor and inclusion. This isn’t just about you, but also about the moral compass of those who see you for who and what you are, and know the darkness you herald is only held at bay by the lights of truth.

It’s not that I don’t believe that people can change and grow. They can. But real growth comes from the accepting of responsibility and repenting of culpability. Expedient reversal isn’t growth; it’s gross.

So let me say this on Thanksgiving: I’m thankful to have this platform because as long as there are ink and pixels, you will be the focus of my withering gaze.

I’m thankful that I have the endurance and can assume a posture that will never allow what you represent to ever be seen as everyday and ordinary.

No, Mr. Trump, we will not all just get along. For as long as a threat to the state is the head of state, all citizens of good faith and national fidelity — and certainly this columnist — have an absolute obligation to meet you and your agenda with resistance at every turn.

I know this in my bones, and for that I am thankful.

who is donating thousands of dollars to jill stein's recount campaign in the middle of the night?

putin

VLADIMIR putin 🎶

I'm sure Breitbart will say it was a direct deposit from the Clinton Foundation or something