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

https://www.reddit.com/r/jillstein/comments/4evd5f/jill_stein_is_sexy/

"Jill Stein is sexy" - 7 results (0.32 seconds)

"Hillary Clinton is sexy" - About 17,000 results (0.24 seconds)

"Donald Trump is sexy" - About 20,800 results (0.25 seconds)

No results found for "Gary Johnson is sexy".

"Mike Pence is sexy" - 1 result (0.26 seconds)

In the sore winners category, my wife's cousin in California just posted this:

So, this just happened...

I was walking through a parking lot to meet up with my husband and son. I was walking about 2 feet from an older gentlemen, because of our close proximity, I turned my head and smiled at him. He looked at me and angrily said "I would much rather be wearing my shirt then yours." Confused, I looked down at what I was wearing... oh yeah, my cozy old fleece with an Obama/Biden logo. Then I looked at what he was wearing. Duck Dynasty.
I ignored his comment, kept my head down and continued walking, quickening my pace. He called after me "you better watch out, someone will try and run over you with that on."

Why do old men suddenly think it's okay to speak so aggressively to women half their age?
#TrumpsAmerica #Ithoughtitwassafeincalifornia

Donald Trump is far and away the least sexy candidate. Those google results reflect a sick, misguided nation and/or fox news.

*fake news

Fucking duck dynasty

1) I really wish the paper would stop every single one of this asshole's tweets. Haven't they learned their lesson? (Answer: no)

2) Wow, the WaPo and NYTimes really stepping up investigations into Trump's conflicts. Where was this reporting months ago? And hey, did this guy really get away with not releasing his tax returns? How did that happen?

3) Even if Trump/Pence is above conflict of interest, legally, what about Trump's kids? Putting aside Trump legal intervention/reprieve, could they be liable for sketchy stuff (not far) down the line, when conflicts start appearing? They are still subject to US law, right? They can be fined/sued, etc.? If a government body fails to take action against actionable crimes, can that organization be sued? How about if they show that Trump intervened on their behalf and prevented a government body from acting? Because I don't see how any/all of this will not happen. It seemed inevitable, even assuming the best of intentions on the part of Trump et al. And he does not have the best of intentions.

Wow, the WaPo and NYTimes really stepping up investigations into Trump's conflicts. Where was this reporting months ago?

This was happening late summer and early fall; it doesn't matter.

The federal government could be sued, the Trumps themselves could be prosecuted by state AGs, the states could go after the federal government, the Trumps could be sued, etc. etc. There is recourse as long as we remain a nation that abides the rule of law. And hey, David Boies fired his client in the Theranos case so his firm is probably looking for stuff to do!

xpost I never saw anything as extensive and specific as the multiple-bylined Times piece that ran yesterday.

i'm not sure there were that many times and wapo subscribers who voted for trump. every day during the election, the times would show up in my driveway filled with articles on how unethical, untrustworthy trump is. the mind reels imaging a voter carefully reading all of that and then casting a vote for him.

on the other hand, re. sexiness discussion from above

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/11/27/opinion/sunday/27sestanovich/27sestanovich-master768.jpg

If there is anything this election has demonstrated to me, it's that plenty of people read accounts of his conflicts and corruption and crimes and still voted for him anyway, saying what the hell, better than the alternative!

yeah, i was really stunned by the extent of the hillaryphobia in the nation. like, she's got her flaws, but trump is nothing but flaws. he is a blight on the face of humanity. the world is a much worse place because he is in it, regardless of whether or not he is president. now that he is, well,

Trump is shaping up to be the least powerful President since before FDR remade the executive branch, which isn't exactly great if it means the country is pretty much governed by the Ryan agenda. Then again Ryan is probably loathed by a third of his caucus.

they'll stop loathing him once he can just ship radical GOP legislation straight to a friendly White House and buy everybody a round.

The extent of Hillary disdain isn't really surprising - the right and center-right were still mad at "Hill and Billary" from 1992 and have never let it go, the left of the Democrats still doesn't like or trust the Clintons politically (cf. what happened with Bill's VP).

hm, seems like maybe it was a bad idea for the DNC to decide like 5 years ago that she would be the nominee come hell or high water

thanks for your insight at this important moment

ha sorry i'll take your lead and post paranoid articles about how we're slipping into autocracy

https://twitter.com/amjoyshow/status/802910629816172544

i do secretly enjoy following sarah kendzior's apocalyptics tbh

i feel like she presents a valuable perspective. i don't things will go down like she says but i think it's possible. trump is being entirely unclear about his intentions.

the left of the Democrats still doesn't like or trust the Clintons politically (cf. what happened with Bill's VP).

Ironically, both Al Gore and HRC won the popular vote quite handily.

I hope the USA turns into a country of 500 independent city-states sometime soon

I've been off twitter since the election I'm just using ilx for my stupid quips

yo who gets the nukes in that scenario

every state gets 1 nuke lol

I assume an executive council of mayors gets to do the nukes

It kinda sorta feels like Trump, to the extent that his feeble synapses have any ability to generate an actual strategy, may still be perpetuating a Producers gambit. He wanted to win but never actually wanted the job. He can't quit without looking like a loser, so he figures that by doing everything in his power to visibly demonstrate how unfit he is for the job (hiring unqualified maniacs to cabinet positions, indicating a total lack of interest in security briefings, pooh-poohing qualms about his audacious conflicts of interest, etc.) before he's even sworn in, he can get somebody to chuck him out before he ever has to do anything. And then he would be able to more legitimately nurse the perpetual state of aggrievement that clearly gives his life meaning. But like The Producers, the thing he didn't want to happen is exactly what happened and will continue to happen, but in this case Bialystock is going to make us all suffer for being stupid enough to fall for his con and forcing him to live in some dumb house in DC.

Like, I wholeheartedly acknowledge how profoundly stupid and incurious Trump is, but it honestly seems like he's going out of his way to demonstrate how shitty a president he's going to be. The problem being that the people were already convinced don't need convincing and the people who backed him will double down on their support regardless of how many foreign dignitaries he waggles his shriveled penis at.

Don't you mean "waggles his small hands at"?

Ironically, both Al Gore and HRC won the popular vote quite handily.

this article makes a pretty convincing (and beautifully written case) against using 'realist' political calculations vis-a-vis Trump (which informs the discussion about whether to stress 'identity' politics or not) http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/27/trump-realism-vs-moral-politics-choice-we-face/

handily is... rather strong. .5% and less than 2% would either be the third and fourth-smallest or third and fifth (if Hillary surpasses Carter in the end) since 1900.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z)

Hm. I thought as of last week Clinton was at Tilden levels.

is this nuts or otm?

https://twitter.com/summerbrennan/status/802302536761810944

While she's tweeting about cyberwar, the prez-elect is tweeting:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

Just about to post re: that. If the president elect, the guy who won, is alleging millions of fraudulent votes ...

care to share with the rest of the class mr trump

So he cried fraud before the election, he cried fraud after the election, but he's dismissing recounts as a waste of time?

Politico says in part:

To bolster his claims, Trump has cited a 2014 blog post in The Washington Post by the authors of a disputed study that estimated that "6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010." That study has faced intense scrutiny from election experts, with one analyst telling factcheck.org earlier this year, “Their finding is entirely due to measurement error."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-illegal-voting-clinton-231860

He's the president, he should appoint people to look into this.

we haven't even started yet

He should also look into how many of his voters host illegal off-highway tiger zoos.

i have been to to the tiger truck stop in louisiana and can confirm that there is one sad tiger in a concerte box there. also the jambalaya sucked

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/962/640/658.png

i don't think congress has the constitutional authority to pass a nationwide voter ID law, thank god

i don't think congress has the constitutional authority to pass a nationwide voter ID law, thank god

OTOH, proposals for national ID cards have been kicking around for awhile - especially in the 9/11 fallout. I certainly expect to see them again.

If there was a national ID (realizing the issues with hassle, threat of authoritarian rule, etc) that was enacted and in force years before an election, could it prevent some of the voter supression that has been a regular issue for a couple of decades?

In other words, we've had the issue of Republican secretaries of state disenfranchising hundreds of thousands in the weeks immediately preceding every election. An ID mandate, if issued a year or two before the next election, would be an equal hassle to all, but would prevent thousands from being turned away as they reached the ballot box.

Frankly, I don't have strongly informed opinions on the issue. I just want a way to prevent the sorts of voter list manipulation that has become the norm, especially in swing states, to stop. I understand voter/citizen ID is intended to disenfranchise, but perhaps if effectively countered at the local level it could backfire. We have the GOTV volunteers, they don't.

Imagine the uproar if senior citizens who got their news from racist nephews on Facebook were turned away, while people of all ethnicities who duly wasted an hour or two to get their national ID walked past to cast their vote. This is the sort of poetic justice I seek.

There would be no more than one office in every MSA unless you pay a fee to skip the line or something equally disenfranchising, but rural gas stations would be able to process the paperwork.

Again, we have the GOTV volunteers. They're shitheads relying upon Facebook for their worldview.