Making America GREAT again!

Can't wait to see how the Orange-utan goes about it, can you? D'you think he's as adroit at grabbing bulls by the balls as pussies? A cheat and a thief who knows all there is to know about labour exploitation, bankruptcy, and tax avoidance for millionaires--how long might it take him to redress the economic troubles of the barbarians who chose him "to shake things up"? Weeks, probably. By a conservative estimate. The New Gilded Era may start before he's sworn in!

Social inequality? The man who builds golden towers for mafia-lite is there to bridge that chasm, OBVIOUSLY.

Racist and sexist piggery as the hallmarks of a culture--why, that at least is nothing new, although we've almost forgotten what it's like to have someone endorsed by the KKK get into the White House.

Truly it's a Golden Dawn.

Is that basement apartment in your building still available...

>2 theoria:

Mi casa es su casa!

Start the brain drain, it couldn't be more clear the US has no use for them.

"Can't wait to see how the Orange-utan goes about it, can you?"

Since you asked....

Yes, but there's a nation to be governed and what I can't wait for is to see the back-side of the Obama/Clinton gang, as they leave officice for their private posts in the lucrative world of influence-peddling, dialing-for-millions. Now Clinton may address Wall Street High Finance--and suck their dicks--openly--no need to hide her speech texts. No need to use illegal off-campus computer servers to keep her public-private minglings from the prying eyes of the duly appointed official oversight authorities of the U.S. Congress.

But you're such a "good-government" promoter, aren't you!?

I can't wait to never again hear our third two-term intellectual light-weight's drone on about "folks" this and "folks" that--whether he's referring to voters or parents, or teachers, or armed gunmen who commit mass-shootings or Islamist extremists who carry out terrorist attacks--everyone for this Bozo comes under the cheery heading of "folks." Right, I can't wait for the end of that.

"Racist and sexist piggery as the hallmarks of a culture--why, that at least is nothing new"...

!!!

Indeed! Right you are! Contemporary "Feminsts" are full of it, for example. Hillary Clinton exhibited raftloads of bigotry, contempt for others she never met and didn't know--simply based on the bigoted assumption that, as supporters of Trump's candidacy, they must surely, therefore, also endorse and subscribe to all --and especially all that is worst--about this man.

Oddly, Clinton herself and her stuanchest supporters repeatedly declared that, in the case of their real and would or might-be supporters, "there's no particular obligation to either like Hillary Clinton or even to agree with her at every point." No. In their case, Clinton supporters were credited as people of complex and varying characters and beliefs--nothing so generous was admitted or allowed for about Trump's supporters by these people multi-culture-and-diversity-loving people, often the products of the nation's and the world's most elite and expensive higher educations--which they didn't balk at using to attempt to belittle Trump's supporters, often described as "White, with only some or no university education.

I also can't wait for many women to catch up with a small but greatly honorable minority of their "sisters"-- women for whom it is unthinkable to resort to "misogyny" as the all-purpose excuse for every set-back, every disappointment, every damn thing, great and small, that poses an obstacle to some woman's clear, straight and unimpeded march to the heights of the petty-mindedness of the tradtional male-dominated world, only opened to women on strictly equal terms. Exploit, grub, kick, fight and climb to the top of the Alpha-person pile, just like your male counter-parts do. Thatta girl! Hillary showed us! : a woman is every bit the equal of creepy, disgusting, single-minded carreer-and-power-driven lying, cheating male politicians. Oh, what a fucking loss for the country that we've been so cruelly and foolishly denied this oppotunity to play the Identity Politics idiot Sweepstakes again in national politics and follow the dull, lack-lustre dim-witted Obama with an ex-First Lady, multi-millionaire who's the darling of the rich elites in the worlds of the high-finance and Washington-insider sets.

Oh! The humanity!

--------------------------------------

ETA :

Maybe President Trump (as a gesture undertaken in comradeship with Putin, eh?) could vouch for the safe and prompt welcome home of Edward Snowden--lifting the spectre of a federal indictment of that young man who, rather than prosecution, deserves a Presidential Medal of Freedom for services rendered to his country.

Maybe Trump could extend similar assurances to Julian Assange so that he may finally be allowed to leave the confines of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London.

There're are two easy things President Trump could do to help bind the nation's divisively-inflicted wounds.

>3 LolaWalser: Frankly, Canada would be fully justified in closing the border.

Oh, goodie, here is the TO-DO list:

US election results: What will President Trump do first?

First 100 days:

Starting process of "removing the more than two million criminal, illegal immigrants"

Denying visa-free travel to countries who refused to take back their citizens

Repealing every Obama executive order

Restrictions on White House officials becoming lobbyists

Term limits for members of Congress

Cancellation of all payments to UN climate change programmes

Using that money to fix US infrastructure

Label China a currency manipulator

He has also controversially vowed to build a wall on the southern border, paid for by Mexico. Right up until the campaign's final days, he has reassured his supporters this will happen, although it's not clear how or when.

Fuck climate change, Donald Pussy-Grabber the First's gonna grab that pussy by the... um... weather balloons...

#4--Women do make less money than their male counterparts doing the same work and it gets worse if they're black or hispanic women. These are real economic issues that need to be addressed and I seriously doubt that Trump will make even an attempt---not that Bush or even the Obama or previous administrations did enough to close that gap either. A living wage for all Americans regardless of race or gender should be a realizable goal--but somehow it never quite gets there and that's because those with power are bought off. And gain I don't think Trump is at all concerned with anything like that or a host of other things. This election came down to two awful choices and one of them won.

Candidates for Trump cabinet...Sarah Palin mentioned, but she's not the worst...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/who-is-in-president-trump-cabinet-231071

>8 margd:

Trump has made clear the Education Department would play a reduced role in his administration — if it exists at all. He has suggested he may try to do away with it altogether.

How could GREATNESS fail to follow.

Given that we are repeatedly told that Trump did best among white men without college educations, he's really only thinking of the future good of the country.

The magic begins--Trump's win has already improved life... of a coal company:

WITH TRUMP, COAL WINS, PLANET LOSES

Peabody Energy is, by its own description, the “largest private sector coal company in the world.” It’s also bankrupt. The company, based in St. Louis, filed for Chapter 11 this past April. On Wednesday, on the news of Donald Trump’s victory, Peabody’s stock surged almost fifty per cent. That one figure speaks volumes—and forests and coral reefs and coastal cities. For the planet, the stakes in yesterday’s election were enormous—“almost unthinkably large,” as David Roberts put it, at Vox—and now the results are in. The ramification of Americans’ choice will be felt, literally, for millennia. ...

The U.S. pledged in Paris to reduce its emissions by at least twenty-six per cent (using a baseline of 2005). And key to the U.S.’s pledge are power-plant regulations that were finalized by the E.P.A. last August. While it’s difficult and time-consuming to roll back rules that have been finalized, it’s certainly possible, and, in any event, these rules are now being held up by litigation. To make a long, complicated legal story short, Trump’s pick to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by Antonin Scalia will, almost certainly, cast the deciding vote on the rules’ legality.

Meanwhile, Trump could undermine the agreement simply by saying that the U.S. isn’t going to live up to its pledge. If America, the world’s second-largest emitter, isn’t going to bother to fulfill its commitment, why should any other nation? ...

James Delingpole, at Breitbart, put it this way: “The liberal-left just lost the ‘battle’ against climate change.” Companies like Peabody Energy will be the ones to profit from that. And, in hundreds and hundreds of years, the impacts of the fossil fuels that we’re now burning will still be playing out.

Take comfort in the knowledge that the neo-Great America is being created by the Neo-Nazi alt.right and that the minions who voted for Trump hoping some of his gilded furniture would end up in their living rooms will be the major victims of their own hatred when they can't afford health insurance, when they don't get jobs beyond flipping burgers, when the coal mines don't open because for the very reason they closed down -- nobody is buying coal, and when another sparkling new privatized prison is built in their backyards. Guess they can refresh themselves with a nice cloudy glass of lead laden water.

What could be better in the best of all possible worlds?

What do we have that they should want?
We have a wall to work upon!
We have work and they have none
And our work is never done
My children, my children
And the war is never won
The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free

We build the wall to keep us free
http://www.playbill.com/article/hadestown-ep-with-four-live-tracks-released-toda...

>13 davidgn: One of the best shows I've ever seen.

>6 LolaWalser:

I'm glad they reality-checked some of these things, but they don't go far enough. Term limits for Congress? By what power? The President has no such power. Congress has no such power. And the states themselves don't either (see U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 1995). You'd need a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that, Mr. President.

It'd be awesome if he wasted his time and chips on issues like that. But I suspect he won't bother.

The fact is, Trump can't do much on that list on his own initiative. But what he can do is scary enough:

1. Foreign policy. He can do a lot there. So we'll cozy up to Putin and freak our allies out. Maybe he'll legitimate a Russian annexation of Crimea, parts of Ukraine and Georgia, pleasing our resident Russophile, @davidgn. And Lola's preferred outcome in Syria, the victor of the dictatorship of Assad, will almost certainly happen.

2. Executive orders. He can repeal them all and add new ones, especially in the field of immigration. Liberals who supported Obama's expansion of executive orders ought by all rights to shut up and take it. They won't, and indeed one can only hope their hypocritical help, together with those of more principled actors, will do something to curb his power there.

3. The surveillance state. Here too, he can do a lot, courtesy of Obama and the liberals who thought that new and dangerous tools were just fine when their friends were in charge of them.

>15 timspalding:

I don't want to see a Russian annexation of parts of Ukraine beyond Crimea -- and I don't think the Russians do either. That would only create a bunch of headaches all around. There are really only three ways forward.

The preferable option is that the Minsk protocol -- already negotiated -- should be implemented. This would require action on the part of Poroshenko to comply with that agreement by granting autonomy to the Donbass Donetsk and Lugansk regions of the Donbass -- an action which threatens to topple his government. How so? There is a high risk that our cuddly little friends, the literally neo-Nazi Banderists and other (ironically anti-EU) ultranationalists who gained political legitimacy after serving as the tip of the spear of the 2014 coup and were awarded several important ministries in the resulting government (including, crucially, the Interior Defense ministry), will make good on their promise to overthrow Poroshenko and take power directly should Poroshenko cede one iota of Kiev government authority over those regions. So Poroshenko is hamstrung -- as are both the US/Europe and Russia -- from implementing the only course of action that stands a reasonable chance of leading to a peaceful resolution. Shame that nobody thinks through the consequences of these regime change policies, eh?

Failing that, option two would be a scorched-earth military victory by one side or the other. This is unlikely; any escalation by one side will be met by an escalation on the other. The military situation is pretty well stalemated.

The final option seems to be the one that we are stuck with: a bleeding sore of low-level conflict that will continue indefinitely, with the usual death squads, massacres and counter-massacres, assassinations, and civilian suffering one might expect. A nation fractured in two and slowly bleeding out for many years to come.

Once again I'll recommend the documentary series "Roses Have Thorns" to anyone interested in a fuller picture of what the hell happened in Ukraine. It's neither perfect nor complete. You will not get a sufficiently clear understanding, for instance, that the Russians manifestly did send regular soldiers and some equipment, and not only "volunteers", to support native Donetsk and Lugansk militias -- although contrary to reports, they did not initiate the rebellion in the East, nor provide massive columns of tanks or decisive military resources beyond the minimum necessary to allow the Donetsk and Lugansk forces to survive. Tim will no doubt dismiss the whole lot as Kremlin propaganda (even though it's mostly footage compiled from Western media sources, purportedly by an Australian, and contains virtually no commentary), but I've found no more comprehensive or informative presentation of events on the ground in 2014 from any source or ideological perspective. A very large percentage is given over to video of State Department and UN press conferences, which speak volumes -- particularly when you compare the questions asked and answers given to the resulting published media coverage. (Also, in some cases, to direct eyewitness video of events on the ground, often from multiple simultaneous perspectives).

Part I:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwVUp4IWEKw

All Parts: (about 30 hours in 17 segments. I watched one a night for two and a half weeks earlier this year. It's far more riveting than any TV I've watched lately!)
http://www.watchdogmediainstitute.com/p/blog-page.html

(Upon re-reading, edited a couple of demonyms/toponyms I conflated at 3am yesterday)
ETA: Anyone who can watch the first episode of that documentary series straight through and tell me afterwards they didn't learn something genuinely new is either a liar, or has been following the international media far closely than I've ever done. The sad thing is how often I find myself the only one in the room who wants to be told things he/she didn't otherwise know.

Elizabeth Bear said yesterday on Twitter that a friend of hers, anticipating the loss of health insurance, committed suicide.

>17 sturlington:

That's dreadful. I'm so sorry for that woman.

It would be nice if people could bring fears and probabilities more into line. Witness the many women running out to get long-acting birth control, on the theory that Trump will ban birth control and abortion (see NPR article). One gets the fear, perhaps, but it's just not a plausible scenario. It's much more in line with the fear that sweeps the right when a Democrat is elected—buy and hide guns now, because Obama's going to have the black helicopter cops take them all away!

>18 timspalding: Trump's was a campaign based on stoking fears and demonizing the other. You really can't blame people for feeling fearful.

>18 timspalding: I think the idea that our health insurance will be dismantled is not an unreasonable fear, but a likely scenario. I've been eyeing my own budget -- I was already contending with runaway rising costs, but now I'm thinking it would be a good idea to slash my discretionary spending and start saving for whatever will hit me in the future.

So that means less spending in the economy and less charitable giving. But this is what people do when they are afraid of the future. They batten down the hatches as best they can.

I do think Trump's attitude about birth control and abortion is even more opportunistic than his attitude about religion or the Constitution. He'll be opposed to it while in office (and oh, every time I type that I feel physically ill), because that's part of the persona that he used to get himself elected. He'll appoint anti-abortion candidates to the Supreme Court. But a man who relates to every woman in terms of how much he'd like to fuck her is not going to think birth control is burning issue. He enjoys the convenience of it too much.

Day 1 in Trump's America http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/day-1-trumps-america_us_582497afe4b0cdd5e7e9...

If you are not a member of one of the many target groups, I think it's very condescending to tell people not to be fearful.

>20 southernbooklady: Also, there have been reports that Trump is not all that interested in governance and will leave a lot of policy making to Pence. His stance on reproductive rights is well documented. Planned Parenthood, a source of affordable birth control for many women, will almost certainly be under attack.

My family is already planning for a recession or worse within the next two years. Since we've been warned many times by economists of the dangers of Trump's economic plans, I think that is only prudent.

>21 sturlington: I don't know much about how Trump's economic plans will work out domestically. He's essentially a predatory capitalist, not an innovator. He's certainly not pro "small business." But he is a destabilizing force globally and the world economy is going to react accordingly.

>20 southernbooklady:

I've seen the abortion fears, and I would rate those as inflated. But, yes, loss of coverage is a much more reasonable fear.

Reasonable, yes, but I would bet against it. Dismantling the ACA is going to be one heck of a fight, and, I suspect, a very protracted one. And that's assuming what replaces it does away with birth-control coverage. I don't see that as politically viable. We're the same country that elected Obama too. And birth control is widely supported across political lines. I don't think Trump is that stupid.

As for abortion, you'd have to kill off half the court to have even a small chance of overturning Roe v. Wade at some later date. (And, of course, overturning Roe v. Wade would not outlaw abortion per se.) We've had a lot of Republican presidents and conservative justices, and it's never been close. The notion that the next four years will save or overturn Roe v. Wade reliably gets the die-hards on the left and right to the polls, but it's not reality.

I'm thinking it would be a good idea to slash my discretionary spending and start saving for whatever will hit me in the future.

I certainly don't think a recession is impossible. I should save too. Although, of course, if we all start thinking that way, we'll get our recession.

If you are not a member of one of the many target groups, I think it's very condescending to tell people not to be fearful.

Fear is an emotion. It is not my business to tell people not to be afraid.

Political outcomes are not emotions, but real things which can be more or less supported by probability. If someone says they are afraid for Roe v. Wade, they are entitled to be. If, however, they assert that Trump will do away with Roe v. Wade, they don't understand the relevant legal and political contexts, and making a politically unlikely bet.

The same applies to many other fears of Trump. Believe me, I have them too. But there are some things Trump has a lot of power over, and other things he does not. We shouldn't put them all in the same basket, particularly as it will cause us to waste energy on the wrong things.

Under the heading of making America great again:

KKK announces North Carolina "victory" parade

While one report of Ku Klux Klan activity in North Carolina following Donald Trump’s election as president was debunked, the real KKK has announced a rally in the state.

Trump, a Republican, was officially endorsed by the KKK during his campaign against Hillary Clinton, a Democrat. Trump won North Carolina on his way to winning the presidency, defeating Clinton here by nearly 5 percentage points.

Racist incidents reported in wake of Trump victory

Tia Ballinger was standing in a grocery-store checkout line on Wednesday when an elderly white man cut in front of her. The man’s wife told him what he had done. “I know, but I don’t care,” he said. “She’s black, she doesn’t matter.”

>23 timspalding: I've seen the abortion fears, and I would rate those as inflated. But, yes, loss of coverage is a much more reasonable fear.

Roe v. Wade does not mandate that clinics which perform abortions be available and accessible in every state. It does not mandate abortion as a standard part of reproductive health services. It only says that it is not illegal to perform one or have one.

So what we'll get is increasing legislative attacks on clinics, making it increasingly difficult to comply with the criteria necessary to be able to offer abortion as a service. We'll see the withdrawal of government support and funds from Planned Parenthood, and more to the point we will see no attempt to ensure those services are provided by any other entity.

Such legislative attacks have been going on throughout Obama's entire term at the state level, they will only be encouraged under the atmosphere of the new administration.

So no, I don't think concern for the future of women's health care is overrated or unreasonable.

>26 southernbooklady:

I'm amazed at your calmness.

Are you people going to have to put up with this infernal smug condescension about your unfounded fears for four years?

Fucking. White. Male. PRIVILEGE.

>25 LolaWalser:

I agree with you to a decent extent. It's very likely the niggling little attacks on abortion access will continue, and this has an effect on access. Almost all of this is on the state level--not something Trump has much control over. But, yes, the battle will go on, and losses are probable.

He'll probably also get one to two conservatives on the court--for a net gain of one. (That said, my money would be on a Democratic electoral backlash in two years. Democrats are going to do to Trump's nominee what Republicans did to Obama's choice of Garland the first chance they get.)

But the language is inflated in much the same way the gun-rights people inflated their language. Obama did, after all, marginally restrict access to certain sorts of guns in certain situations. He wanted even more restrictions--as did I. But the fundamental right was never in doubt, and conservatives who asserted Obama was going to end gun ownership were alarmists.

I'm amazed at your calmness

I'm not calm. Trump can do certain things easily. He make sure your friend Assad wins, for example. I'm not calm about all the dead Syrians that'll involve. He can make life miserable for undocumented, mostly Mexican, immigrants and potential Muslims immigrants without hardly any checks. I'm not-calm about that. Climate change? Not calm, because he'll control the EPA and the foreign policy aspect. NSA spying on muslims and everyone else too? Not calm. He has the power Bush and Obama made. Torture? Not calm. The FBI stepping back on investigations of police shootings? Not calm. The Justice Department stepping back on voter suppression of minorities? Not calm. He has a lot of power in all of these departments.

But I'm calmer about some of the fears, because I judge his power by his power, not only by what he wants to do.

I don't see white male cis privilege in this. I'm terrified for Mexicans and Muslims, blacks shot by police or kept from polls. And I'm pretty terrified for some of the cultural stuff. I mean, Trump isn't in legal charge of a department of abusing women, or beating up gays and people with hijabs, but I think we're going to see more and more of that, and he's absolutely to blame.

But, no, I don't think he'll overturn Roe v. Wade. Not because I'm a man. Because it's very hard to do, and he doesn't have the power to do it.

>28 timspalding:

I don't care to what bloody "extent" you agree with me. People are already being attacked and persecuted because a fucking outspoken piece of racist, sexist, lying, cheating shit was elected to POTUS. Nothing will compensate the damage already done, what is happening to epopel who aren't YOU right this minute.

People are already being attacked and persecuted because a fucking outspoken piece of racist, sexist, lying, cheating shit was elected to POTUS.

Indeed. As I said. See words where I said it. But not every fear is equally likely. A rise in anti-Muslim violence? Likely. A rise in sexist attacks? Likely too. These are terrifying things. But overturning Roe v. Wade? Not likely.

See other thread about term limits for Congress. He apparently wants them bad, but he ain't gonna get his wish. Not because of white privilege or something. Because he doesn't have that power.

>28 timspalding: But the language is inflated in much the same way the gun-rights people inflated their language. Obama did, after all, marginally restrict access to certain sorts of guns in certain situations. He wanted even more restrictions--as did I. But the fundamental right was never in doubt, and conservatives who asserted Obama was going to end gun ownership were alarmists.

I think you miss the point here. It's not that Trump "has no control" over state legislation, it's that the policy of the Federal government will now turn the issue over to those same states. Will you still be able to get an abortion if you need one in Massachusetts? Sure. Alabama? probably not.

And in the meantime these are only some of the legislative options that have been tried, and occasionally passed:

--court mandated legal representation for fetuses. "Fetal Lawyers."
--Mandated unnecessary medical procedures with accompanying lectures
--Mandated reporting of miscarriages
--expanded "fetal assault" laws that criminalize women who give birth to babies that test positive for drugs.

Federal policy informs state policy. Same sex marriage is nationally legal now because the Federal government refused to defend DOMA and gave its support in Obergefel v. Hodges. So any action or inaction that the Federal government takes about reproductive health care is a sign to states about how far they can push their own legislation.

The hard truth is, women do not have an advocate in the White House any more. They have a man who is actually a danger to them. I'm not going to underestimate that and far from being alarmist, I am being realistic.

Here's a good explainer about why Roe v. Wade is not in immediate danger.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13579630/trump-abortion-suprem...

As I said, Mexicans? Danger. Muslims? Danger. Women who are sexually harassed? Danger. Unarmed black people who get shot? Danger. Roe v. Wade? I don't think it's in danger. Because I'm white, or something. Rational and informed argument based on facts and likelihoods, not accusations of bias? Danger.

>32 timspalding: Women who are sexually harassed? Danger.

Fixed that for you.

>30 timspalding: He really doesn't have to repeal Roe v Wade, and I expect many antichoice activists have actually given up on that goal. He just needs courts that are friendly to and permissive of the steady drip-drip of erosion of abortion and reproductive health access. This has been the strategy for years, and its only check so far has been the courts. It is comparable to the steady erosion of privacy that you talk about.

Nationwide maternal mortality rates have been rising. In Texas, the spikes have been worst. The fight to close so-called abortion clinics also leaves many women without access to affordable prenatal care.

Republicans have made no secret about their opposition to reproductive health rights. We have seen it being enacted at the state level for years. They can do a lot of damage. And remember, we're not just talking about Trump as president, but Republicans in control of all branches of government.

It would be nice if people could bring fears and probabilities more into line. Witness the many women running out to get long-acting birth control, on the theory that Trump will ban birth control and abortion (see NPR article). One gets the fear, perhaps, but it's just not a plausible scenario. It's much more in line with the fear that sweeps the right when a Democrat is elected—buy and hide guns now, because Obama's going to have the black helicopter cops take them all away!

IUDs are reliable, reversible, safe, long-term birth control, but they are very expensive. If a woman is not planning to have children soon and has reasonable expectations that she may lose coverage or that it may be cut, it seems perfectly sensible to go ahead and get one while she knows that she can afford it. Women making practical decisions about their own reproductive health is not panic.

I agree with you about term limits, though. People in power do not give up power easily.

>33 southernbooklady:

You didn't condescendingly fix the part about black people who get shot to all black people all the time. Check your white privilege.

Same sex marriage is nationally legal now because the Federal government refused to defend DOMA and gave its support in Obergefel v. Hodges.

Another good example. People have been saying same-sex marriage is toast. It's not. Because the Supreme Court is extremely unlikely to revisit the issue, even if the right justices were put in place.

I say this because it's true and everyone with legal knowledge knows it. But you can say it's because I'm straight if you like.

BTW, you're probably wrong on the simple statement. Obergefel v. Hodges didn't get to the Supreme Court because the Obama administration did anything. The SC reads the various friend-of-court briefs it gets, and they wrote one. The Solicitor General got a talking slot too. And that's about it. And there's no evidence that the Justice was what changed Kennedy's mind, let alone the more liberal justices. Indeed, the evidence points to Kennedy being willing to go in this direction for some years.

Of course, Obama claimed a victory and you and many others fell for it. He lit up the White House. But it wasn't his victory and, lest you forget, Obama actually opposed gay marriage when the case started. (And I was going door to door in favor of same-sex marriage when the man you think won it was using the power of the Justice department to defend DOMA. But, well, something something privilege something something.)

>35 timspalding: You didn't condescendingly fix the part about black people who get shot to all black people all the time. Check your white privilege.

You're right, I didn't. I've been afraid for my family, which includes my black cousin and her kids, and my Arab cousins, and my Persian cousins and Indian uncle, since 9/11. I was less afraid under Obama. I am much, much more afraid for each of them now. Donald Trump has set a model his supporters have been only too eager to emulate. His actions have consequences and they are ugly.

Obergefel v. Hodges didn't get to the Supreme Court because the Obama administration did anything.

In point of fact, Obama didn't do anything. That's the point. Obergefel v. Hodges was the result of a rising tide of change in attitude towards same sex marriage by the American public. The administration could have opposed it, could have embraced it. In point of fact, Obama was silent on the subject until it became politically expedient to support it. But he never set his administration against it.

>35 timspalding:

Indeed. I think black and brown people, Muslims and Jews, and women, have more to fear. It remains true that certain situations are more dangerous--sexual harassment, stops by police, etc. To say the latter isn't to deny the former. Which is why yours was a cheap shot.

>37 timspalding: Tim, we just put a sexual predator who boasts about grabbing women by the pussy into the White House. I take that seriously. On behalf of all women.

But he never set his administration against it.

Uh. His Justice Department defended it in court. Later on they decided not to. But he did in fact set his administration against it.

Tim, we just put a sexual predator who boasts about grabbing women by the pussy into the White House. I take that seriously. On behalf of all women.

As do I and nothing I said denies that. It's a tragedy for women and many others.

Okay then. you are still proving my point. The policies of a Federal administration act as sign posts for the rest of the country. If Trump says "I believe in Planned Parenthood" that has an effect. If he says, "Let the states decide" the states will take it as far as they can run with it.

>40 timspalding: As do I and nothing I said denies that.

Well then let me assure you he represents a danger to all women, not just the sexually harassed ones.

>40 timspalding:

Meh. Some agreement. It's probably emboldened some pro-life advocates. But there'll be a reaction on the other side too--things seem more serious with Obama out of office.

The biggest change is surely that the Hyde Amendment will stay. Clinton didn't actually have power to overturn it, but she indicated she wanted to and that might have had some effect. I'm not sure what the odds really were though.

Anyway, the main driver here isn't Trump or Clinton, but the parallel unexpected failure of Democrats to pick up control of the House or Senate. The 2018 elections are going to be a big, hairy deal.

There is no "tragedy for women" or "tragedy for black people" or "tragedy for Muslims" and so on that isn't a tragedy for the whole society.

Impersonal, abstract phrases like these have a tendency to anchor the "cause" of "tragedy" in the victims, instead of the perpetrators, making thus of femaleness and skin colour "the problem".

But it's not. Being female or being black aren't problems. Persecuting women and people of colour is the problem.

A rape victim isn't the victim of her sex, but of the rapist. A black person isn't the victim of their skin, but of the racist.

Trump is a degraded character whose voters have equally degraded themselves by their choice. Whatever their era ushers in for women, people of colour, minorities, will not somehow in isolation affect only women, people of colour, minorities.

Those who can't figure it out on the example of women because they still keep women in some kind of mental purdah and think of them as beings from another planet, think about what slavery did to the American society.

>17 sturlington:
>18 timspalding:

It's stunning to see the level to which fear of paying one's own way has risen in this country.

>44 St._Troy: Ugh.

That said, my money would be on a Democratic electoral backlash in two years.

I doubt it. The House is currently districted in such a way that changing control of that body is nigh impossible without an enormous change to the demographics of multiple districts. That's not going to happen in two years.

The seats in the Senate up for election in 2018 are overwhelmingly Democratic seats, and most of those are in states where holding on to them is an iffy proposition. 23 Democratic seats are up for reelection in 2018, plus two independents who caucus with the Democrats. Only eight Republicans are up for reelection in 2018.

Of the Republican seats, the only one that isn't in a fairly "safe" state is Dean Heller's seat in Nevada. The other Republican seats up for reelection are in Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Those will be tough for the Democrats to pick up.

Conversely, the Democrats are defending seats in places like Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, and West Virginia. I predict the Senate will be more Republican after the 2018 elections, not less.

20> but now I'm thinking it would be a good idea to slash my discretionary spending and start saving for whatever will hit me in the future.

So that means less spending in the economy

Unless your idea of "saving" is stuffing your mattress with cash, whatever you save is just made available for someone else to spend...

>47 PaulFoley: Unless your idea of "saving" is stuffing your mattress with cash, whatever you save is just made available for someone else to spend...

Not my local bookshop, though. Or restaurant, farmer's market, plant nursery, etc. It may be on a bank's servers somewhere but it isn't circulating around my local economy.

Of course it is. The banks don't just keep it "on a server" ... at least, not if they can help it (they can't make money that way). They lend it out to other people who spend it on something, and then it's circulating around the economy again.

But if people across the economy stop spending money then companies aren't going to borrow money to expand their operations. In fact, they're more likely to lay people off since they're selling less stuff.

>50 jjwilson61: In fact, they're more likely to lay people off since they're selling less stuff.

Where I live (coastal north carolina) the bellwether for the state of the economy is development, which stagnated during the 2008 recession and recovered in the latter part of Obama's administration. What that meant "on the ground" so to speak was not only were new houses again being built, but homeowners felt safe enough to spend cash on the many non-critical updates and upgrades to their homes they had been putting off, being uncertain about their future. So the friends I have in the business have gone from not hiring crews to not being able to hire enough crew to meet the demand. Suddenly everyone feels like it might be okay to finally remodel that bathroom, or update the kitchen.

If everybody stopped spending money altogether, sure. But then most would quickly starve ∴ unlikely to happen. If it's just a reduction in discretionary spending, some companies will collapse and lay people off, etc., in the short term, sure -- the ones producing things people don't really want to buy -- but that just makes more resources and people available for making things people do want to buy. There's more than one way to "expand" -- by extending into longer but ultimately more productive processes, etc.; i.e., lower prices, so the lesser amount of money being spent will buy more stuff. That's a good thing (or at least it would be in a free economy. The people who were laid off can be re-employed, but wages will likely fall -- which doesn't matter because stuff is cheaper; but if would-be employers aren't free to allow wages to fall, etc., much pain ensues!)

A healthy and sane economy doesn't run on spending, it runs on saving.

A capitalist economy runs on spending. And lending. It needs money to circulate.

>52 PaulFoley: The people who were laid off can be re-employed, (but will they be?) but wages will likely fall -- which doesn't matter because stuff is cheaper (is it?)

The general trend seems to be to lay people off and get the people who remain to do more work. Wages may not fall, but you pay less of them.

>44 St._Troy: It's stunning to see someone who supported a president who had everything handed to him on a silver platter worrying about average people needing help from others.

>15 timspalding: Lola (and others less outspoken) might appreciate Ray McGovern's statement to the German Bundestag published yesterday.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/11/10/germany-urged-to-pause-on-syrian-escalatio...

ETA: See also my update to >16 davidgn:. And yes, the last paragraph is a challenge to all the readers of this thread. I hope to see replies.

Is the rumoured possibility of a child rape case likely to cause his removal from office? If not (and I'm speaking from a nation still reeling over the Jimmy Savile effect), it would seem ironic that a man who lied about covertly taping visitors to the Oval Office could be removed, whereas someone who raped a child, could not.

>56 Tid: It wasn't a "rumored possibility," there was a trial set. However, last I heard the girl has backed out for fear of her life, so it will no longer be taking place.

>57 .Monkey.:

:-(

>57 .Monkey.: >58 Tid: If it makes you feel any better, Clinton le mari was equally wrapped up with Jeffrey Epstein (in whose house this event with Trump would have occurred). In that respect, it's all one big happy family...

>59 davidgn:

I hadn't heard that. Wow, there are immensely powerful forces ranged against that poor girl. :-(

In the wake of Trump's election, white supremacists are calling for trolling people with the goal of getting them to commit suicide: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/10/white-supremacists-urge-troll...

Shaun King is cataloging in real time the hate crimes being committed in Trump's name: http://qz.com/834656/writer-shaun-kings-twitter-account-has-become-a-clearinghou...

Just to clarify: these are not online trolls, but incidents that are happening to people on the streets and in the schools of the United States.

>61 sturlington:

That's just AMAZING, considering that none of this has anything to do with "identity politics", it was all "the economy, stupid", a bold class war by honest working (although also chronically un/under-employed and/or greedy rich) people, and a movement to return to the roots, tubers and goobers.

Someone really mangled that memo.

“You can troll these people and definitely get some of them to kill themselves,” wrote the Daily Stormer’s publisher, Andrew Anglin.

LOL! This little, sorry, GREAT AMERICAN, piece of shit by his very choice of targets proves he trusts the other side not to kill HIM, which, Andrew, means they are BETTER, BETTER people than you, you miserable little second-hand ersatz assassin-by-trolling.

One doesn't deal with dog shit by stepping on it.

You'll be flushed, Andrew, flushed straight into the septic tank.

USA Today again reporting on over 200 incidents of hate crimes following the election: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/11/12/bad-year-for-minorities/936...

On the social networks, Trump supporters are very active saying that these hate crimes are being fabricated.

>63 sturlington: It's not surprising. The Trump campaign itself was a moveable crime wave.

"To say that this was just another election is blindly ignorant to just how ... viscerally this campaign ripped open the wounds of racial resentment in this country," says Ryan Lenz, a Southern Poverty Law Center spokesperson. "And if it's not apparent to you now, I believe it soon will be."

Indeed, for many people who aren't straight, white American males, these latest hate incidents come on top of a year that was already terrifying and degrading."

Are we all hearing this? Are we? And on top of what do you think that year is sitting?

How MANY years of living in bodies that a bunch of goddam wankers--who bear no more merit for their gender and race than anyone else bears blame for theirs--thinks its their right to terrify and degrade?

All these incidents, all these insults that are less than a blip on a smug privileged conscience jerked awake for a moment are the backdrop, the subtext and text to someone's whole life.

>64 theoria: Not surprised. Have to keep this visible as much as possible. There is a movement to suppress these reports.

>66 sturlington: I have a FB friend in Arizona who is wheelchair-bound (she had muscular dystrophy) and has experience two incidents in the last two days: yesterday she was called a "f*cking retard" by some guy (fortunately her cop brother-in-law was with her) and today was in a craft store when some guy shoved her wheelchair out of the way because he wanted to look at the paint she was looking at. Her sister, who'd been at the other end of the aisle, rushed over, but then another guy stepped up and told the first, "I think you owe this lady an apology." The first guy flipped them a finger and left; the one who intervened showed my friend the safety pin he wore in his shirt and said, "I've got your back." We're seeing horrors...but maybe a wonder or two as well.

But I'll bet there have been far more that 200 hate crimes.

Hello, I am Italian, and I am appalled by Trump's victory. I never imagined that such a loathsome and dangerous individual could even get close to the White House. It was so blatantly obvious that making him President was total, utter folly, and it happened nonetheless. Seeing how he managed to seize the GOP, and then the country, and the tactics he used, all that was appalling: frankly, he reminds me of Mussolini and Hitler. I never imagined that the United Stated could fall so low and set such a bad example, which further discredits democracy as a system of government. It is certain that president Trump will make disasters both at home and abroad, and I doubt that your famed system of checks and balances will be sufficient to restrain him. He's really bringing to light the worst of America. The U.S often were a force for good in the world, and I fear that Trump's America will now turn into one more selfish bully, just like Russia, China or Turkey. Dark times are ahead of us.

>68 Oct326:

Hello! I appreciate the seriousness of the worry that is making more people than ever post on LT.

I would only say that the American democracy is only one of many forms (so I think there is maybe hope yet for this "best of worst" type of system), but I agree with your general point.

I really, really, really, really hope we can get out of this tunnel without (even more) war.

>67 Marissa_Doyle: I am sorry that happened to your friend but I am glad someone stood up for her.

Reading the news this morning, I notice that USA Today is doing a better job covering the wave of hate crimes than the New York Times, which is not mentioning rhem at all.

The Great Americans have embraced the name "Trumpland". Irony's dead, but GREATNESS lives.

>71 LolaWalser: Trump is the King of Carver Country.

I'm seriously worried about my friends in Trumpland's Beer Gut. The universities should probably start digging moats. Moar walls! Moar walls!

>73 LolaWalser: Many reported hate crimes are taking place on campuses.

>74 sturlington:

Alas. But from what I hear, some are invaders.

The creeps and criminals, fools and fascists who will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN:

New Cabinet Installation: Part 1 | Full Frontal with Samantha Bee |

New Cabinet Installation: Part 2 | Full Frontal with Samantha Bee |

Facebook jest, from a concerned / appalled Canadian:

Have we tried turning the USA off and back on again?

>77 margd: lol!

almost as incomprehensible to me as the idea that Trump is candidate to defend "family values" is the idea that he is a man for the working class. This is, after all, a man whose single most identifiable quote is "You're fired!" It is also a man who, far from challenging big corporate interests, has made his fortune exploiting the current system, usually at the expense of small business and labor interests. He orchestrates strategic bankruptcies, doesn't honor contractual obligations, buries competition and critics in frivolous lawsuits, etc. etc. He's a shark capitalist -- not a species known to care overmuch about the plight of the worker. A man who knows how to make money gaming the system isn't going to be interested in reforming it.

>79 southernbooklady:

Reads "The American Dream!" to many, apparently.

>77 margd: Unfortunately, the default has been reset to 1877.

>79 southernbooklady:

Here too, Democrats fell into a crying-wolf problem.

After decades of calling Republicans like McCain, Dole, Bush and Romney "racists" and "bigots" the left found themselves confronted with a man who really fits the bill--and it had nowhere to go. Trump really is a racist and bigot, but the claim sounded to many like the same sort of unjustified, hyperbolic accusation as the others.

Here, Democrats went after Romney, and even Bush, as evil businessmen. Bush was an oil-man; some of his businesses efforts didn't pan out--exactly what you'd expect given the bizarre nature of oil discovery and price cycles! Romney's business of buying businesses in dire danger of failure, and reorganizing them, of course led to layoffs and bankruptcies. Capitalist monsters!

Now, Trump arrives, and he really fits the bill, and it sounds like the same sort of empty accusation Democrats leveled before.

>82 timspalding:

I think they all "fit the bill". They were all garbage in some way, and racists and sexists. You don't get to re-qualify them as decent just because someone even worse (apparently) comes along.

It's valid to ask, all other disgusting shenanigans aside, whether Trump will kill as many people as Dubya did.

it sounds like the same sort of empty accusation

Only because language has limits of expression.

Trump didn't fall to earth from Mars, he's a natural end-product of the Republican party's programme and devolution that's been going on for years, maybe decades. The only problem these people have with him is that he flaunts the party's Id rather more than is considered polite, but so what. New etiquette rules for the new century!

The rest is old hat. Deregulation, privatisation, oiling the plutocracy, ruining the environment, and populist noise with lots of YEEHAWS and AMERICA GREATS for the vulgus.

I think they all "fit the bill".

Well, you know, this is where we differ. You think all Republicans are racists, basically by definition. I disagree. But the strategic point stands--if you scream "racist" against the McCains of the world, it's hard to add much when Trump comes along.

The other side here is Conservative media. The almost universal condemnation of Trump by reasonable people—the sort of people who never called McCain a racist—wouldn't have worked if Conservatives hadn't established a parallel media world, and narratives that went with it. One of those narratives was that, when the moderate establishment thinks something, it's wrong. New York Times? Of course they're going to call a Republican a racist.

This time, it went well past the "liberal" media. It wasn't just the New York Times that sounded the alarm about Trump. The National Review—the original publication of the Conservative movement—devoted an entire issue to condemnation of him. First Things? Against Trump. Weekly Standard? Against Trump. Etc.

Trump didn't fall to earth from Mars, he's a natural end-product of the Republican party's programme and devolution that's been going on for years, maybe decades.

This is a larger question. I think there's a lot of truth to it. But, no, I don't think McCain (for example) is a racist. Except perhaps in the rarified way that leftists have developed, that basically everyone who disagrees with them—and most of those who agree too—is a racist. That too made it hard to sink Trump.

I am, for example, no fan of Mike Pence, but the many leftists who insisted that Pence was as bad, or even worse than, Trump did no great service to the effort to sink Trump. Trump is miles worse than Pence, or Christie or whoever. But if your rhetoric is extreme and is applied indiscriminately, you end up unable to make reasonable distinctions, between opponent and enemy, opponent and moral monster, opponent and unqualified liar, normal person and moral and mental garbage fire.

>85 timspalding:

But if your rhetoric is extreme, you end up unable to make reasonable distinctions, between opponent and enemy, opponent and moral monster, opponent and unqualified liar, normal person and moral and mental garbage fire

This sounds exactly like a description of the UK news media, principally that owned and controlled by Murdoch, Northcliff, etc. Needless to say, theirs is not the rhetoric of the left, but the agenda of the right, sometimes verging on the far right.

>82 timspalding: Here too, Democrats fell into a crying-wolf problem.

After decades of calling Republicans like McCain, Dole, Bush and Romney "racists" and "bigots" the left found themselves confronted with a man who really fits the bill--and it had nowhere to go

I feel obligated to point out that >79 southernbooklady: does not mention racism at all. I mention "family values," which Trump could care less about--we have documented evidence of that. And I talk about economics and the working class. Does anyone think Trump is really in favor of a federal minimum wage? Or plans to raise it?

Trump is, indeed, exactly what you get when you take the right's political stance to the nth degree. And no, I'm not surprised that includes a blatantly racist and misogynistic stance. Policies that disenfranchise minorities appeal to racists and bigots.

But we're repeatedly told that Clinton "lost the working class white voter." That voter was presumably voting for the "wrecking ball" that would smash the government run by all those coastal elites whining about affirmative action while manufacturing jobs evaporate.

Only Trump isn't a wrecking ball, is he? He isn't an innovator. And he sure as hell isn't a 'reformer." -- the man can barely string together a coherent sentence much less formulate a long term policy. That will be left to the people he puts in his cabinet, God help us.

No, Trump's the guy you don't want to give your toys to because he'll play with them until they break and then he'll go home. He's not going to "drain the swamp" he's just going to wallow in it. Apres moi, le deluge.

>85 timspalding:

There's a lot of truth there. Conservatives have been painting Democrats as extremists so long they can't accurately describe Clinton as something of a moderate within the Democratic universe.

>87 southernbooklady:

Yes, indeed, I was making a parallel between the crying-wolf problem the left got into in one area—racism—and other—business evil.

Only Trump isn't a wrecking ball, is he?

I suspect a lot of immigrants are going to feel he is. Walls, round-ups and Muslim bans may not require an inventor's acumen, but they're within his power and, I suspect, he'll fulfill his promises there.

Here's what I'm interested in. What do we do? We're very entrenched now. How do we get out of our trenches?

Racism is real. Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. How do we get out of this hole with no real leadership on either side and without going to war with each other?

#82--it's another example of the least worst argument--the Republicans just found a way to lower the bar even more this time around.

By the way, rural white working class were not the deciders in this election. Suburban white middle class were.

https://newrepublic.com/article/138754/blame-trumps-victory-college-educated-whi...

>89 timspalding: I suspect a lot of immigrants are going to feel he is.

Oh, certainly. And worse, I suspect the implacable ruthlessness Trump unleashes on immigrants (or even people who just look like immigrants?) will be emotionally satisfying to that white working class voter, distracting them from the fact that Trump is not their economic advocate. That man appeals to the very worst in people. Even in me, because I am having a terrible time forgiving my near neighbors for voting for him. I'm reduced to looking at them and thinking How could you?

Racism is real. Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. How do we get out of this hole with no real leadership on either side and without going to war with each other?

So, Trump is likely to fail. His policies don't add up to economic success. And those manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. Things would be better for him if we were actually in a recession, since those end and he'd get the credit. But we're not.

What do demagogues do when they're failing? They distract. They find new enemies to unite people behind them. That's the playbook.

>94 timspalding: Not comforting. Although realistic.

Got any ideas for what the rest of us can do? I'm thinking start local. Build community. Look for common ground with people you can actually talk to face to face.

>95 sturlington: That's my intention. Gonna try to get a discussion group going at my church and/or other local churches.

When wall was first proposed, I wondered how people living on American side would like living next to THAT. (I wouldn't!) As a matter of fact, a few years ago, a Presidential appointee (Dennis Schornack, a Republican) was fired by then-President GW Bush for enforcing requirement to clear ~20' next to Canadian border--against wishes of the (R?) property owners, who wanted to build some structure on their property (a kennel?).

Anyway, as I suspected, Americans who live on the southern border are beginning to grumble about the prospect of wall on Mexican border. Heck, sounds like, as on the Canadian border, connected, rich people have already successfully blocked border fencing:

"The gaps in the border barrier include an entire flank of the River Bend golf club and resort in Brownsville. University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley political scientist Terence Garrett calls them “gaps of privilege” because many landowners were politically connected."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/americans-who-live-near-border-say-trump...

Might corporate America be a bulwark against the Trump administration's more extreme racist views? When states have passed discrimatory laws, such as hb2 in North Carolina, corporations and other influential organizations responded with boycotts and protests. A small incident, but maggianos restaurant chains issued an apology for inadvertently hosting an alt right group's dinner. The profit motive could work to society's advantage in this case, since businesses want all the customers, not just the white ones.

Of course it goes without saying that corporations will embrace harmful economic policies, deregulation, and antiworker policies that benefit their bottom lines.

>98 sturlington:

Certainly in Britain, the corporate side of business is largely against Brexit, so you may have a point.

Who would have thought that big companies might just save us from climate deniers?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/business/energy-environment/us-companies-to-tr...

Others have written to Obama and UN in past. Some want C reduction. Others, seeing writing on the wall, just want a stable regulatory (national and global) environment for moving forward.

>100 margd: A good sign. Certainly, corporations have more clout than individual citizens.

>100 margd: You know who doesn't question the realities of rising sea levels here on the coast? Insurance companies.

>102 southernbooklady:

Love 'em or hate 'em, insurance companies do have their collective fingers on the pulse of reality.

Look busy, Voldemort is coming.

'Darkness is good' for political power, Steve Bannon says

"Darkness is good," Bannon told The Hollywood Reporter. "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when (the liberals and media) get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."

...

"Like (Andrew) Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement," he said. “It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution – conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement."

Heil Steve! You sick little elf.

>104 LolaWalser: ...so I guess what he's saying is that if you thought the Great Depression was something you ain't seen nothin' yet....if his vision becomes reality I suppose it will be called the Permanent Depression.

Can't wait for more of that 1930's "excitement"! We didn't get enough the first time!

Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’

Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.

I could get behind this. Yanks push off into the solar system, and we Remainers can finally look to our cabbages in peace.

>107 LolaWalser:

"...in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century"

YAY. When's he setting off?

I'm going on record: If he means it, this is the single thing I like about Trump.

>107 LolaWalser: What could "politicize" science more than defunding science for political reasons?

This will be an intellectual bottom-feeders' Presidency.

>109 timspalding:

You like that he's a climate change denier who's pissing on climate change research? That he thinks NASA's research is "political correctness"? That he'll undercut collection of information about the state of the planet just as we're irrevocably feeling the change?

Or just the noises peddling infantile sci-fi fantasies to little boys?

>110 theoria:

True. As long as they find themselves within ten miles of a dictionary with the word "intellectual" in it.

No wonder Trump's looking to outer space--this much GREATNESS sure puts pressure on the ole Lebensraum:

Trump's tax plan: massive cuts for the 1% will usher 'era of dynastic wealth'

President Donald Trump is set to give America’s richest 1% an average annual tax cut of $214,000 when he takes office, while more than eight million families with children are expected to suffer financially under his proposed tax plan.

...Single-parent families would suffer the most because Trump would lower the minimum of tax-free earnings to $15,000 per adult no matter how many children in the household.

...Minority families are set to suffer disproportionately from the tax increases, according to Batchelder. With 32% of African American families facing a tax increase compared with 19% of whites, this is mostly due to African American families being more likely to share the burden of childcare within the family and hence not benefit as much from Trump childcare credits. Batchelder said the effective tax increase for many millions of families would run into the thousands.

While the poor will face tax increases, the Tax Policy Center research said the rich would received big tax cuts that get even bigger as you work up the income scale. The top 20% of earners would receive an average annual tax cut of $16,660 compared with an overall average cut of $2,940.

The richest 1% will collect 47% of all the tax cuts – an average saving of $214,000.

The 0.1% – the 117,000 households with incomes of more than $3.7m – would receive an average 2017 tax cut of $1.3m, a nearly 19% drop in tax they were due to pay in 2016. The tax savings of the super-rich will increase further in future, with the 0.1%’s estimated 2025 tax bill to fall by $1.5m.

Oh, and:

The inequality problem will be exacerbated by Trump’s plan to scrap inheritance tax – which he refers to as “the death tax”. The 40% inheritance tax is currently only charged on personal estate worth more than $5.45m and joint estates of $10.9m – sums so large that it only affects less than two in 1,000 Americans.

Trump has proposed repealing the tax entirely. While Clinton, pushed by Bernie Sanders’ strong stance on the issue, had suggested lowering the threshold to $3.5m and increasing the rate to 65% for the super-wealthy.

“It’s hard to think of a tax change that will have a more detrimental effect on inequality,” Garnder said. “There is no question that this will lead to a perpetual income elite – hardly the thing that Trump voters would have wanted. This will lead to a new era of dynastic wealth.”

Although, as to "what the Trump voters want", I think this is exactly what they dream about--for themselves of course. That's the bullshit "American Dream" right there.

You like that he's a climate change denier who's pissing on climate change research? That he thinks NASA's research is "political correctness"? That he'll undercut collection of information about the state of the planet just as we're irrevocably feeling the change?

Or just the noises peddling infantile sci-fi fantasies to little boys?

No, none of the things you said. I was referring specifically to the message exactly before mine—whose quote read "...in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century"

I think Trump is horrible. I don't think we should cut funding to global warming research. But I'm in favor of space exploration. One win, a million losses.

As for your misreadings, they are increasingly infantile, fantastic and petty. I won't gender them--that's your department.

>114 timspalding:

As for your misreadings, they are increasingly infantile, fantastic and petty.

I wasn't misreading, I was being sarcastic, but to the notion of misreading itself--RICH as usual, coming from you, distorter extraordinaire.

I think Trump is horrible. I don't think we should cut funding to global warming research. But I'm in favor of space exploration. One win, a million losses.

It's not win AT ALL packaged like this, and on top of everything else this conman is poised to do, it's smoke and mirrors for liberto-fascists still wanking off to Heinlein.

Given that NASA's budget is generally one-quarter of one-percent of the total Federal budget, a "win" would be doubling their budget so they can do both extensive exploration and climate research. Anything else is a loss.

It's not win AT ALL packaged like this

Yes, obviously.

Given that NASA's budget is generally one-quarter of one-percent of the total Federal budget, a "win" would be doubling their budget so they can do both extensive exploration and climate research. Anything else is a loss.

Hear hear

>116 StormRaven:

Exactly. Climate research is an absolute necessity. And I'm not cheered by the fact that Trump the Would-Be Space Explorer is installing people who think "Darth Vader" is an appropriate political reference. Might be useful to remember what sort of activities went under the name of "Star Wars".

A timely old educational film on despotism and democracy https://youtu.be/tIwXdOvEPXE

Interesting that they mention race, and opportunity.

>111 LolaWalser:

I took it that Tim was responding to my joke about wondering exactly when Trump was leaving Earth to explore the entire solar system?

>118 LolaWalser:

" Climate research is an absolute necessity."

Yes. This is probably the most deeply worrying aspect of Trump for non-Americans, just shading his potentially war-mongering ethic, and a long way ahead of the disastrous trade deals he's likely to strike.

>120 LolaWalser: Something else is notable about the film. The "Pledge of Allegiance" (spoken by school children) lacks words "under God."

>123 theoria: The film is pre-1954 - those two words were added during the commie scare. It's the same story with U.S. paper money - "In God We Trust" was added in 1957. U.S. coins, on the other hand, had the slogan in the 1860's.

http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/07/19/gerrymandering-republicans-redmap

These men do not want a Democracy.....unless the people make up their minds that a Democracy is more important than the $23 dollars they may save on their tax bill, or their religious beliefs, or that coal energy and transportation will have to change....we are screwed.

Rove has been working on this since the 90's....I tried to find the video but was unable to find it. He was speaking at a gathering of Republicans and he was telling them how to go about doing this. Wisconsin's recent gerrymandered map just hit the higher courts. The entire country has been trumped with this. It is my belief that the reason for this is quite simple. The White male is no longer a majority in, what we like to call, this Democracy. They saw this coming a long time ago. If every person would vote...the Republicans would be done. So they cheat and cheat and cheat. We have hit a new high in cheating....Russia hacking the Democratic party and most of all Trump...a man who lies and cheats and brags about it . What is so disturbing is the fact that he is correct when he brags.....he could shoot someone on the street and still win an election. He can marginalize the entire female population of this country and men will vote for him...men with daughters, wives and sisters. Heck WOMEN voted for him.....boggles the mind. He can sit in his palace (24 k gold paint all around him) and nobody sees the resemblance between him and other dictators of the world.....the over the top monuments to the self. Still they check the ballot for Trump..."Obamacare" has to go away ! (Yeah and do what???) The factories need to come back (they won't) Social programs are breaking the back of this country (they aren't) What does that say about US ?

Not sure what the answer is. I live in Wisconsin....until that district map is changed we will not get rid of Walker or any other Republican. They redistricted behind closed doors at night time.....all cloak and dagger like.

Oh and by the way...we did not elect a man....we elected a family. A family with tons of business interests around the globe...most of which the average American has no knowledge of. I am reminded of Saddam Hussein's son's....always hanging around.

Trumps won't be in the White House...too quaint.

>125 faceinbook:

" Oh and by the way...we did not elect a man....we elected a family. A family with tons of business interests around the globe...most of which the average American has no knowledge of. I am reminded of Saddam Hussein's son's....always hanging around."

OMG. It could have been even worse - you could have elected the Cardassians! (Yeah, I know I haven't spelled it right, but I like the thought of Kim The Horrible getting irritated at being thought of as grey with lizard piping all over her face and neck.)

Trump has already started making America great again. Just in time for Christmas!

https://www.amazon.com/Trump-America-Great-Collectible-Ornament/dp/B01N67D8HO/re...

Is there no end to the love this man has for his country?

>127 Limelite: I saw that yesterday. The comments and reviews are a hoot!

>128 rastaphrog: Totally! Who knew ordinary Americans were all great comedic writers? But the whole idea of a Christmas ornament! I mean. . .

>127 Limelite: There's so much Trump stuff on Amazon and all of it seems to have unleashed an amazing literary spirit. So nice to see Americans coming together.

Is there a term for Amazon review literature? I think it is a new genre.

>131 southernbooklady:

Not so new! These have been around for quite a few years now. Enjoy...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Veet-Men-Hair-Removal-Cream/dp/B000KKNQBK/ref=sr_1_2?s=...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Box-Canvas-Print-Paul-Ross/dp/B001N6W8U0/ref=sr_1_cc_1?...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/BiC-Her-Medium-Ballpoint-Pen/dp/B004FTGJUW/ref=sr_1_1?s...

>131 southernbooklady: No, not new at all.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1001250201
https://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=azss_379213722_12?ie=UTF8&docId=1...

And they overlap well with this:
https://www.librarything.com/bookaward/Bookseller%252FDiagram+Prize+for+Oddest+T...

Here's a good write-up:
https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/07/08/humorous-amazon-reviews/

A. Barton Hinkle column: The liberal postmortem is not going well
http://www.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/bart-hinkle/article_9035dbef-a567-54...

It’s been two weeks and counting since the larbord side of the country lost a can’t-lose election to the worst presidential nominee in American history. Since then, in between the cry-ins and riots, liberals have paused to catch their breath and ask how it could have happened. The answers they are coming up with are not encouraging.

One school of thought insists that the left needs to understand what Trump voters think and what they want. But so far there doesn’t seem to be much chance of that happening. Even those who ascribe to this thesis approach the subject with the mindset of an anthropologist, or perhaps an exobiologist: “Who are these alien creatures? What do they want?” (Not to be viewed as a strange and repulsive species of semi-intelligent bug, would be one guess.)

I've already recommended Michael Moore's take, and a few others.
Not sure whether it'll help or not, but I'm gonna take a peek at Alexander Zaitchik's The Gilded Rage when I get a chance. It didn't make the Times list of autopsy aides, and it's written by an eXile alumnus: two points clearly in its favor.

(Just as an indulgence, let me quote a bit from Vanity Fair's piece on the eXile:

“They were very direct and visceral and often very scurrilous, but they caught a side of Moscow that no one else did,” Owen Matthews, currently Moscow-bureau chief for Newsweek, says. “They didn’t feel the need to hedge around with reportorial politesse,” and Ames is “a great stylist. I don’t compare him to Céline lightly. He has that quality of brutal honesty.” This from a man whom Ames repeatedly savaged in print, once describing his teeth as leaning “randomly like Celtic temple ruins.” Still, he’s an admirer. “I haven’t seen a newspaper that’s so breathtakingly dark and cynical and brilliant,” Matthews says. “They had something going that really couldn’t be repeated anywhere. It would be out of business in three seconds if they tried to publish it in the U.S.”

“They took me on for using journalistic clichés, and at the end of the day I was like, ‘You know what? You’re right,’” says Colin McMahon, a former Moscow-bureau chief for the Chicago Tribune, adding, “I read it because it was good for story ideas, frankly. These guys were deeper into a subculture of Moscow than I could ever have allowed myself to be. I’d see something in The Exile and say, ‘How can I get this into a story without mainlining cocaine?’”)

Just as aptly, though, I'd recommend a look back at the works of the late Joe Bageant (best known for Deer Hunting with Jesus), whose books I'm going to have to get my hands on. I learned a lot from his columns.

Any other recommendations from flyover country?

Failing that, a couple views of the dismal European situation. At this rate, we're quickly Making Europe Great Again, too.
Perhaps a fundamental rethink of neoliberal orthodoxy and late imperial overreach is in order? Or is it already too late?

FRANCE (via Immanuel Wallerstein):
https://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/commentaries/index.html

If his combination of themes seems to you similar to those of Donald Trump and of the Brexit voters in Great Britain, you are not mistaken. The major difference lies in the two-round system in France. The question now becomes how effective LePen can be in a struggle with Fillon. The French mainstream center-left newspaper, Le Monde, warns of a weakness in the Fillon position. His support in the primary lacked what they call "the popular vote." His support came largely from urban professionals and entrepreneurs plus retired persons. Popular classes by and large abstained from voting. Can Fillon keep these voters from finding a more adequate president in LePen?
....
Will the Fillon miracle fizzle in the general elections? Or can he find a way to get popular support, either by voting for him or at least by abstaining from voting? Whatever the outcome, France is clearly joining the rightward trend of the United States and the rest of the Global North. All eyes will now be on Germany, to see if it will resist this trend.

GERMANY (via Christoph Germann):
http://christophgermann.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-disastrous-track-record-of-new....

British historian Timothy Garton Ash described Merkel’s statement as “the most dignified response I have seen to Trump’s election” and concluded:

“The phrase “leader of the free world” is usually applied to the president of the United States, and rarely without irony. I’m tempted to say that the leader of the free world is now Angela Merkel.”

Likewise, The New York Times and others also declared German Chancellor Merkel the new “leader of the free world” after Hillary Clinton couldn’t take up the role.

In this regard, Merkel’s job is “to defend Western liberal constitutionalism against the politics of resentment and anger,” as Constanze Stelzenmüller of the Brookings Institution put it.

There is a lot at stake in Germany’s 2017 federal election when Merkel seeks a fourth term in office.

“Should she lose, the loss would not just be Germany’s,” Stelzenmüller warned.

Still in shock after Brexit and Hillary Clinton’s defeat, large parts of the political and media establishment in the West are now rallying behind Angela Merkel to support her fight against “the politics of resentment and anger.”

However, the German people are not necessarily keen on renewing Merkel’s mandate. Especially the handling of the refugee crisis has cost her much popularity, but that is not the only reason why many Germans are resentful and angry.

Merkel has damaged three important pillars of German post-war politics: the German welfare state, European integration and German Ostpolitik.
....
Although the overwhelming majority of Germans opposed economic sanctions against Russia, the German government readily agreed to follow Washington’s lead.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden boasted later of “America’s leadership and the President of the United States insisting, oft times almost having to embarrass Europe to stand up and take economic hits to impose costs.”

Thanks to Merkel, Germany is taking the biggest economic hit.

The French Centre d'Études Prospectives et d'Informations Internationales (CEPII) examined the impact of the diplomatic conflict on Western exports, estimating the total export loss at $60.2 billion between December 2013 and June 2015.

“Germany is losing the most exports in absolute terms, more than US$832 million per month,” according to the CEPII analysis. “In percentage terms, Germany is bearing 27% of the global lost trade, while other major geopolitical players like the United States (0.4%), France (5.6%) and the United Kingdom (4.1%) incurred much less.”
....
Germany has supported the U.S.-led war on Syria in various ways, for example with a spy ship off the Syrian coast. German officials were convinced that Assad’s fall was only a matter of time. “We can be proud of our important contribution to the fall of the Assad regime,” a BND official told Germany’s Bild am Sonntag newspaper in August 2012.

Four years later, hundreds of thousands of people are dead, more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria and around 5 million Syrians have fled the country, many of whom are now seeking refuge in Germany.

The German Chancellor has been heavily criticized for her handling of the refugee crisis but her role in creating the crisis deserves close scrutiny as well.

Angela Merkel’s time in office has been disastrous – not just for Germany.

While the Western establishment is celebrating the new “leader of the free world,” many Germans are desperately looking for alternatives in the 2017 federal election. Merkel is already raising the specter of Russian interference, fake news, bots and trolls, underlining her concerns with regard to public opinion. Her hopes of winning another election rest on the lack of attractive alternatives, not her popularity.

Positively hair-raising-fluffing GREATNESS:

Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Full-on Privatization Assault

... Trump wants private investors to basically direct $1 trillion in infrastructure projects nationwide through a “revenue neutral” financing plan, which banks on financing from private investors, allegedly to control deficit spending (which the GOP generally deems wasteful, while promoting tax breaks as a wiser redistribution of public funds into corporate coffers). To draw some $167 billion to jumpstart the $1 trillion, 10-year infrastructure plan, Washington would grant a giant tax break “equal to 82 percent of the equity amount.” ...

Activists now fear that Trump’s job plan will yield relatively substandard jobs by mowing down many longstanding regulatory protections, including environmental review process (a critical tool activists use to challenge developments that involve public health threats) and prevailing wage regulations. While private business partnerships on federal construction projects is routine, Trump’s camp is distinctly poised to launder corporate money through federal coffers at workers’ and taxpayers’ expense.

>136 LolaWalser:

Strange plan.

Trumpgrets https://trumpgrets.tumblr.com/

Hoo-eee! Ben Carson, MD, the man who said about himself "I am unqualified to hold a Cabinet position," is going to be head of HUD. Now he wants us to just draw the veil over the FACT that he knows nothing about public housing, has no experience in creating home solutions, and has demonstrated no ability to head any large organization funded by public money.

Anyone want to know why he's a "retired" neurosurgeon? (Besides apparently suffering from narcolepsy.) I sure do.

Let's review the tools Trump's using to make America Great Again: a self-admitted unqualified head of HUD; a white nationalist personal/political advisor; a billionaire former coal miner owner who killed over 20 employees for Commerce Secretary; and hedge funder, 2nd-generation Goldman-Sachs operative, and banker to the stars for Sec'y of Treasury.

No doubt they'll FIX everything wrong with America. Yep! I see GREAT things on the horizon for the "little guy."

Anyone want to know why he's a "retired" neurosurgeon? (Besides apparently suffering from narcolepsy.) I sure do.

Why's that? I don't think Carson is qualified for any of this. And, if he were, he'd still be an ignorant blowhard with dangerous ideas. But, from what I've heard, he was a good neurosurgeon.

Hoo-eee! Ben Carson, MD, the man who said about himself "I am unqualified to hold a Cabinet position," is going to be head of HUD.

He may not know that HUD is a cabinet secretary level position.

And a "mad dog" as Defence Secretary. Wonderful. Not.

Trump caused Boeing's stock price to fall with a tweet today: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-tweet-cost-boeing-shareholders-more-than...

"The stock had dropped in morning trade after Trump tweeted that an order for Boeing to build a new Air Force One should be canceled because costs had risen to over $4 billion, which would be well more than double earlier budget estimates."

Trump's numbers were refuted by both the White House and Boeing. Trump tweeted shortly after Boeing's CEO made comments that could be interpreted as criticism of Trumps trade policies.

Welcome to the new world order, folks.

Why doesn't Twitter just delete Trump's account? Do the world a favor and make America great again!

This illustrates just some of the great the US aspires to return to: http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/CIA-in-Ecuador-20160610-0025.html#
(Latin American hijinks)

I'm sure Boeing can add solid gold stripper poles that meet Mr Trump's specifications.

143: First off, there are no $4 billion budget estimates. As of now, Boeing only has a $170 million contract for design and development - basically the first stage of any custom built aircraft like this.

Second, "cancelling the order" as Trump says we should do is not something that will actually save the taxpayer money. Boeing is going to get paid their $170 million, even if the government does a "termination for convenience", which is what cancelling the order would be. And the government would end up still using the current Air Force One's (yes, there are two), which are nearly 30 years old and have reached the end of their service life.

>147 StormRaven: If Trump wants to fly on planes that have reached the end of their life, he is more than welcome to. The power of prayer will keep those planes in the air!

Is Trump angling to lease his own plane to US Government? (Gold-plated buckles on seat belts...) He's already leasing a floor in Trump Tower to Secret Service? ETA: Republicans' Christmas party to be at Trump hotel.

Let's see. . .Trump's plane was 20 years old when he bought it in 2011. Definitely he should fly around in his own plane (at his own expense, or his lickspittle minions') instead of any 30 year-old one nearing the end of its service life. Definitely.

>138 sturlington:

The most horrible thing about that? That they are, by and large, regretting he's not MORE awful.

>151 LolaWalser: Yeah, especially since some of the regrets are that he's not prosecuting Hillary for her "crimes."

Ah. Watergateski - it was only a matter of time...

>153 Tid: The question is, will anything be done? I am dubious.

Hacked Democrat emails released through wikileaks to sway the election. Hacked Republican emails not released. What's in those emails?

Russia Hacked Republican Committee but Kept Data, U.S. Concludes http://nyti.ms/2h5Xpoi

>155 sturlington:

Both releasing and not releasing have their advantages. They can throw the election to one side, and then hold it hostage by threatening to release stuff. Let's hope that's not the plan, but it's definitely possible.

The whole thing is fraught with ironies.

If Russia really had a comprehensive effort to crack the servers of American politicians, you'd have to be an idiot to think they didn't crack into Clinton's servers. Clinton's servers were no secret to start with, and especially to anyone who had hacked Podesta's emails--all you gotta do is read the email headers to see exactly where Clinton's emails are coming from. And, as mentioned many times, they were running on insecure, unpatched software. If a state actor had tried to hack in, they would have been able to. Period.

Why'd they hold it back? I'm not sure. Perhaps there wasn't anything really valuable to the effort. Perhaps they perceived a deniability gap between what they sent Wikileaks and what a dump of Clinton emails would have done.

I'm pretty confident that most major intelligence agencies are in most countries' sensitive systems. Everything is insecure that isn't tied down Orange Book-style. The question is, who was WikiLeaks' source. Is the attribution to Russia based on actual NSA DPI data, or is it hand-wavingly political? The NYT isn't saying. In the face of their bald say-so, I still tend to lean towards the latter hypothesis. My "blind trust" level is exceedingly low these days.

Again, I'll recommend this interview with the NSA whistleblower William Binney. http://www.librarything.com/topic/239425#5825816 (last link)

Juan Cole today:

No, America, It Wasn’t Russia: You Did This to Yourself
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/no_america_it_wasnt_russia_you_did_this_to_y...

"Deplorables," call Line 1. "Basement-dwellers," Line 2.

==============================
ETA:

Essential reading on the topic.

1. Greenwald, The Intercept
Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-ci...

2. Marcy Wheeler, Empty Wheel
Unpacking the New CIA Leak: Don’t Ignore the Aluminum Tube Footnote
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/09/unpacking-new-cia-leak-dont-ignore-aluminu...

3. Bernhard, Moon of Alabama
What Are The Hearsay Leaks About "Russian Election Hacking" Attempting To Achieve?
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/12/what-are-the-hearsay-leaks-about-russian-el...

---------

Meanwhile, Mark Ames (who else? :-) ) has been digging into the PropOrNot story.
The Anonymous Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying
http://www.alternet.org/media/anonymous-blacklist-promoted-washington-post-has-s...

....My own satirical newspaper was raided and closed down by the Kremlin in 2008, on charges of “extremism”—akin to terrorism—which I took seriously enough to leave for home for good. What the Washington Post did in boosting an anonymous blacklist of American journalists accused of criminal treason is one of the sleaziest, and most disturbing (in a very familiar Kremlin way) things I’ve seen in this country since I fled for home. The WaPo is essentially an arm of the American deep state; its owner, Jeff Bezos, is one of the three richest Americans, worth $67 billion, and his cash cow, Amazon, is a major contractor with the Central Intelligence Agency. In other words, this is as close to an official US government blacklist of journalists as we’ve seen—a dark ominous warning before they take the next steps.

It’s now been a few days, and the shock and disgust is turning to questions about how to fight back—and who we should be fighting against. Who were the Washington Post’s sources for their journalism blacklist?
....

I barely have time to read these today, let alone comment.

One more, from retired former UK Ambassador Craig Murray. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/#respond

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
....
I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the KGB.
....

>160 davidgn: An article that includes the line "As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling." and includes a complete lie. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-... is in fact accessible from the front page right now. Given that the one easily checkable claim he made was false, and was the type of scurrilous questionable statement that roils up the Internet. ("oh, look, a newspaper published an article and didn't give it prime precedence on the front page, they must be hiding something.") Not convincing at all.

Yes, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/fbi-russia-trump-election-harry-... is also on the front page, though in smaller print.

"if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they arrested somebody."

Because the CIA can't arrest anyone. It's not within their powers. And the end of the second article quotes Bruce Riedel, a 30-year veteran of the CIA, now director of the Brookings Intelligence Project:

“A foreign adversary has been caught trying to influence an American election. The intelligence community must have certainty that the evidence is concrete to support the conclusion. But revealing the evidence may not be in the national interest and undermine future capabilities to monitor Russia’s next attack on the nation.”

>161 prosfilaes:
“A foreign adversary has been caught trying to influence an American election. The intelligence community must have certainty that the evidence is concrete to support the conclusion. But revealing the evidence may not be in the national interest and undermine future capabilities to monitor Russia’s next attack on the nation.”

Stop and think. Re-read. The quote is transparently idiotic.

The CIA has been involved in criminal activity for decades---between its work on assassination and regime change, drug and gun running for profit, drug experimentation, mind control, torture--a litany of illegal black operations---taking anything from that govt. entity at face value IMO would be a mistake and thinking of it as some kind of benign force for good like most Americans seem to do is just fucking retarded. You'd probably be better off trusting in Satan.

>161 prosfilaes: Which of the four Guardian editions were you looking at? Murray was probably referring to the UK or perhaps the International edition. And note that that front page changes often, potentially in response to reader/interviewee complaints creating public pressure.
I've been reading Amb. Murray sporadically for years, and I've found him to be honest and courageous. You've never heard the name before, I'm willing to bet.

And no, the CIA can't arrest anyone. But other agencies can. And if you don't think they share intelligence...

Look up "parallel construction" sometime.

Be Happy Trump Supporters!

Donald Trump has made America so much greater with his Kremlin Kabinet. I anticipate his Sec'y. of State celebrating the fall of Aleppo with our new Russian friends (make that allies) with vodka shots and caviar within the ruins of re-ruined Palmyra.

>164 davidgn: Which of the four Guardian editions were you looking at? Murray was probably referring to the UK or perhaps the International edition. And note that that front page changes often, potentially in response to reader/interviewee complaints creating public pressure.

"Potentially." Is there evidence that they change the front page based on public pressure? My suspicion, in this day and age, is that there's a program that's fed with various numbers, most prominently the number of hits, the geographical areas of the hits, and the age of the article (and possibly a factor as to how much advertisers will pay for an article of that type, but note that's type; most advertisers don't get in more detail than that, and any reputable newspaper would reject it), and comes up with whether it should be on the front page and how heavily weighed it should be. Coming up with deep conclusions based on stuff like that is seeing patterns in noise, patterns that just aren't there.

The fact there's four editions and it apparently was left on the US edition doubles the argument that it had nothing to do with what you're complaining about.

I'm sorry, this is the most conspiratorial thing you've posted. You've got a respectable newspaper that wrote a piece that had "balance" in it (i.e. "the CIA said the Russians did it; when contacted the Russians and Assange denied it") and when the active front page of the newspaper is rearranged, like they do, you jump to the conclusion that it was that balance material that did it (that material in an article they neither retracted or changed) instead of the front page of the newspaper getting rearranged. It's jumping to conclusions based on something entirely normal, and gee what a surprise, your conclusion supports your preconceptions, instead of the conclusion, say, that it supported the CIA too much and the Russians made them take it down in favor of something that quoting a politician without direct access to intelligence.

I've found him to be honest and courageous.

So? I have no idea what evidence you might have that he is courageous, unless you believe that someone is going to take out a former British ambassador living in the UK/EU that has a few people's ears with opinions that the Government (British, US, EU) might not like. Personally, I'd think that any assassination that looks even remotely like murder has way more chance of blowing up in the conspirator's faces than just letting him talk, and It's Just Not Done. As for honest, I believe that he believes what he's saying; that's not the issue.

And no, the CIA can't arrest anyone. But other agencies can. And if you don't think they share intelligence...

First, the CIA has let stuff go for decades rather than reveal they had a mole or had cracked codes. As I quoted someone ex-CIA in >161 prosfilaes:, the CIA may not want to reveal their evidence, even to the FBI.

Of course the CIA shares intelligence with the FBI. When it suits them. When they're working on nice simple terrorism cases that makes both parties look good, that's fine, but there's a whole set of accusations that the FBI mishandled this election, and that the FBI is riddled with right-wing agents who were happy to target Clinton. If the CIA gives a heavily redacted set of documents to the FBI, the FBI has the right to ignore it, especially if they're feeling set up. From the stories I've heard, the CIA and FBI get up in each other's craw as much as they work together successfully.

> Paragraph 1: You're probably right that unless there is a great deal of unwanted immediate bad public relations provoked by a story that changes made within one daily cycle are the result of just such a program as you describe.

Paragraph 3: about the conspiratorial business...I have no opinion one way of the other about this case; but on the home front, just to give you an idea, the press has long been manipulated by the CIA to varying degrees. There have long been (meaning at least since the early 70s CIA assets including journalists who are considered 'fair and balanced' on the whole. There are plenty of books and articles that support this, so I consider it public knowledge and not requiring a listing of sources). So given that it would not be surprising if the same thing happened in England, even that the CIA has journalistic assets working in England. As with most conspiracies, the notion in general that there is one does not seem crazy in itself, but when someone tries to pin one down and makes a specific charge they can easily be dismissed as crazy, come off as crazy, and cannot, given the nature of things, prove anything. As an easy example: When someone says it is not convincing that Oswald acted alone they don't yet sound crazy at all. But when they begin becoming specific they usually end up sounding utterly insane.

Paragraph 4 is about Craig Murray. He wrote a book about his experiences, particularly exposing the horrors perpetrated in Uzbekistan and the way the governments who wanted to use that country as a base for assaults on Afghanistan tried to silence him--the US and England. His behavior believably arose from genuine disgust, horror, and common humanity, but was uncommonly dogged and courageous in ways that most of us do not have the opportunity act. I think you'd find his book fascinating and find him a breath of fresh air. 'As for honest, I believe that he believes what he's saying; that's not the issue.' I don't know what you are referring to here (perhaps I missed an article he wrote), but what he exposed in Uzbekistan, including that friendly (at the time) government's propensity to boil people alive can be proven in numerous ways, and if you want to see photos there are some available on google images.

CIA/FBI: You both are speculating, which is the best you can do when dealing with a current event. And certainly I see here very few instances of people arguing against what they believe....'your conclusion supports your preconceptions', you wrote in paragraph 3; that's usually the case, but if that often means a person approaches a question without an open mind, at times it indicates that a person has examined a great deal of information and come to various conclusions that are then preconceived guides to an argument.

(How was that response on the civility scale?)

Who else but a lying shitbag indebted to the gills to the global all and sundry could make America GREAT again.

A Guide to Donald Trump's Huge Debts—and the Conflicts They Present

...According to his own public disclosure, Trump, as of May, was on the hook for 16 loans worth at least $713 million. This list does not include an estimated $2 billion in debt amassed by real estate partnerships that include Trump.

The Internet Archive fears Trumphole censorship:

The Coolest Thing on the Internet Is Moving to Canada

>168 LolaWalser:

Fear not! America will be made great again when Trump's foreign "friends" who have bailed him out of financial difficulty before (Saudi Arabian princes and former Soviet Union flatterers) do so in rinse, repeat fashion.

Only this time there will be geopolitical quid pro quo. Oil at $60/bbl not high enough? No problem. We'll pay $70!

Everybody's happy! Sheiks, Putin, Exxon, US Sec'y. of State, Goldman-Sachs, oil companies, day traders, OPEC, and Trump supporters. Especially Trump supporters. Ha! Ha!

Most corrupt president ever...and he's not even president yet!

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/12/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-jeopardiz...

Hey, he doesn't just Grab Pussy like a chimp, he fellates like a champ! Sucking aged white cock is making America GREAT again:

Donald Trump: Forget 'Person' I Should Be 'MAN' Of The Year

That was one whole room of satisfied customers in Baton Rouge that night!

As for the heading of this entire thread--I kind of look at it ironically. Making America great again! When has it ever really been great? It's a theme that plays to every nostalgia driven old fogey out there who has no idea in their respective heads of how to age gracefully and so can't get out of their own way let alone someone else's.

The hundreds were some great centuries, Iriley, particularly mid 500s to 970 or so.

It's like a poster for Death Bingo. Place your bets...

>175 LolaWalser: A collection of these individuals is properly termed a clown alley.

Trump Grill (or Grille) as a metaphor for the Trump Presidency:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/trump-grill-review?mbid=social_facebook

The allure of Trump’s restaurant, like the candidate, is that it seems like a cheap version of rich. The inconsistent menus—literally, my menu was missing dishes that I found on my dining partners’—were chock-full of steakhouse classics doused with unnecessarily high-end ingredients.

Trump did not like the review. He tweeted about it.

Has anyone looked at the really poor numbers of @VanityFair Magazine. Way down, big trouble, dead! Graydon Carter, no talent, will be out!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2016

Vanity Fair's response to Trump's Tweet (click to see pic):

wow, touché @VanityFair. TOUCHÉ. pic.twitter.com/QVDn5tvBYw

— Tyler McCall (@eiffeltyler) December 15, 2016

And in case you think the review was "fake news," here is a Trump Grill martini (click to see pic).

The man next to me at Trump Grill ordered a vodka martini and this is how it came out. pic.twitter.com/9sx8jbY8uT

— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) December 15, 2016

That vodka martini: SAAAAD.

I used to subscribe to VF. James Wolcott was a fave. Then the internet somehow killed everything print...

*resubscribing*

Brits will understand this.

>177 southernbooklady: It's interesting that it's actually got worse; they claim reviews indicate that it was bland but edible before the presidential run.

It's sad, and almost a bit scary; if I wanted to run a steakhouse in my tower, I'd ... hire someone who knows how to run a steakhouse. Maybe go after someone running a a good steakhouse in a bad casino that I could lure away. The fact that Trump can't properly delegate this job to a competent subordinate is a sign of how lousy he is at business and how bad a president he'll be, even politics aside.

>181 prosfilaes:

Pish-tush! Hasn't the Don Con told us he hires "ONLY THE BEST PEOPLE"?

Like the bartender.

>182 Limelite: He doesn't say what they are best at.

>183 southernbooklady:

Does that mean we get to? ;^)

Making America GREAT: now with MOAR GENERALS!!!!!11!!!!

Democracy Now!: Trump Has Appointed More Generals in His Cabinet Than Any President Since World War II

What was that about "preventing World War III"?

Are we feeling safer yet?

It's unpresidented...

>186 theoria:

ROFL

>187 Tid: I was surprised to learn that Mr Trump reads at the 4th grade level (that of an American nine year old). http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/donald-trump-talks-like-a-third-g...

>188 theoria:

That should be funny .. but I finished reading it with a feeling of pessimism bordering on depression.

A prophetic piece from 11 months ago:

Trumpmenbashi
http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/trumpmenbashi/

>190 davidgn:

"Bread and circuses". Though in the case of Trump, without the bread.

More evidence of how great America is now:

Trump Inauguration Poster typo

To paraphrase someone's crack about Bannon, at least we know they are not Spelling Nazis. :)

Well, Michael Flynn has resigned amidst questions about his communications with Russian government officials. He had the shortest tenure of any National Security Advisor in history.

I'm not sure who it was but (is there a TV station MSNBC?) I saw a horrific series of clips from this rather young, narrow-faced White House spokesman who hit out at the "judiciary" for "daring to challenge the powers of the president", and lots more in a similar vein. The in-studio commentators and reporters and panellists were in a collective state of shock and dropped-jaw amazement as they discussed what they'd just heard. The main presenter recommended that the entire Administration gather in the Oval Office where they could see several portraits of Andrew Jackson - a president who at first challenged the Supreme Court over one constitutional issue, then enshrined an 'independent judiciary' by act of Congress. Even Trump's SC nominees are "disheartened" over his attack on them.

Stephen Miller being interviewed by George Stephanopolous? It WAS rather alarming:

Challenging a federal court's ruling, White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller told ABC News "the judiciary is not supreme" and the president's powers on immigration "represent the apex of executive authority." ...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-senior-adviser-judiciary-supreme/stor...

Sounds like yet another court (VA) just ruled otherwise:

Federal court rules against Trump’s immigration order because it discriminates against Muslims
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/13/federal-cour...

One can make fun of Stephen Miller but it's still terrifying:

Stephen Miller Will Go On Any Show. Seriously, Any Show.

Some background on Stephen Miller. The competition for worst human at the White House these days is intense.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-stephen-miller-latest-liar-bigot-t...

>196 margd: >197 LolaWalser: >198 sturlington:

That's the very creature.

>199 Tid: I think he bears a resemblance to this guy: http://cdn.hitfix.com/photos/6174807/Buffy-the-Vampire-Slayer-Hush.jpg

>200 sturlington:

Scary!

Trump is back on the campaign trail - for 2020.

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/15/trump-holding-2020-rally.html

A former Republican judge says it's time to impeach. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2017/02/14/republican-paint...

>204 LolaWalser:

😄

The upside of Trump already beginning his campaign for 2020 is that it means there can be no hearings on his SC nominees. I mean, that's why the Senate couldn't even hold hearings on Garland after all. That's good news.

Heh, I just posted about the "campaign for 2020!" too.

Talk about a roller coaster! Talk about magical thinking!

Only a fool believes that America today is a better country than it was in the past. How far in the past? I don't know. That's debatable. Depends on the subject, I guess. I can think of many subjects where yesterday was better than today.

I suppose if you believe in progress or evolution, that history is an impersonal force of nature which always leads to improvement, then you believe Wednesday is better than Tuesday which is better than Monday which is better than five years ago which is better than one hundred years ago...

>208 barney67:

Evolution as a theory does not enshrine 'constant improvement', but merely change and adaptation of species to their environment. After all, it is believed that a form of sabre-toothed tiger evolved then became extinct at least 4 times in prehistoric era.

As for history, if we allowed it to be our teacher and learned from it, we presumably wouldn't keep making the same old mistakes again and again.

My son and I have been watching a documentary about the struggle for civil rights in the 1960s. For many groups of people, this country is a significantly better place now than it was in the not too distant past.

Regarding history, we've seen nationalist movements arise before. They never lead to something good.

>209 Tid: You do know that the word evolution has a meaning outside of the scientific context, don't you?

>211 jjwilson61:

Indeed I do, and unless you are @barney67 's sock puppet, then I guess we'll have to wait for him to explain in which context he meant it.