Geoff > Status Update

Here is the number of the congressional switchboard. Might be a smidgeon more direct than bitching about Republicans on Goodreads. (202)224-3121

Carol. wrote: "I'm taking suggestions for a new home nation.
-Must not be made up of 46% racist dumb fucks (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politic......"

-Move to Mexico
-Get citizenship
-Just for chuckles, sneak back into the U.S. as an illegal immigrant.

David wrote: "Another thing to be mad about


http://fair.org/home/outlets-that-sco..."

This is such overwhelming idiocy, David, I can't find words equal to the disgust I feel.

And you know, I ought to have said this where it belongs over on your post about HRC and manspreading, but the fact that it seems impossible to interest the American electorate in/horrify the American electorate with the drone program is so unsettling as to call the essential decency inherent in all people that tub-thumping Democrats are forever...droning on about, into question. I ask you in the words of Jesus Crist: WTF?

The author of this piece, Adam H Johnson, has one of the best feeds on twitter in my opinion.

He's perpetually pissed off about the state of the world (sort of like me, except he doesn't even take breaks to reread Wallace Stevens).

Carol. wrote: "I'm taking suggestions for a new home nation.
-Must not be made up of 46% racist dumb fucks (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politic......"

-Move to Mexico
-Get citizenship
-Just for chuckles, sneak back into the U.S. as an illegal immigrant. "

And while you are at it, convert to Islam as well. it just takes two minutes.

A MEXICAN MUSLIM WOMAN is Trump's worst nightmare. It's like holding a cross to the vampire!!

ATJG wrote: "David wrote: "Another thing to be mad about


http://fair.org/home/outlets-that-sco..."

This is such overwhelming idiocy, David, I..."

The lack of horror regarding the extrajudicial killings (and the very limited and temporary horror over the mass surveillance programmes) is useful reminder that 'liberal' and 'progressive' don't mean the same thing. Just because somebody want to rebalance power and wealth away from some groups in society (rich people, white people, men, straight people, Christians, etc) and toward others (poor people, black people, women, non-straight people, non-Christians, etc), does not mean - indeed bears only a little correlation with - whether they want to restrict the power of government (or the mob).

Progressives have been doing well for a decade or two, and they've helped liberals achieve some of their aims too. But genuine liberals remain a relatively small minority, and in areas where their priorities don't coincide with those of progressives, they've seen - we've seen - no progress, and if anything regression, particularly in America (which has almost finished transitioning from having two liberal parties (one left and one right) to having one social democratic party and one conservative party).

Statements like "the President can now order total surveillance of, secret indefinite detention of, and/or execution of American citizens (and anyone else in the world he feels like) without any judicial process" ought to make genuine liberals truly horrified - as they would have horrified generations of American politicians from both parties. But now things like that garner no more than a sad 'tut tut' and a changing of the topic. And probably will do until those powers are turned against one of the key groups that one side or the other seeks to advance the interests of.

[and of course the same thing is true, if not more so, in the UK, where we may at least not yet officially sanction extrajudicial killings, but where many other rights and protective conventions are being eroded.]

Zadignose wrote: "-Move to Mexico
-Get citizenship
-Just for chuckles, sneak back into the U.S. as an illegal immigrant"

That is a hysterical plan!

Jibran wrote: "A MEXICAN MUSLIM WOMAN is Trump's worst nightmare."

I have no real basis for thinking this - but do wonder sometimes if Trump's nightmare is elicited from reaction to skin color, not anything else.

Put in different way, would he react adversely to a woman who is physically white, by nationality Mexican and by faith a Muslim?

Totally depends on her hotness
(ed. to add: "And willingness to have her body fondled").

In the year 4128, everything will be made of buttons.

Peter,

As President Trump's inaugural year ends, approval polls are about to be released far and wide by the Fake News Media comparing President Obama's first year to President Trump's.

That's why it's important that real, hardworking patriots like you take our Presidents' First-Year Approval Poll to cut through the media's noise and help us get REAL approval numbers out.

It's no secret that the media served as sycophantic cheerleaders for everything Obama did. Now they're going to blanket the airwaves with left-leaning, biased polls trashing President Trump's historic inaugural year while heaping endless praise on Obama's failures.

So please, help us get the truth out.

Let us know how you'd rate President Trump's first year in office.

Zadignose wrote: "In the year 4128, everything will be made of buttons."

Couldn't we put it back about another 370 years, to make it the 5000 year anniversary of Thales of Miletus's groundbreaking theory? I think it would give a nice feeling of closure.

Zadignose wrote: "So please, help us get the truth out.

Let us know how you'd rate President Trump's first year in office."

I think people underestimate Trump's achievements - they only point to the obvious things, like massive redistribution of wealth from poor Americans to rich ones, and generally increased tolerance for racist and fascist positions in political discourse. But it seems to me that there's a whole lot more. Would North Korea have ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads if Trump weren't spurring them on? And is it an accident that the #MeToo movement started this year? Just to name two examples.

Theory: Trump will mobilize the left.

Result: The resistance-->

Zadignose wrote: "Theory: Trump will mobilize the left.
"

Good point. Like, if Trump won't mobilize you then what will?

Apropos of those evangelical Christians...

Manny wrote: "Zadignose wrote: "Theory: Trump will mobilize the left.
"

Good point. Like, if Trump won't mobilize you then what will?"


One can only hope. There is strength in single-mindedness, it appears.

holy shit

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/...

trying to pull quotes from it, but there are just too many... and it's something like a a 10,000 word article.

I've been saying that since mid-2016. He didn't want the job, he just wanted the attention, and he thought he could spend the next four years yelling on Twitter and his own new cable "news" channel about how terrible President Hillary Clinton was and how he would've been a much better president, believe me.

It's some consolation to know that he hates this as much as the rest of us, but it still doesn't help.

No one's happy about any of this : (

schadenfreude is the only consolation anyone can possibly wring from the present

"Everybody in his rich-guy social circle knew about his wide-ranging ignorance."

Good heavens.

A favorite passage of mine

"When he got on the phone after dinner, he’d speculate on the flaws and weaknesses of each member of his staff. Bannon was disloyal (not to mention he always looks like shit). Priebus was weak (not to mention he was short — a midget). Kushner was a suck-up. Sean Spicer was stupid (and looks terrible too). Conway was a crybaby. Jared and Ivanka should never have come to Washington."

I have been away for a few years- this is satire of what would happen if some idiot manages to win the US presidency... Right? RIGHT?

Uh, yeah. World's worst reality tv show.

Trump's win cemented the fact America is still extremely sexist and racist... anyone who disagrees can ask themselves how a sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic hate monger got more than 50 million votes... awful... i would be willing to take one for the team and put an end to Trump once and for all... he is a cancer on humanity.

I'd say we're a failed society all around, as the UN reports.

The last election didn't really offer much of an option to vote our way out of this shithole. Still, the present fucking sucks and the future is even worse.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pa...

(full report)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2...

(helpful summary)

James wrote: "Trump's win cemented the fact America is still extremely sexist and racist... anyone who disagrees can ask themselves how a sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic hate monger got more than 50 milli..."
All you say is true, James, but the Hill was a bad, and corrupt candidate-- Bernie went for the same voters the Trumpster did, and I think he may have won. Clinton was the most unexciting candidate in decades, pushed by Family Rule--what machiavelli feared about democracies. Bushes, Clintons, Kennedies. Machiav opposed democracy, bec "it usually end in family rule." He was thinking of the Medici in Florence, 1500, but was he wrong about America? And teh Dems were too stupid to realize no-one wanted the past. and now Gillibrand has forced the ONLy brilliant Dem senator out, so I'm considering changing my lifetime affiliation to independent. What idiots.

Bernie would not have won, period. The RNC had a massive file of opposition research on him and were itching to use it. They would've amplified every left-leaning comment or action he's taken throughout his life until it looked like full-blown support for breadlines and communism, and if that didn't scare the voters off, the rape essay would've done him in and Trump would've won in a landslide.

Alan wrote: "James wrote: "Trump's win cemented the fact America is still extremely sexist and racist... anyone who disagrees can ask themselves how a sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic hate monger got more..."

Agreed. The Dems managed to lose to someone who was flagrantly trying not to win. That’s so damning to them as a party.

I think Matt Bruenig has the last word on whether Bernie would have won

http://mattbruenig.com/2017/09/19/the...

Yes, but only because Hillary was a historically bad candidate. Virtually any other candidate would also have won.

I can't help remembering a facebook post from a Republican acquaintance on facebook the day after the election which read " I would have voted for Biden".

Man - you guys should go check out the Breitbart comments sections now Trump has criticised Bannon. They are either twisting themselves in knots trying to find a way to fit this all into the MAGA worldview or ranting at one another....There is an interesting split now between the pro-Bannon "Trump is finished and Bannon knew it etc" and the Pro-Trump "Bannon just rode on Trump's coat-tails and is now bitter etc" and the comment sections are exploding in these amazing arguments and in-fighting.

Also, even if only 30-40% of that excerpt is accurate - holy crap.

That article by Wolff is indeed a tantalizing appetizer to his new book, but I don’t think there’s anything new to be learnt from it.

Sure, there are juicy details but no more new information than the collective tidbits about Trump et al that we’ve been hearing over the last 18 months. The dysfunction within the White House, the power dynamics within Trump’s inner circle and his family, that Trump really only wanted the publicity of running for president but not the actual job, that he was an “accidental” president and hated his new gig, Trump’s germaphobia and toxophobia, and various idiosyncrasies *, people close to him making fun about his hair and intellect, Ivanka’s ambition to be the first woman president... Have we not heard all that before?

Trump criticizing Bannon, and Bannon criticizing Trump isn't... that shocking of a news? Trump shoots his mouth off constantly particularly when he feels betrayed by those considered his inner circle. Bannon has never been shy talking smack about anyone. It was just a matter of time before their privately-aired views of each other become public, and they turn viciously on each other. That supporters of both camps find all of this revelatory once again reflects how insulated they are in their views. But that’s not new either.

In fact, it is not even surprising that that Wolff was granted so much intimate access that he was able to conduct over 200 interviews and publish them without so much as a legal recourse! Nobody from the Trump shop knew what the hell was going on or how to prevent breaches. Again, not new.

To be fair, if Wolff had the same kind of inner sanctum access to the Obamas, Bushes and Clintons, I am pretty sure we would hear of similar damning details about those families and their administrations too. Maybe not the same types of conversations, or the same ineptitude, or the same feuds, but people are humans first, and this is politics. Everyone has dirt of some kind.

Still, if this article, and the book, continues to spark outrage and remind people of how screwed up things are in the US, then more power to it. I’ll even buy the book in support.


[* I vividly remember this article long before Trump as president, where he gave the interviewer a tour of his apartment in Trump Tower. That he had shelves of canned tuna that he eats every night as part of his daily routine told me a lot about how bizarre he was. Ivanka as Madam President-aspirant? Her mother, Ivana Trump, alluded to it in her book earlier in the year.]

The most significant thing is Trump calling Bannon a lunatic. That undermines his own support on the right (and makes him look even more of an idiot*), but it also has a potentially big effect on the 2018 races. A lot of Republican candidate had been touting Bannon's support in their primaries, and have just been stabbed in the back. Trumpers will be less likely to vote for those candidates now, while anti-Trumpers will use the "see? even Trump thinks your guy is nuts!" as a sledgehammer against the hundreds of Bannon-affiliated candidates - removing the Trump imprimature makes it open season on the whackos. Trump may just have done a huge favour to Republican prospects in the Autumn.

*a nice point I saw: every time Trump comes out to explain that his previous High Panjandrum never had any real role and was just in the white house to boost their own ego and didn't do any actual work or have any access to the President... it kind of raises the question of how many people in WH actually are doing any meaningful job? I mean, when he said it about Flynn, people could nod, and say, yes, he seemed like an idiot. But when it's Flynn and Manafort and Bannon and Kushner and Priebus and Scaramucci and Spicer and Manigault and everybody else and apparently none of them were ever doing anything important, it kind of gives the impression that the whole place is just twiddling its thumbs...


The other interesting thing may be this idea of Trump intentionally breaking up marriages and seducing the wives of his own friends. Is it shocking? Not at all. But it's the kind of thing - to do with sex and honour and loyalty - that can make an impact on conservative supporters. It won't make many people abandon Trump - but it may make people go from fanatical fans to strong fans, strong fans to moderate fans, and moderate fans to uncertain supporters who might think about defecting.

David wrote: "Alan wrote: "James wrote: "Trump's win cemented the fact America is still extremely sexist and racist... anyone who disagrees can ask themselves how a sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic hate mo..."

It's worth remembering, when engaging in grass-is-greener-ism, that "history's worst candidate", Hillary Clinton, at this time four years ago had an approval rating of 62%. Most politicians would kill to be that popular - Obama had just cruised to victory and even he only had a 53% approval rating. Clinton was still at 58% in 2014. For comparison, Sanders is at 57% today, with less name recognition than Sanders. Almost exactly two years ago, Clinton was at 43%, with Sanders at 44% - and the Clinton number seemed more secure (more people had already, seemingly, made up their mind).
Clinton was the most left-wing Democratic candidate since... Mondale? Maybe even Adlai Stevenson. But she also seemed to have a proven ability to appeal to the centre ground, as seen in her sky-high approval ratings (people knew they woul fall... just not THAT much). She was married to the most popular former President in america, who was still considered a huge campaign asset, and she had the support of the outgoing President, who was unusually popular. The former regime was popular, and she had gained widespread acclaim for her role in it (a peak of 66% favourable in 2009, matching her popularity as First Lady a decade earlier). In a long life in the public eye, since becoming First Lady she'd almost never had under 50% favorability, and never for more than few weeks at a time. She had legitimate popularity both with black voters (whose votes would be needed in large numbers) and poor white voters (her husband was governor of Arkansas and the only Democrat since Carter to swing many of the southern states), but she was also a proven big fundraiser. And after decades in the public eye, it was clear she had no significant skeletons in her closet. She was not only officially the Most Admired Woman in the World (among Americans), but had thrashed all opposition in that contest for a decade, in a display of stunning popularity that no woman other than a few First Ladies had ever achieved.

If Democrats could have built a candidate from scratch in 2015, they'd have built Hillary Clinton, or someone very close to her.

And then... she didn't really do anything particularly wrong. Her unwise but commonplace e-mail decisions (private servers are still used by current cabinet members) were known about by 2013, with a later storm in 2015 - not only did nothing further significant come out after tha point, but it was also clear she'd never broken the law. Likewise, she'd already endured plenty of Benghazi nonsense and was seen as having thoroughly rebutted the accusations. Her campaign seems to have functioned pretty well, as campaigns go, making no major gaffes - her biggest mistake was perhaps, being the favourite, an overly defensive posture, and too much focus on Trump's unfitness for office, rather than her own policies, although the policies themselves were popular.

But two years of continual conspiracy theories from the right, the left and the media drove her down to the point where she only won the popular vote by a clear margin, and lost the election through a string of unlucky results in marginal areas.

Does anybody seriously think Sanders wouldn't have faced the same, or worse? An avowed socialist with a history of some pretty out-there interviews and articles and some serious ethics questions to answer? Let's put it this way: with years of smear campaigns against Clinton and nothing but boost-the-underdog media support for Sanders, Sanders still got thrashed by Clinton even in the portion of the electorate who might actually be predisposed to like his policies. Put the guy up in the deep end of the media pool, up against the full Republican machine, opposition research, and Trump's distortion campaigns, and ask him to win votes from people for whom 'socialist' is a swear word... that guy just plain does not win in that situation.


It's very easy to be a terrible candidate in hindsight, and even easier to be a brilliant one far from the frontlines.

20/20 hindsight - this piece was written in February 2016

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/w...

And this one from May 2016

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/0...

And what about Hilary Clinton strikes you as left-wing? her gushing over Henry Kissinger? her unquestioned support for the war on terror? her special lobbying to destroy Libya? accepting massive bribes from the financial industry?

Jeffry Sachs has a great summary of her foreign policy resume

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9168938

Wastrel wrote: "Her campaign seems to have functioned pretty well, as campaigns go, making no major gaffes - her biggest mistake was perhaps, being the favourite, an overly defensive posture, and too much focus on Trump's unfitness for office, rather than her own policies, although the policies themselves were popular."

Let's get real here, Clinton's campaign was severely flawed--they had no idea how to compete for Bernie's base, so when he lost the primary, there was seemingly no way to pick up a quorum of his support to boost the energy into the general--I do believe Bernie could have done more to help than he did, but he's a man of principle, so I understand why he didn't. She lacked a central message to her campaign, with no real agenda aside from vagaries and seemingly bare-bones skeletal promises--I still don't know really WHY she wanted to be president, or WHAT she wanted to accomplish. And she failed to invigorate the populations that Obama carried in many parts of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which is essentially where she lost the campaign by mere tens of thousands of votes. As for gaffes, her fainting spell did her no favors for the rumors and conspiracies of her diminishing health, and calling a swath of the voting public "deplorables" was as boneheaded as Mitt Romney's "47%" comments that sank his boat in 2012.

It was an abysmal campaign in a race that should have been a free throw, and a heavy burden of the blame is on Clinton's campaign's miscalculation to the lay of the land, expecting American political norms to reject Trump. Instead, she didn't step up to the new and strange challenges of a candidate like Trump or a shifted population that has felt left behind by globalized capital and neo-liberal policy, of which she deeply represents (if, perhaps, only because of association).

Also, a good piece from FAIR debunking the myth that Sanders wasn’t vetted or criticized during the primary (published May 2016)

https://fair.org/home/the-myth-that-s...

So, by the way, I'm declaring myself wrong for having partially excused Trump's earlier rocket attack in Syria. Don't let that be the precedent for America's next biggest blunder. U.S.A. out A.S.A.P.

Zadignose wrote: "So, by the way, I'm declaring myself wrong for having partially excused Trump's earlier rocket attack in Syria. Don't let that be the precedent for America's next biggest blunder. U.S.A. out A.S.A.P."

right on.

Zadignose wrote: "So, by the way, I'm declaring myself wrong for having partially excused Trump's earlier rocket attack in Syria. Don't let that be the precedent for America's next biggest blunder. U.S.A. out A.S.A.P."

It seems like this time it is Mr Putin who will decide whether or not America will send its missiles to Syria. And he has already decided :-D

Anyway, what's up guys? You good people have been so quiet I feel as though you have finally surrendered your beautiful country to your president!!

Will Trump fire missiles at Syria? Will Putin manage to shoot them down? I'm on the edge of my seat... this is more fun than watching a WWF match!

Some of us have been scaring ourselves to death by reading books on the swampman, like madeleine Albright's new book on fascism.

...have to point out that while promoting her book, Albright has also been calling for more bombing of Syria... with opposition like that we hardly even need Trump to bring about Armageddon...

Manny wrote; "Will Trump fire missiles at Syria?"

Strategically speaking that seems a poor choice. It would be much more preferable to use gas and blame the Russkies. Less property damage too.

Everything's so topsy-turvy I've been brought to the point of hoping Tomi Lahren and Tucker Carlson can talk some sense into the president before he's seduced by the mainstream media.

Zadignose wrote: "Everything's so topsy-turvy I've been brought to the point of hoping Tomi Lahren and Tucker Carlson can talk some sense into the president before he's seduced by the mainstream media."

It's so weird to me that Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter are now against more wars in the Middle East, much more so than a lot of mainstream Democrats. Anyway, bombing Syria is such a horrible idea you've got to take allies where you can find them.

Manny wrote: "Will Trump fire missiles at Syria? Will Putin manage to shoot them down? I'm on the edge of my seat... this is more fun than watching a WWF match!"

Yep, it's about as much fun. Which is to say, not at all, and with the overwhelming sense of irritation that attempts are being made to manipulate my perception.