Curb Your Authoritarianism? The 2016 Conventional Wisdom Thread (Elections, Part 6)

try try again

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-hires-sanders-top-student-organizer/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

romney says he might vote for gary johnson:
https://twitter.com/betsy_klein/status/741393223172657152

^things that are good to know, for about five seconds

I still can't figure out what Romney's after. Maybe personal pique explains it--he's been a favourite target of Trump the past year. I can't believe it's something approaching a conscience at work.

i think he sees himself as a good man and the idea of supporting a vulgarian like trump repulses him

and yes probably too much self respect to bend to someone who insulted him constantly - something a lot of republicans could learn from

another republican (susan collins) is going for hills?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/republican-senator-susan-collins-says-she-might-support-hillary-clinton

(xpost) I like that explanation. Even though he was an absolutely inept candidate, I think he probably would have been an okay manager/CEO-type president.

trump is beyond the pale for most mormons from what I can tell

"I love the Mormons! Where is he?...Over there, my Mormon--what a guy!"

https://twitter.com/markhammer1987/status/741447775766884352:

"The genius of the Trump Clinton Twitter war of 2016 is that it consumes Trump's every waking minute & Clinton doesn't know it's happening."

^ otm

romney is a craven capitalist but he doesn't have a heart of evil and he's also not a fucking idiot. i'm not surprised at all that he's not capitulation to trump. look how fucking spineless and awful mcconnell, ryan and rubio all look now.

he's not running for anything. only thing he's mad about is the "vulgarity".

Well, at least it's that. Some of the most prominent #NeverTrump'ers seem almost mostly annoyed that he's too soft on abortion, won't bomb enough countries, etc.

So strange to me that after so much "textbook racism" from Trump, the judge thing is the one that gets so many GOP jerks upset. I guess they've just been so busy working to make America better that they weren't paying attention to Trump for the last several years? Or maybe their aging constituents only complain via postal mail, and it took this long for the letters to get there, get sorted, get read, etc.

Its the first racist thing he said post-nomination, thats why. Now the GOP leadership owns him, their fates bound w his.

Has nothing to do w actual nature of comments

And Romney can bitch/hold out because, as noted, he's not holding office or running for election.

The hits just keep on coming.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html

i'll see your trump scandal and raise you hillary's latest ~

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/10/how_clinton_donor_rajiv_fernando_got_a_job_as_a_nuclear_expert_he_wasn_t.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

Yeah we covered that "scandal"

It's weird that Trump's "Pocahontas" thing isn't a bigger deal. It's the kind of straightforward, stereotypical racism everyone is supposed to be able to recognize by now. He's explicitly using a racist slur.

Conspiracy theory: major media outlets (nyt, wapo, usa today etc) held back their most damaging trump stories until after he had won the nomination in order to maximize their damage to the republican party as a whole

as a native I can tell you 75% of america doesn't give a fuck about slurs against natives

Where does Trump stand on Washington's football team name?

idk if we discussed the recent poll that showed that most native americans did not care about the washington football team's name but the 538 guys seemed to think the poll was pretty well done and reliable. idk if that means anything - you can obv still think it's racist as heck and refuse to use the name.

That Fernando thing seems like most Hillary scandals -- sorta sleazy, raises questions, no obvious crime committed, no obvious harm done.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948#ixzz4BD9qQkXN

People of color, like their white Democratic counterparts, may also want a revolution and more rapid progress than the halting kind that comes with pragmatism, but they’ve time and again seen incremental change improve their lives. That’s why they embrace Martin Luther King Jr. without question while revering Malcolm X from a distance. That’s why they are much more enthusiastic about the Affordable Care Act—which has helped minority Americans the most— than white progressives who have either been lukewarm or, in some cases, even hostile to health reform because they don’t believe it was radical enough.

Minority voters are more likely than white Democratic voters to giddily give Obama credit for an economic recovery that has shaved the unemployment rate in half, produced the lowest level of jobless claims since the ‘70s, and an unprecedented monthly job creation streak that has lasted more than six years, all coming on the heels of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. And he got Osama bin Laden, saved the domestic auto industry, ushered through the largest economic stimulus in history—one derisively dismissed as too small by many liberals—and the first significant Wall Street reform in a generation, while advancing gay rights like no president before him despite the initial reluctance by his numerous religious black voters to embrace same sex marriage.

Why? Because many white Democratic voters missed the sentiment shared among black Obama voters in 2008 that, once again, the “first black” was being handed a seemingly impossible task—two ground wars, a collapsing economy, a record deficit—and if he wasn’t able to perform a miracle, it would not only be his failure, but that of black people in general. To downplay what he has been able to achieve despite the obstacles, which also included an unprecedented level of obstruction from the GOP, confirms a fear shared by many people of color—Democratic or otherwise—that no matter what they achieve, it will never be enough. Sanders and Susan Sarandon may sincerely believe things are so awful only a revolution can heal the country’s ills. But their overwrought rhetoric, and no more than lukewarm support of Obama’s accomplishments, taps into that deeply-held frustration among minorities.

I think some of us were saying the same thing six years ago, and you didn't seem to want to hear it.

are you talking to me?

I want to quote Taxi Driver here, but yes. It's also more of a general comment. If I say it, especially in 2010, 2011, I'm a starry-eyed Obama acolyte. If Charles Pierce or Ta-Nehisi Coates or some other ILX-approved columnist says it, let's link to it.

I've written many times here and elsewhere that Obama, caveats noted many times, has been the most successful lib president of my lifetime, and my family and I have benefited from his presidency.

I may have benefitted indirectly, not personally, but I agree. Is it fair to say you weren't quite so high on him around 2009/10 (at least as reflected in your posts here)?

Nope. I didn't vote for him in 2008 (I voted in local races though) and adopted a wait-and-see attitude. The nadir for me was summer '11 during the Grand Bargain Era. But enough had happened for me to vote for him in 2012 -- and Florida was very much a swing state.

Okay. It'd be an undertaking to check, but my recollection is that you were very quick to jump on me when I posted positively about Obama roundabout 2010. (And I'm not sure your previous post is incompatible with that if you're talking about a nadir in 2011 and not voting for him until 2012.)

Oh, I did jump on you -- I clearly remember it. At the time I didn't understand anyone's instinct to defend him.

take it to the pauline kael thread or something, you guys are putting me to sleep

Not that I want start relitigating such stuff in 2016, but I think the instinct was for some of the exact seem reasons spelled out in what you quoted at length just above, beginning with the seemingly impossible task he'd been handed. I think that was as clear as could be by 2010.

"same reasons"

take it to the pauline kael thread or something, you guys are putting me to sleep

― riverine (map),

curb your authoritarianism

Damn hillary campaign interns back at it again
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/741409978376957952

Hillary interns for President!

why did I read the replies

"idk if we discussed the recent poll that showed that most native americans did not care about the washington football team's name but the 538 guys seemed to think the poll was pretty well done and reliable. idk if that means anything - you can obv still think it's racist as heck and refuse to use the name."

where was that analysis on that poll? it didn't jibe with any natives' feelings that I know; like, not a single one.

I read that the sample skewed older, while young people are the largest demographic among Indians, and that Indians are a challenging group to poll accurately. Anyhow, even if eg "only" 33% of Indians are bothered by racist team names and 66% don't care, that doesn't make it a non-issue.

when a poll gives entirely unexpected results that cannot be explained by any known factors (just how often does racism 'not bother' the group being denigrated?) I think you have to question its methodology in depth.

xxp it was on their podcast a few weeks ago I don't remember which one

That’s why they are much more enthusiastic about the Affordable Care Act—which has helped minority Americans the most— than white progressives who have either been lukewarm or, in some cases, even hostile to health reform because they don’t believe it was radical enough.

The first time Obama was on Daily Show as president, Stewart said, to his face, that his actions were "timid."

At the time, I remember sitting there like What The Actual Fuck, Jon. There's a whole cottage industry devoted to demonizing this man's every initiative, questioning his parentage, and linking him to terrorism. Nigh on half the government declares openly that they hope he fails, and that their main goal is to make everything he proposes dead on arrival.

Meanwhile the problem for a significant number of (mostly white) liberals is that he hasn't already gotten single-payer health care in place, closed Guantanamo, and replaced the Pledge of Allegiance with the Internationale?

failing to close guantanamo is pretty bad tbh

Agreed! But Obama's alleged "timidity," apparently considered without the context of the forces arrayed against him, is a specific type of blindness.

yes, blind to the fact that he didnt wanna do what Stewart wanted him to, cuz he's not a liberal

I think - and it already feels like a million years ago - that there was frustration at how he appeared to make concessions and compromises to the ACA before the negotiations even began, thus weakening his position and making it seem like he got less than he could have by giving away to much at the start.

puffin otm

Yup

really doublin' down on Never Criticize a Democrat Ever huh

State Dept insisted on adding a stock trader (and top Clinton Foundation donor) to an intel advisory panel -- an old story revived by more emails "relayed to ABC News via the conservative political group Citizens United."

““Raj was not on the list sent to [the Secretary of State]; he was added at their insistence” reads one 2011 email from Wade Boese, Chief of Staff for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, to a press aide.

Fernando’s appointment even confused some staffers, the emails reveal. One press aide wrote internally, “it appears there is much more to this story that we’re unaware of,” and “it’s natural to ask how he got onto the board when compared to the rest of the esteemed list of members.”"

http://time.com/4364109/state-dept-emails-clinton-rajiv-fernando/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

Nice how suddenly John Stewart is a liberal when you need him as a cudgel to beat Democrats. Why don't you stick to movies and baseball and other things you actually understand, or at least pretend to?

Its true i have never criticized a democrat. Good catch!

Xp

Also love TRUE PROGRESSIVES willing to be stalking horses and useful idiots for the right wing. Well done! I admire your purity!

Nice how suddenly John Stewart is a liberal

OK... (adds Phil D to brainless list)

Clintonistas here really do have a lil bit of Stalinist in them, i find

lil bit

Love to hear Warren ripping into Trump on my Facebook feed, but I worry that she's not being heard outside the liberal echo chamber. I'm coming around to the idea that she'd make a great VP pick. It would be nice to have her on the national stage.

Her Trump speech the other day got a ton of play on CNN, which is pretty middle of the road.

Glad to hear it. I don't watch cable or TV news. My news diet consists mainly of the NY Times so I'm not sure what is getting covered in the mainstream.

is there even a mainstream anymore? I understand people are still watching the network evening news. What's that like?

It seems to me that Dr Jill Stein has gotten little attention here, so i'll just leave this

“Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and, you know, ignoring the climate,” Stein said in an interview with Democracy Now, according to a transcript. “Well, Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things."

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/9/green_partys_jill_stein_what_we

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283037-green-party-candidate-draws-parallels-between-clinton

Lol who is criticizing trump for massive militarism

always good to remind myself that jill stein is not an option bc she's an extraordinarily confused person who makes bad arguments and seems to have gaping holes in her understanding of the world, and not just bc in a first past the post system only one of 2 candidates are going to win and she's not one of them.

the democrats are as bad as the republicans. except they're worse bc bill clinton and nafta bred extremism which is what makes people vote republican who are actually worse. therefore we shouldn't be afraid to vote third party bc fear of republicans just leads to voting for democrats which naturally just leads to voting for republicans so let's just skip right ahead to the electing republicans part. also we should switch over to ranked voting and it will apparently only require the signing of a pen. whose pen can independently change our electoral system idk but maybe this is inside information she doesn't want to share until after she's elected. oh, and bernie should join the green party but she thinks his many many years of being a loyal democrat (???) might not let him.

When Jill Stein compares Trump and Clinton on deportations, it's probably worth quoting that politico piece from upthread:

Minority voters have been watching in horror as millions of Republican voters choose Trump either because of, or despite, his open bigotry. The Sanders supporters who toy with the idea of shunning Clinton in November and allowing Trump to become president to force a revolution that Sanders couldn’t deliver are playing with fire. To minority voters, Trump’s candidacy feels like an existential threat. It’s one thing for Republicans to either ignore or embrace his racism; the party already seems unwilling or incapable of making the kinds of adjustments it must to attract more non-white voters. It’s quite another for white Democrats to not appreciate how liberal minorities feel about the possibility of a Trump presidency and what that would say about the state of racial progress in America. It would be a slap in the face, the latest sign that a kind of white privilege—throwing a temper tantrum because they don’t get their way despite how much it hurts people of color—is deeply rooted within liberal, Democratic ranks as well.

Yeah I mean immigrant advocates have been plenty unhappy and outspoken about Obama's deportations, but they're not going to say there's no difference between him and Trump (or the GOP in general).

Dont worry morbz is here to do it for them

excellent! where did i do that? just show me, genius.

I voted for Stein last time and don't see the point of doing it again even though she endorsed BDS last week. Lupe Fiasco all the way.

Dude u just linked to a jill stein post directly equating hillary's immigration policies w trump's like 5 posts up

LINKED you sodding fool

Oh so were trying to draw "attention" to her cuz u disagree? Clear as mud.

re Politico (Tiger Beat on the Potomac, as Chas Pierce calls it) quote: again, Trump "forces a revolution" with the "magic wand" that libs denied Sanders.

and for Phil D and others of his "shushhhhhh the truth on HRC" stripe:

@ggreenwald Apr 29

Is it really necessary to spend next 6 months pointing out that "criticism of Clinton" ≠ "support for Trump"? Just get a different tactic.

you guys should align with the Canadian Fanboy's centrist embrace of Mitt "Free Stuff" Romney above. Maybe send some money to Debbie W-S to look after your interests.

Yes. One person after another as of late calls you out for the creep you are. You should definitely redirect your attention to me.

gooble gobble

kansas is going blue??

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/06/11/just-in-new-zogby-poll-shows-trump-is-about-to-turn-this-very-red-state-to-dark-blue-stats/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

That didn't last long.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/us/politics/meg-whitman-likens-donald-trump-to-fascists-at-republican-retreat.html

Morbs, the 'newly-politicized college freshman shouting powerful truths at the squares whose views are actually more nuanced than said freshman wants to believe' shtick is growing a little tiresome.

xxp and utah maybe? http://www.sltrib.com/news/3993058-155/poll-trumps-unpopularity-could-swing-utahns

OL, militarized corpo-Dems don't care how nuanced you are as long as you vote for them. You might as well be 80 million Lena Dunhams.

"The first time Obama was on Daily Show as president, Stewart said, to his face, that his actions were "timid.""

This is why I never watched that dude. Really, who the fuck are you to even talk, you lazy upper-middle-class soccer-major Jersey "comedian" who gets paid millions to stroke the superficiality of the politically vaguely-aware?

Nice how suddenly John Stewart is a liberal when you need him as a cudgel to beat Democrats. Why don't you stick to movies and baseball and other things you actually understand, or at least pretend to?

― a 47-year-old chainsaw artist from South Carolina (Phil D.), Saturday, June 11, 2016 8:49 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

actualol

he's not a war criminal, at least. but i understand why that more respectable than being Jon Stewart.

howd ya dig Larry Wilmore's "you like raining bombs from long distances" line, gabby?

Always fun to revisit this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCfMgqnq2uo

and for Phil D and others of his "shushhhhhh the truth on HRC" stripe:

@ggreenwald Apr 29

Is it really necessary to spend next 6 months pointing out that "criticism of Clinton" ≠ "support for Trump"? Just get a different tactic.

You're so fucking dumb I don't know how you don't choke on your own toothbrush. If you find yourself passing on oppo research from Citzens United, you may want to take a deep breath and consider whose work you're actually doing.

Don't worry, the real Stalinists will reveal themselves as soon as Sanders endorses Clinton, which he will.

think yr arg miiiight be with ABC News

or the Clintonmonster

so are we every going to get the chance for morbz-free discussion or is this pretty much it through november

If us ilx arent able to ignore dr strawbius then us ilx is looking for a dr strawbius to pay attn to imo

howd ya dig Larry Wilmore's "you like raining bombs from long distances" line, gabby?

― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Sunday, June 12, 2016 10:31 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"howd ya dig" his calling the President a "nigga"? the other "joke" was slightly more professional than but almost as deeply unserious as anything you've ever posted, including the implicit suggestion that wilmore, fellow fetus-botherer and resident of richer-than-beverly hills-san marino (he "commutes" to manhattan), is any less of a privileged nonentity than the better-educated stewart.

how'd you like that mass shooting this morning?

On a relevant note, my Veep shortlist down to two names, I think: Biden and Franken. Always a bridesmaid, that Tim Kaine.

looking forward to a locked thread of horrifying gabbneb/morbs exchanges

I hadn't thought about Franken, but the idea is intriguing.

Only intriguing, though. Not gonna happen.

Uh, if asking Morbs "how'd you like that mass shooting this morning?" is supposed to be some kind of gay-baiting it's in spectacularly bad taste. Actually it's in spectacularly bad taste no matter what.

Don't be that dumb

not very surprised with the utah and kansas polls. this election is going to be a bloodbath on par with Mondale/Reagan.

KS poll is mostly meaningless

I'll believe it when it happens, re: Utah.

"howd ya dig" his calling the President a "nigga"? the other "joke" was slightly more professional than but almost as deeply unserious as anything you've ever posted, including the implicit suggestion that wilmore, fellow fetus-botherer and resident of richer-than-beverly hills-san marino (he "commutes" to manhattan), is any less of a privileged nonentity than the better-educated stewart.

how'd you like that mass shooting this morning?

Wow, this is a supremely terrible post, what the fuck is wrong with you?

try thinking a little

Try never posting

through the power of precisely applied thinking that post will be suddenly not terrible

Please never post again benbbag

Thanks

through the power of precisely applied thinking that post will come within the range of my powers of comprehension

― who is extremely unqualified to review this pop album (BradNelson), Sunday, June 12, 2016 1:20 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ftfy

FPfy, fyi

delete your account xp

Trump 18 minutes ago on FB:

While I greatly appreciate everybody congratulating me for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congratulations, I want toughness and vigilance. We must finally be smart!

I would like to barf into his mouth

If anybody needs it: http://userscripts-mirror.org/scripts/show/7717

And no, Morbz, my "arrg" is not with ABC or other media outlets because despite the popular conception, the media has always disliked the Clintons and will breathlessly and uncritically report every ginned-up "controversy " that comes down the pike. That doesn't mean so-called "leftists" need to help them do it

If anybody needs it: http://userscripts-mirror.org/scripts/show/7717

― mick signals

thanks but i have gotten old and stupid and do not know how to internet anymore. :( i realize this is entirely my problem and i appreciate your trying to help anyway.

oh dear

now how will we learn what was said on the sunday morning shows, and which comedians and politicians went to higher-ranked colleges

the lingering nightmare fart has finally dissipated

this was weird:
http://i.imgur.com/1P5bUZM.png

hardly the worst thing trump did on twitter today

in the light of hillary's "foreign policy" speech/roast so effectively making trump look febrile and out of his depth, i don't think october surprises like this have the tradiitonal effect on moderate voters (perhaps even the opposite)

Wait: why is Lena Dunham a go to for morbz? What does that mean?

because more like lena dumb-ham http://time.com/4306966/lena-dunham-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/

this thread has reminded me why i've steered clear of ILX recently.

X-post yeah, I knew of that article, it just struck me as an odd 'go to'. (Actually, when I hear people invoke Dunham it's usually right wing anti-feminists)

You don't say!

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/13/3787615/trump-suggests-obama-purposely-allowing-muslims-commit-terrorist-acts-united-states/

Trump said there were two possible reasons the gun massacre took place in Orlando. The first possibility was that Obama is “not tough” and “not smart” and therefore incapable of stopping terrorist attacks.

The other scenario, according to Trump, is that Obama is fully capable of stopping terrorist attacks but “has something else in mind.” In other words, Obama is purposefully allowing terrorists to kill people in the United States to pursue a hidden agenda.

Trump emphasized this second theory. “The something else in mind, people can’t believe it,” Trump said, “There is something going on. It’s inconceivable.”

I feel like he has a special brand of innuendo that deserves to be termed a Trumpism.

I've heard from people some unbelievable things about Trump's lack of sphincter control. Which is fine, which is good, he's very proud of his sphincter. I don't know if it's true, this story about his near-constant anal leakage, I'm just saying. I'm building a wall. Sad! Smaller, the best, number 1!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-orlando-attacks-reaction/index.html

Hillary Clinton said Monday she's not afraid to say "radical" Islam as she countered attacks from Donald Trump that she's too politically correct to use the phrase.

he really is the perfect, functioning endpoint homunculus of the right-wing pander machine.

fuck hillary for even playing that game. j/k love you hillary. except don't play that game. love you. don't play.

Seriously. This is a game of chicken where you don't even get into the car. That bugfuck moron will happily accelerate off a cliff without your participation.

fucking Trump playing the secret muslim Obama shit smh

it's just fucking crazy and depressing

Well, tbf, he's saying that Obabma is in collusion with terrorists and also saying that Obama can't curb terrorism because he's weak and incompetent. Because it's both night and day, and now you can mindlessly nod in ascent because your mind is as gone as mine.

Seriously, though, Hillary: anytime Trump says you're too afraid to do or say something, you just mention offhandedly that you heard his weave is made of 100% pubic hair, something like that, and then you just let him hang himself with his own garbage mouth.

Has any Repub pres nom ever gone this hardcore batshit racist troll for reals?

i dunno but reagan announcing his presidential campaign at neshoba county fair was pretty obnoxious

i don't really have a problem with hillary, or any democrat, saying "radical islam" -- i always thought the taboo against saying it was silly. but to say that now, after what happened this weekend, and in response to being baited by trump...ugh

Has any Repub pres nom ever gone this hardcore batshit racist troll for reals?

― Oh baby, if only you knew / Gabnebb hit a hundred-and-two (stevie)

Goldwater didn't vote for the Civil Rights Act, and then there's the matter of Nixon + Strom Thurmond

Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan were hardcore bad and awful, but their racist dog whistles were artisanally hand-crafted compared to Trump, who is easily the most batshit racist-trolling nominee since Benjamin Harrison.

Benjamin Harrison supported the Lodge Force Bill!

he was the best prez on race b/w Grant and FDR, and that's not much

Seriously, though, Hillary: anytime Trump says you're too afraid to do or say something, you just mention offhandedly that you heard his weave is made of 100% pubic hair, something like that, and then you just let him hang himself with his own garbage mouth.

― Manspread Mann (Old Lunch), Monday, 13 June 2016 16:00 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is not what the word 'seriously' means

is this the first time a presidential candidate has ever accused a sitting president of treason? just wondering

That's the thing though, Trump doesn't outright accuse Obama of treason, he just uses the vaguest possible dog whistles. And he phrases it in this confusing "people are saying" "I don't know" sort of language so he can convince the audience he believes it but have plausible deniability.

xp he'd say you have "misconstrued" his words, bcz he only implied that Obama was committing treason without having the courage to state his accusation clearly.

Obama is up to so much secret stuff Trump knows about, I can only imagine the secret stuff he's up to that Trump doesn't know about. That's reason alone to vote for Trump. The man keeps no secrets, at least none besides the specifics of literally every single policy or plan he has promoted. But at least we know he's not a secret Muslim (or is he?) or fascist (it's no secret).

Trump has no secrets to keep because he has no filter between his lizard brain and his wordhole. We hear every rudimentary half thought he has ping ponging around in his head. He's maybe a little more discreet about who's a great piece of ass or a total dog than he used to be, but that's about it.

Trump has no secrets to keep

That so?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c2/f4/51/c2f451c546bef3a7c8b1470d09dd53d4.jpg

Donald Trump is claiming that the gunman in the Orlando mass shooting was an Afghanistan native — even though the suspect was born in New York City.
Trump made the claim in his speech in Manchester, New Hampshire Monday. He said the gunman, who has been identified as Omar Mateen, was "born an Afghan." The shooter was born in Queens to parents who emigrated from Afghanistan.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/The-Latest-Clinton-says-she-can-address-8097421.php

should just start calling Donald a Klansman, after all his dad was a member

as long as we're playing this "sins of the father" game

maybe he meant that the shooter was born a throw blanket, xp

He is an Afghan the way the judge is a Mexican. That is to say, Donald Trump is a racist.

i'm not sure i'm capable of being surprised by the human shitstain that trump is anymore. he could publicly declare that hillary molests little boys and it'd just be the same old, same old.

he's a horrible cartoon caricature come to life, and i say that without intending the slightest bit of hyperbole.

he's ratcheted things up so far already that i'm not sure what he has left except to announce that hillary clinton "maybe, i dunno, i've heard rumors" fucks little boys.

waiting for republicans to drop their support of him any minute. mccain? ryan? anyone? yeah, they can all go to hell.

none of them are going to drop him, they need his supporters' votes

god, i hope he will be the albatross that drags the entire party down, but i guess there are enough shit for brains in this country to keep that from happening.

even if it brings the party down, there's still the problem of all the non-pols who believe/celebrate this garbage

Trump will not bring the party down

he will damage (hopefully cripple) their effectiveness at the federal level for a few years.

it’s the middle of june, and trump has already:

- accused a sitting president of treason and collusion in the mass murder of american citizens*
- said that his opponent should be in jail, and insinuated that she is responsible for someone’s murder

of course, this makes plenty of sense when you remember that he rose to political prominence (as opposed to simply prominence as a walking caricuature of a rich bully) by questioning whether the sititng president was actually an american at all

can we sink any lower? we still have five months.

*NB obama is unquestionably, actually responsible for the deaths of american citizens via drone strikes, but trump isn’t taking that approach

we can always go lower, have some faith

how does clinton even debate a guy like this, who is liable to respond to a question about social security with a claim that her makeup is made up of the ground viscera of christian babies?

i can't believe someone this transparently odious will get upwards of 40% of the popular vote. by rights this should be a world-historical trainwreck, a blowout of never-before-seen proportions.

sorry folks, i'm just trying to get my head around the new reality we live in, and it's hard.

i can't believe someone this transparently odious will get upwards of 40% of the popular vote

Plenty of people saying the same thing about Clinton, of course.

"Almost half the country hates the president" has been normal for a while, and shows no sign of changing.

@realDonaldTrump
Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post.

lmao jesus christ

sorry folks, i'm just trying to get my head around the new reality we live in, and it's hard.

― wizzz! (amateurish), Monday, June 13, 2016 4:27 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

We've been living in it since 9/11. Trump is the logical endpoint of 15 years of warmongering, xenophobia, racism, and intense state-induced paranoia. There's nothing Trump could do now that would shock me, short of barfing on stage or following thru on shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. When he said last summer that McCain wasn't a war hero "because he was captured" and his poll numbers went up, I knew he would be the nominee. The one positive aspect of his campaign thru May was that he singlehandedly decimated the GOP. Thankfully I think we're safe with HRC running against him. If Trump were to be elected, that would be a whole new terrifying reality... for now, at least thru my eyes, this the same horrible twisted Philip K. Dickian world we've been living in since 9/11.

i dunno, there's a different b/t the lunatic fringe being the lunatic fringe, and it suddenly (?) occupying center stage.

I think all the stuff Trump throws out in explicit terms have been communicated in dog whistles and lies since GWB said "they attacked us because they hate our freedom." The far right gladly voted for GWB and McCain, maybe Romney less so, but they were throwing them scraps and bones. Trump gives em the red meat. He's trafficking in the same rhetoric that's been used by both parties for decades. Instead of referring to welfare as "people wanting free stuff" like Jeb! did earlier this year, Trump wants to build a wall and deport all Muslims. It's the same shit, it's just way way way more potent.

*has been

@jeneps
Trump's banned news orgs include: Wash Post, Politico, BuzzFeed, Huff Post, Daily Beast, DM Register, Union Leader, Univision, Fusion & more

gawker's time to shine imo

He's trafficking in the same rhetoric that's been used by both parties for decades.

hmmm no

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/9/9/1284054802082/Hitler-Youth-burn-anti-Ge-006.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=6c63b3e9ff1e6b3985cdc02d69dc7646

GWB said "they attacked us because they hate our freedom."

also this is a weird GWB line to single out given all his other egregious malapropisms and distortions, as this was one of the rare instances when he was (kinda/sorta) right? Al Qaeda/ISIS/whoever *do* hate Western liberal democratic values.

xp

yeah it's not the same shit, sorry. did the GOP pave the way for trump? absolutely. is trump just a small matter of degree worse than mccain or romney? absolutely not.

i'm getting really tired of hearing this bleating racist with the cognitive abilities of a six-year-old on the news, can someone just slit his fucking throat already?

can we talk for a second about the unique characteristics necessary to be a Trump VP pick? You have to have someone who is a) a total sycophant, willing in any and every instance to defer to His Orangeness, b) stupid enough not to see it as career suicide, and c) craven/greedy enough to think that being Trump's VP may pay off at some point in the form of either notoriety or further employment from ye Donald. And then on Trump's end he will want someone who won't disagree with him or show him up, but will also maybe lend him some credibility with larger GOP voter base.

I mean, who fits this criteria? Christie does kinda I guess, although I never really thought he was quite that stupid.

where are Scott Walker and Tim Pawlenty

i think scott walker is just a shade smarter than that, unfortunately. only a shade, though.

that GWB line was a gross oversimplification of the manifold reasons that Al Qaeda/ISIS/Taliban hates us. They believe, rightfully so, that we're waging a war on Islam. I'm not suggesting that Trump is a small matter of degree worse than GWB or McCain - he's obviously another breed entirely. But his appeal is the potency of his rhetoric. The demand was always there for this kind of shit, but no politician has ever fed that crowd like Trump.

They believe, rightfully so, that we're waging a war on Islam.

you say some odd things

xp Christie already groveling for VP, clearly: http://www.mediaite.com/print/donald-trump-reportedly-has-chris-christie-picking-up-his-mcdonalds-for-him/

They believe, rightfully so, that we're waging a war on Islam.

you say some odd things

― Οὖτις, Monday, June 13, 2016 5:06 PM (40 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi citizen. Everyone thinks they're the good guy. We're not waging a war on Islam any more than "they hate us because we are free."

so we *aren't* waging a war on Islam? you make no sense

Of course not. We've been caught in a self-perpetuating cycle of revenge ever since we invaded Afghanistan. They believe we are waging a war on them because of their way of life and vice versa. Not that hard to understand.

We've been caught in a self-perpetuating cycle of revenge ever since we invaded Afghanistan.

so wait why did they attack us on 9/11 before we even invaded anything? (note: this is a rhetorical question, I know the answer).

You seem to want to lay the blame on all this on rhetoric that oversimplifies historical, economic, religious, etc. factors. But, I hate to break it to you, that tactic has been part of political rhetoric since the dawn of time. It is not unique to the US post-9/11.

You're right. I was born in the early 90s, so I never lived thru the same rhetoric that accompanied the Cold War, Vietnam, etc. The world I know is explicitly pre and post-9/11. I also know that the motives behind 9/11 were much more complicated than "hating our freedom."

There clearly is a "clash of civilizations" aspect to this (clumsily and inexpertly elucidated by Dubya) but it's not Dubya's shitty way with words that is the problem. Radical Islamists genuinely do hate the West and modernism and all that entails. And we hate them right back. But they do not represent all of Islam, and apart from Trump no one in the US federal gov't has ever openly argued that Islam *as a religion* is the problem or the "enemy". Which is not the case with radical Islamists, who explicitly *do* call out the West as the literal enemy. These two sets of rhetoric are not equivalent.

xp

and apart from Trump no one in the US federal gov't

donald trump is not, thank god, in the federal gov't

fwiw for radical islamists everyone is the enemy, 'the west' no more than muslims who don't share their agenda.

^^^that too

and yeah obviously there was more to 9/11 than a bunch of saudis "hating our freedom" but that *was* part of it (along with US propping up dictatorships, stationing troops in the holy land, supporting Israel etc.) Dubya was, in his moronic way, conveying an aspect of the conflict truthfully.

(also my apologies for preemptively associating the federal gov't with Trump)

maybe your unconscious is secretly a trump supporter!

and yeah obviously there was more to 9/11 than a bunch of saudis "hating our freedom" but that *was* part of it (along with US propping up dictatorships, stationing troops in the holy land, supporting Israel etc.) Dubya was, in his moronic way, conveying an aspect of the conflict truthfully.

― Οὖτις, Monday, June 13, 2016 5:20 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

True. To be fair, I always thought his address on the night of September 11th was very moving and remains so. I still feel that the way the public was manipulated by the GWB administration via xenophobia and gross oversimplifications and lies like WMD's set the stage for someone like Trump to succeed. I mean, along with a million other things - more significantly, having a black president for 8 years.

he's ratcheted things up so far already that i'm not sure what he has left except to announce that hillary clinton "maybe, i dunno, i've heard rumors" fucks little boys.

“You know who started the birther movement? You know who started it? Do you know who questioned his birth certificate, one of the first? Hillary Clinton. She’s the one that started it. She brought it up years before it was brought up by me.”

— Donald Trump, interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, May 4, 2016

or this

Donald Trump didn’t mince words about Hillary Clinton’s criminal justice agenda when he addressed the National Rifle Association’s national convention on May 20, 2016.

"President Obama pushed for changes to sentencing laws that released thousands of dangerous drug trafficking felons and gang members who prey on civilians," Trump said. He continued, "This is Hillary Clinton's agenda, too, to release the violent criminals from jail. She wants them all released."

this was, shockingly, a good piece about how trump is in a long and robust line of 'conservative' (that is, right wing) punditry: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/donald-trump-mainstream-conservative/

i'd still note that he is qualitatively different than any presidential candidate before him.

xpost That was HRC's ill-spoken he's an American "as far as I know" gaffe right?

When was the last time we had a major citizen candidate with literally no public service or political record, elected or otherwise?

for [whatever label is appropriate for groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda and their sympathizers], "our freedom" is sort of mixed together conceptually with our foreign policy, i.e. it's a sense of "look at those evil Americans -- they bomb our countries, they prop up our dictators, and look at how they disgrace our faith and our morals, they are clearly all-around terrible and must be destroyed." As is not uncommon with ethnic, religious, or national conflicts, there is a co-reinforcement between perceived repugnance of foreign military action and repugnance of foreign "morals" and customs. It's very complicated to separate out the religious and political dimensions of militant radical islam, because the sense of humiliation at military defeat and subjugation is comingled with a sense that American ideas about sexuality, music, culture, freedom, whatever are also humiliating to them.

a key element in islamic fundamentalism is also that they are mostly living in authoritarian or failed states and have few meaningful outlets for political participation.

(although i would never dismiss the strain of nihilism that unites islamic terrorists and donald trump. trump himself is too much of a coward to shoot anyone, but i don't doubt for a second that he fantasizes about mass death all the time.)

he's ratcheted things up so far already that i'm not sure what he has left except to announce that hillary clinton "maybe, i dunno, i've heard rumors" fucks little boys.

C'mon, he'd use "little girls" because that means Pedo AND Homo! Boom! Two birds with one stone! Sad!

"as far as I know"

I thought this was in reference to O's xtianity iirc

Maybe? The implication was that he was a secret Muslim, and therefore a foreigner. Get him out of here! Get him out!

I know it came across that way but I think the intended implication was "what is this stupid fucking question you are asking me"

lol yes

While there's been simplifying rhetoric forever, that particular statement of Bush's* stands out because of its position at the start of what a lot of people know about the conflict - rather than provide any shading of hey maybe we shouldn't have fucked over Afghanistan quite so hard in the 80s, it sets out the whole thing in Manichean terms - not only are we the good guys, but they hate us for our goodness, nothing else we can do about that. It's of a piece with unironically declaring it a War on Terror.

*I'm assuming it's from Cheney / Rove / Rumsfeld, just because it's so good at what it does.

^ Exactly.

The USS Cole may have happened less than a year earlier, but most Americans hadn't thought twice about Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden before 9/11.

maybe we shouldn't have fucked over Afghanistan quite so hard in the 80s

haha wait what how did we fuck Afghanistan in the 80s, by not fighting WWIII w/the USSR after they invaded?

Also FYI none of the people involved in 9/11 (not the hijackers, not OBL, not Ayman Al-Zwahiri, etc.) were Afghans

you guys are bad at history

I am heartily sorry for Florida and its bad chicken wings, eaten by Mohammed Atta and crew

"they hate our chicken wings"

was what Dubya meant to have said

you can always find crimes to pin on the west to blame for the rise of islamic fundamentalism (isn't sykes-picot the trendy new explanation?) but i think when trying to understand why radicals kill gays in their country, or attack them in ours, "they hate their freedom" is pretty succinct. we don't spend lots of time trying to understand what legitimate grievances inspire white supremacists or violent misogynists. that kind of tact always strikes me (maybe unfairly) as sick apologetics.

and to be sure ppl don't just do it when talking about fundamentalist terrorists. that's kinda the subtext behind these articles about how trump support is really about the disappearing middle class. sometimes the answer is the obvious one - it's easy for humans to hate the other.

tbf I have no idea how "trendy" it is but Sykes-Picot was p egregious/disastrous bit of post-imperial hubris that fucked that region good, I don't think it's incorrect or ahistorical to point it out as such.

It is maybe not so helpful (or accurate) as a rhetorical shorthand for why a Muslim nut would gun down a bunch of latino gays though, or for explaining why a bunch of Egyptians felt compelled to fly planes into the two towers.

xp

I wish there were photos of Wilson, Clemenceau, and George kneeling on the carpet in 1919, carving up the world, and Wilson asking, "Is it Upper or Lower Silesia we're giving away?"

sad lol

my somewhat non-PC take on the history of the european west and islam is that both are/were world historical forces that when they weren't killing + conquering each other were busy enslaving, murdering and colonizing every other ppl on the planet and that islam seems like a historical victim today has more to do w/ just how successful the west became at monopolizing that game than any kind of honest look at the historical narrative.

a fair assessment imo

yeah dismissing the sykes-picot explanation as trendy is just like WAYYYYYYY too glib.

But I agree that you have to account for dormant imperial yearnings that rise up in every land and that not everything is just about victimhood.

I mean that's definitely part of what's going on in the "humiliation" I'm talking about. The fall from power, defeat at the hands of the west. It's not like the west displaced a more benevolent empire though, it's always been bloody business.

my somewhat non-PC take on the history of the european west and islam is that both are/were world historical forces that when they weren't killing + conquering each other were busy enslaving, murdering and colonizing every other ppl on the planet and that islam seems like a historical victim today has more to do w/ just how successful the west became at monopolizing that game than any kind of honest look at the historical narrative.

― Mordy, Monday, June 13, 2016 5:19 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't think ISIS would disagree with you; they certainly have no trouble w/ enslaving, murdering and colonizing

they would be upset at the insinuation that we're better at it than they are lol

Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi citizen. Everyone thinks they're the good guy. We're not waging a war on Islam any more than "they hate us because we are free."

― flappy bird, Monday, June 13, 2016 11:08 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Who 'everyone', what 'Iraqi citizen'? The Ba'athist? The Kurd? The Assyrian? The Turkmen? The Armenian? Perhaps the Mandean? Or the Yazidi?

You haven't the fucking clue what your talking about.

The west iis already waging a war on Islam. And it's telling ppl pile all the factions and peoples of broken country Iraq together as 'Iraqi'. The country outside America American solderiers spent most time for for two decades, yet haven't a single clue about. It's depressing.

Also FYI none of the people involved in 9/11 (not the hijackers, not OBL, not Ayman Al-Zwahiri, etc.) were Afghans

A fair point, I didn't mean to imply that the invasion was just. Bin Laden famously received his military training from the CIA in Afghanistan, together with experience of what happens when a country isn't strategic to the US any more.

I'm kind of curious now, Shakey - what age were you on 9/11? I think of your whole fatalistic "things could only ever have happened as they happened" schtick as a product of the post-2001 era, but never really wondered whether your contemporary experience of politics went back much further than that.

Now, how old are you / Where is your harbor / Have many things to do / Open the door…

I presume anyone who qualifies for an Iraqi passport should be considered an Iraqi citizen. Just because a country is a poorly formed hodgepodge of often mutually hostile groups doesn't mean it has no citizens.

I def dont think 9/11 was inevitable nor do i think dubya handled it correctly - it was a disaster of epic proportions and he was the worst president in the history of the country.

I was 28 on 9-11. That night i said to my wife "well, i guess this means we'll be invading iraq in a little while."

Xp

Okay, I definitely didn't mean to imply you had warm feelings for GWB :)

We can't say weren't warned:

http://jungleofsmilez.com/wp-content/uploads/A-Fantastic-List-of-27-Great-Princess-Bride-Quotes-18.jpg

A few of my humble thoughts:

1. Sikes-Picot is one of many paternalistic/imperialist actions fueling middle eastern anger at the west. Afghanistan, though, is less a creation of Anglo-French capricious mapmaking than Iraq, Jordan, and ahem Israel are, right?

2. Vizzini aside, we only needed to look at the British and Soviet experiences in 'Stans to know going to war there would be quagmire in the extreme.

3. The self-promoting Charlie Wilson line is that once we'd aided resistance to the USSR there - which pretty directly helped end the Cold War - it would have been a good idea to also drop a few dollars on schools or bridges or something, to keep it from descending into the chaos it did in fact descend into. I'm not sure how true that is, but AFAICT no one even tried.

4. While OBL and crew were not from Afghanistan, there was a MARGINALLY better case to be made for the war in AFG because the Taliban had mos def harbored and encouraged Al-Q. Marginally better, that is, than the case for war in Iraq.

My guess is that turning all of Afghanistan into a modern state easily governable as a single unit would have required a Marshall plan kind of investment. A few bridges and schools would not have cut it.

I think that's probably right, fwiw. You're also quite right that "It's not like the west displaced a more benevolent empire though, it's always been bloody business."

Had Sikes and Picot not drawn those lines, it's not as if everything would be sunshine and rainbows.

Ken Burns shared some thoughts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F8zCQ4YnZ8

xp: Afghanistan is as it was for much of history. Local warlords and titular monarchs have used the intrigues of external Powers over this central Asian crossroads to win their local conflicts for centuries. It is the Asian nation arguably least dominated by European powers (or Ottomans), so while the Great Game contributed to Afghan sorrows, it looks like its progression to a modern state would have benefited from successful colonialism.

The progressive elements in Afghanistan, favoring female education, national (rather than tribal) identity, etc. largely favored the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan in 1978. Unfortunately, the U.S. saw everything through the lens of containment of communism at the time, and sided with the most regressive elements. By 1992, Afghan intellectuals and much of the middle class had emigrated or was in hiding, and while winning Charlie Wilson's battle we lost the cultural war.

Bridges and schools won't fix the loss of these groups. It takes several generations to reconstitute what's lost.

The world would be a much better place had the CIA learned the word "blowback" in 1947. While intelligence is an necessity to a modern state, its difficult to identify any positive changes effected by their covert operations arm, a bunch of adventurous, ambitious but arrogant/culturally naive recent Ivy League grads since the early days. See Legacy of Ashes by Tim Wiener.

1. Sikes-Picot is one of many paternalistic/imperialist actions fueling middle eastern anger at the west. Afghanistan, though, is less a creation of Anglo-French capricious mapmaking than Iraq, Jordan, and ahem Israel are, right?

This is complex - in the wake of the fall of the Ottoman Empire it isn't like there were fully formed governments throughout the Middle East, each representing a particular ethnicity and with healthy state + social institutions ready to step up... oh if only those British and French didn't fuck it all up. The British overpromising the Levant to too many different groups I'm sure bred some animosity but what - if they had only promised it to the Arabs then the Jews wouldn't have tried to overthrow the mandate to reclaim their State? If they had only promised it to the Jews then the Arabs wouldn't have been furious about losing part of the historical ummah?

See Legacy of Ashes by Tim Wiener.

excellent book

Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump

christ

I know we're way off topic, but I think the alternate history of the middle east probably would have been various leaders competing to "unify" the ME, possibly leading to wars. There were a bunch of different pan-Arabist/pan-ME proposals put forward by various rulers, as well as competing plans for the treatment of Palestine.

The romantic in me likes the idea of TE Lawrence helping shape the Middle East after WWI. Not sure what effect that would have on WWII...

DNC thing seems more comical than scary

telling that they didn't hack RNC for oppo research cuz lol oh right there isn't any

cuz they've been studying HRC for over 20 years

The foregrounding of the Trump data doesn't make much sense given they had access to everything else for at least a year. I'd assume the RNC just hasn't noticed yet.

Who is this mysterious Donald Trump? What is he all about? If we only had a way to plumb the depths of this enigmatic private figure.

obama just about lost his shit, to the extent that he actually loses his shit.

about what?

his shit, location of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWK7eyxczgg

It's such a goddamn shame that broad swaths of the country that won't listen to a word he says just because he's the one saying it.

yes, that.

timestamp of shit-loss? I don't have time to watch 25 mins.

it's the whole thing. he doezn' like, start yelling and barking. it's just what he says.

here's a synopsis: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/obama-pushes-back-against-criticism-over-terrorism-rhetoric/index.html

"Dismissing the "yapping" from "politicians who tweet," Obama described Trump's suggestions as harmful to the country's national security.
"We are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mindset and this kind of thinking can be," he said. "We're starting to see where this kind of rhetoric and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we're fighting, where this can lead us."
Obama, sounding infuriated at critiques of his foreign policy, pushed back against criticism for not using the term "radical Islamic terrorism." And he accused Republicans of fostering resentment among Muslims that could generate further attacks.
"What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change?" Obama asked during remarks at the Treasury Department. "Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans?" he continued, using a different acronym for ISIS.
"Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above," he said. "Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.""

Full story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/14/obama-lashes-out-on-loose-talk-on-terrorism-islam/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_obama-115pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

A lot of talk about how Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric and proposed policies are fundamentally un-American and unconstitutional. Shit cannot be hammered home hard enough, particularly when his party is comprised of so many supposed strict constitutionalists.

I had sort of a related argument with a fb friend who was saying this isn't about guns, it's about "an ideology." And I was basically saying that it was pretty difficult to fight "an ideology" whatever that's supposed to mean and much easier to go after guns.

Gun nut on same fb thread was claiming I "didn't really understand the second amendment" and I pointed out that she didn't seem to understand the 14th amendment.

Guarantee 100% of gun nuts don't really understand the second amendment.

Does ANYONE really understand the second amendment? That "well-regulated" militia part means different things to different people (and unfettered access to any and all guns to many.)

Yeah, it's just funny how strict constructionists when it comes to the second amendment completely ignore other amendments wholesale. Uphold the constitution and ban muslims in the same breath.

I actually got curious and looked up the second amendment, hoping it wouldn't be too long. i had prepared myself mentally to just read bits and pieces and just become aware of it

i find one version and think oh this must be the summary or abridged version

i look it up on what i think is a reliable source, cornell uuniversity, and find that in its entirety it is 27 words

i don't understand what there is to "get" about it

don't totally agree with everything in this and it will never happen, but food for thought

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613

xxpost Cognitive dissonance and bigotry are like chocolate and peanut butter.

the part that people disagree on is 'well regulated militia'. rightwingnuts think this means that it's ok to have citizen armies.

The problem is that the actual wording of the second amendment doesn't mean as much in material terms as the more recent SC interpretation of the second amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Burn in hell, Scalia.

sick to death of this "it'll never happen" stuff. i am not impressed by anybody's self-defeating rhetoric.

one for the grammarians but

i read the second amendment as having one main clause and two subordinate/dependent/relative clauses

sick to death of this "it'll never happen" stuff

yup - aiming for the impossible goal pushes the boundary of what's achievable

It's why I back your full repeal position 100%, shakes. Land stubborn insistence on the complete reversal of the current state of affairs is the only way to gain ground.

I have no idea where that stray 'Land' came from.

how exactly does Trump think restricting press access is going to help him at all? anyone he restricts is going to go whole hog anti-Trump as a result.

we have a whole thread on it, but it's not so much that repeal "will never happen" as that repealing an amendment is among the most difficult feats to achieve in our political system and there are easier feats that would do almost equal good, such as getting a good case in front of a liberal majority Supreme Court to overturn Heller.

He's not trying to win supporters though. He just wants to consolidate the echo chamber.

It's a losing strategy for sure, but he's a loser.

Are there people who support repealing the second amendment while also agreeing with the Heller reading? I'm not American and haven't studied this closely. The Heller reading seems at least grammatically plausible to me, although I agree that it results in a completely insane law, especially when assault weapons are added to the equation.

The Second Amendment actually strikes me as a perfect illustration of the limits of textualism, specifically the debate over how the "well-regulated militia" clause is supposed to impact the whole. I think both arguments on that point are equally plausible -- it limits the scope of the amendment vs it merely explains the reason for the amendment.

Are there people who support repealing the second amendment while also agreeing with the Heller reading? I'm not American and haven't studied this closely. The Heller reading seems at least grammatically plausible to me, although I agree that it results in a completely insane law, especially when assault weapons are added to the equation.

― jmm, Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:29 PM (13 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there's more to it than the grammar. literally no one whose opinion is worth a damn agrees with the heller reading. the argument was made out of whole cloth a few decades ago and unfortunately there were 5 nutcases on the supreme court at the time the case came up.

Re: Trump's press blockade, in simple terms, Trump is a fucking moron. He makes up his own rules on the fly without ever considering the consequences. Sadly, this has worked out in his favor to a pretty great extent, but some people have made the mistake of attributing this tendency to strategic brilliance or an indication that he's smarter than he seems. Happily, I think these notions will be pretty clearly dispelled among all but his most faithful by November.

It's such a goddamn shame that broad swaths of the country that won't listen to a word he says just because he's the one saying it. oh they will listen to the part where he wants to take away all their gunz of course

And the part where he describes Islam as one of the great world religions because he am secret moslem who are actually terrorist of USA.

keep talkin: http://www.sfgate.com/local/politics/article/Fire-breathing-remarks-are-burning-Trump-in-the-8132531.php

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-chris-christie-manservant-mcdonalds

"During a campaign event last month in New Jersey, Trump commanded Christie, who was off camera, to stop eating Oreo cookies."

Christie is so pathetic

that's got to be one of this campaign's great moments, I'd wager

oreos thing is so beautiful

the second amendment is (or should be) basically a historical curio with no more contemporary interest or relevance than the third amendment (the one about quartering soldiers in your home). this article has some useful background on how the insane NRA/scalia reading of the amendment gradually took hold:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

Man I wish that Christie story had come out earlier because "Stop eating Oreo cookies" would be an amazing thread title

By the time he's the veep pick we'll need a new thread title

Every time Trump says something even more disgraceful than the last thing I read, I remember all the Republicans who have publicly lined up behind him and my tummy does a little happy dance

the thing is, trump won't win, but the less likely he is to win, the more he'll up the ante on his craziness, b/c he can't stand to lose. this is going to get uglier and uglier.

i will not be surprised when in november, when he loses, he calls for armed insurrection.

http://i.imgur.com/qqtgpye.jpg

would also not be surprised if this all ends w/ the secret service having to investigate trump for making terroristic threats. (which he has effectively done already.)

The late chief justice Warren Burger, no friend to liberalism and not by any stretch a judicial eminence, said not long before his death, "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

said this upthread but wouldn't be surprised at all if Cruz refuses to endorse Trump (why should he? it would gain him nothing) with an eye on 2020.

If Lyin' Ted refuses to endorse, that may be interpreted as an endorsement; he should endorse, followed by a quick reminder that he's a helpless liar.

Lyin' Ted attempts endorsement, founders upon the venerable liars paradox.

Finally, gawker Trump descriptions in list form:

Seagull dipped in tikka masala
Bursting landfill of municipal solid waste
Mountain of rotting whale blubber
Sputum-filled Orange Julius
Gangrenous gaping wound
Racist, sexist block of aged Cheddar
Oversized wasp exoskeleton stuffed with old mustard
Neo-fascist real estate golem
Abandoned roadside ham hock
Bewildered, golden-helmeted astronaut who’s just landed on this planet from a distant galaxy
Monument to human hubris crafted out of rotting Spam
A walking pile of reanimated roadkill
Heaving carcass
Stately hot dog casing
Flatulent leather couch
Swollen earthworm gizzard
Narcissistic bowl of rotten gazpacho
Yellowing hunk of masticated gristle
A human/Komodo dragon hybrid
Blackening scab artfully hiding in your Raisin Bran
“Taco truck”
A man who could one day become the first hobgoblin to enter the White House
A pair of chapped lips superglued to a hairball
Horsehair mattress stuffed with molding copies of Hustler
Malignant corn chip
Human Kinder Egg whose inner surprise is a tiny pebble of rat shit
The sculpture your three-year-old made out of soggy ground-up goldfish snacks
A man with the hair of a radioactive skunk
Roiling Cheez Whiz mass
Cryogenically frozen bog man
A glistening, shouting gristle mass with a history of saying terrible and stupid things
Screaming giant cheese wedge
Republican frontrunner and 250-pound accumulation of rancid beef
Day-Glo roadside billboard about jock itch
Temperamental gelatinous sponge
Sentient hate-balloon
A Rumpelstiltskin inflated with a bike pump and filled with bacteria
Sun-kissed ass plug
Self-tanning enthusiast
An enraged, bewigged fetus blown up to nightmarish size
Parental pile of burnt organic material
Human-shaped wad of Gak
Walking irradiated tumor
Uncooked chicken breast
KKK rally port-a-potty holding tank
Neon-tinted hellion
A plentiful field of dung piled into the shape of a presidential candidate
Malfunctioning wind turbine
Seeping fleabag
Sloshing styrofoam takeout container filled with three-day-old mac and cheese
A sticky, grabby, Cheeto-hued toddler with no sense of adult deportment
Figurative rubber, and also literal rubber
A carnivorous plant watered with irradiated bat urine
Sentient waste disposal plant
A disappointment
Poorly-drawn fascist
Racist teratoma
Lamprey eel spray-painted gold
A hair that you pluck, causing a cluster of hairs to sprout in its place
Sunken, corroding soufflé
Nacho cheese golem
Undead tangerine
A cartoon representation of Irritable Bowel Syndrome in a pharmaceutical ad
Fossilized meatball
Horking mole-creature suffering from radioactive spray-tan
Tattered Craigslist sofa
A full-grown Monopoly dog carefully balancing a spongecake atop his head
Play-Doh factory explosion
A new superfood made of finely-ground clown wigs
Unkempt troll doll found floating facedown in a tub of rancid Beluga caviar

Seagull dipped in tikka masala
Bursting landfill of municipal solid waste
Mountain of rotting whale blubber

Captain Beefheart sure could be vicious!

dinah shore's shoes

Seagull dipped in tikka masala

I'd surprised if you follow Welsh news reports over there, but it's a reference to this. This passes for news in Wales.

facebook mate, it's worldwide, orange fuckin bird

"Stop eating Oreo cookies" is the new "please clap"

Captain Beefheart sure could be vicious!

LOL

I really hate Ted Cruz but his shade game is on point

otm, dude is bringing a very cold game to the table

Captain Beefheart sure could be vicious!

LOL seconded. A+

running Hillary's twitter acct seems like a fun job

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/742894093366333440

The Song Remains The Same
http://web.archive.org/web/20071213024912/http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2007/12/hillary-on-obama-fear-and-hatr.html

A lot of people are saying Trump has tiny man-baby hands.

"The clarity between the two nominees is very clear." – Herman Cain, introducing Trump just now

lol @ Return of Cain

it's the best clarity, so clear, you won't believe it

https://twitter.com/RosieGray/status/743109707263533057

Rosie Gray
‏@RosieGray

Cain: "this sounds like a shucky-ducky kind of crowd on a shucky-ducky kind of day, here to support an awww-shucky ducky kind of candidate"

Trump/Cain please please please

can totally see Trump selecting Cain to prove he's not a racist, has the best African Americans etc.

he's an ideal VP pick

one thing we really need is for an accomplished neurosurgeon to play Stepin Fetchit to a racist toupee running for President

Cain sells pizzas iirc

Herman Cain is a neurosurgeon??

oh lol I kept thinking Ben Carson, whoops

I feel so much better about Cain saying this nonsense

and it's not what *we* need, it's what Trump needs, and Trump's needs are all that matters, because he is the greatest, really great, you have no idea

that's what some people are saying anyway. I would never say it.

Cain has been 100% clown from the jump, I don't care how much more he embarrasses himself

I really need to hear what "awww-shucky ducky" sounds like out loud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO3ot894Oyw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbv6B8Ky4ns

I see the speaking in tongues has finally begun in earnest.

storify of a live tweet of a trump rally

https://storify.com/case_face/a-trump-rally-in-greensboro-anger-in-here-is-palpa

really sounds like a cross between heavy metal parking lot and immortan joe opening up the pipes

Do people say "Aw shucky ducky now" in "some parts of the South"? Inquiring minds need to know.

this was enlightening:

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

He was parodied on Saturday Night Live by Bobby Moynihan as "Slappy Pappy," with the catchphrase "Slappy Pappy Way Way."

what what

the guy introducing Trump right now is prattling on about how Hillary is an enemy of union workers; Georgia is a right-to-work state

lol, I must have missed those in 2012.

did we not cover trump saying US soldiers had looted the redevelopment money sent to iraq?

https://storify.com/DemFromCT/corbin-reiff-on-honor-duty-and-donald-trump

this series of tweets is p revealing in a number of different ways, not all of them anti-trump necessarily...

god i just watched the frontline on the origins of isis, seeing again the pre-iraq-war days, cheney and the rest. what an awful time. it really is the original sin that made the world we're in

yup. will never forgive any of those jackals. (I don't really forgive Hillary for her craven gullibility at the time either tbh)

altho I do think there are tiers of guilt/complicity in terms of who was driving the bus and who was willing to be a passenger

ugh i barely like to think about the pre-iraq war days. i remember reading an article written by richard a. clarke which was fairly prescient and even then it seemed otm. talking about the vacuum that would exist in a middle eastern war, and how extreme terrorist groups would begin to fill the gap left by the ousted government(s) and how there could be worse groups than al qaeda on the horizon. he also said, iirc, that the u.s. should be less concerned about airline terrorism and more concerned with assault weapon attacks carried out in public places.

did we not cover trump saying US soldiers had looted the redevelopment money sent to iraq?

https://storify.com/DemFromCT/corbin-reiff-on-honor-duty-and-donald-trump

tbf the bush administration literally 'lost' a billion dollars in cash in iraq but I doubt the soldiers are the ones who took it.

they certainly did, some of it

which soldiers? it's a meaningless accusation unless you can narrow it down a little.

I assume its all bribe money

look i think it's clear trump just fell asleep drunkenly watching three kings on a plane one time

https://lisathatcher.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/realmovieplots-threekings.jpg

these guys iirc

http://www.wtae.com/image/view/-/116056/highRes/2/-/maxw/620/-/4o1ps6/-/Three-Kings--George-Clooney--Ice-Cube--Mark-Wahlberg-jpg.jpg

xpost dammit

xp god damn it

Yeah, I saw that documentary, too. Sad!

James Risen's book Pay Any Price

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/742890251102920710

True factlet: I worked for the CIA in the 80s/90s (as a teenager, in the mailroom). I saw actual pallets of cash being sent to distant lands. I was encouraged to forget that I had seen them.

There was a subset of yr smarter Agency dudes who felt - then as now - that Saddam was the glue that held that sandhole together. It was lunacy to think that removing him would lead to a happy ending. However, there are a lot of reasons why "leave the dictators in place" isn't a popular strategy, and proponents will get shouted down.

One reason is action bias: people wanted to feel like we were Doing Something. Another is the legacy of Munich, Hitler, etc. We said "never again," so some people either see little hitlers everywhere, or are able to use the language of Holocaust prevention as convenient cover for stuff they already wanted to do. Fast forward to Assad in Syria, and no one has a solid answer as to whether we're doing not enough, rather too much, ,or just the right amount.

A healthy pessimism about our track record in intervening is understandable.

you guys know that teenagers committing petty crime have been offered enlistment in place of a sentence, right? xp

*commits petty crime*

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClA1bOZVYAIcq8_.jpg:large

I think a non-ideological bet that Clinton is likely to lose would be a bet on voter suppression by blackshirts or on RNC operatives running a successful ground game to get new-voter Trump-leaners to actually vote. The former seems way more likely than the latter.

Trump doesn't have enough blackshirts tbrr. The way his campaign is run, he'd probably take it upon himself to personally suppress votes, and he'd get tired and bored of it after a couple hours.

And with his complexion, black is not a flattering color.

He could pull it off.

http://blog.lsi.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/pumpkin_head.jpg

Caek, that "probability of victory for Democratic candidate" chart is surely way too low for October 2012, no way did Obama have only 60-some percent chance of winning a week before the election

is that drop the "low energy" debates? i don't remember

Perhaps polling lag time - polls released in week X reflect questions asked in week X-1, while people were still processing the news events of week X-2?

bloomberg poll has Hillary up 12 now

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-14/bloomberg-politics-national-poll-june-2016

whoa

http://gawker.com/this-looks-like-the-dncs-hacked-trump-oppo-file-1782040426

I assume the massive 2008 dip in the late summer was the financial crisis (and mccain subsequently suspending his campaign to look like an asshole)

so the russians are interfering in a presidential election now. great.

what's good for the goose i guess

Lawyers Guns and Money goes ham on Freddie deBoer and other progressives with too high principles:

Three presidents can be plausibly said to have greater records of progressive accomplishment than Barack Obama: LBJ, FDR, and Lincoln. Were these men, as deBoer suggests they must be, consistent left-wing ideologues, men who were committed to consistent left principles who did not concern themselves with practical politics and never had to be “pushed” from the left? Er, no. Good God, no. They were practical men. They were not ideologically consistent. They had progressive records in large part because of the organized pressures from the left placed on them. Lyndon Johnson had a voting record in the Senate that makes Hillary Clinton look like a Wobbly. Did civil rights and labor groups follow deBoer’s advice, refuse to work with him and support him, and seek to throw the election to Goldwater in the hopes that a REAL ally could eventually control the White House? No, they did not, because they understand politics as deBoer does not. And the result was arguably the most progressive domestic policy presidency ever. The Emancipation Proclamation was a compromise motivated in large measure by political expediency. So what? Who wants political leaders who disdain politics, who aren’t responsive to their constituents?

And it’s amazing that deBoer would bring up same-sex marriage, which constitutes about ten own-goals for his worldview. The national right to same-sex marriage was created through a path that deBoer repeatedly assures us can never work. Did the LBGT community leave the Democratic Party because Democratic leaders continued to nominally oppose same-sex marriage? No, they did not. They recognized that politicians who can potentially be pressured to adopted your favored positions are better than those who cannot be. They also recognized that what presidents do is a lot more important than what they say. Bill Clinton nominally opposed same-sex marriage when he took office, and so did Barack Obama when he took office. And yet, the four Supreme Court justices they appointed were all in the Obergefell majority. And the four first choice Republican nominees all dissented. And it’s also worth noting that the swing vote that lead to victory, Anthony Kennedy, was on the Court because a lot of liberal voters held their noses and voted for Democratic senators like Howell Heflin and Richard Shelby and Sam Nunn, who were a good sight less than ideal but were still with the party on some key issues like “should Robert Bork be confirmed to the Supreme Court?” Same-sex marriage is a perfect illustration that the White House is generally where changes end, not where they begin. And it’s also an excellent illustration that you don’t walk away from the political coalition that’s closer to your interests because you don’t win immediately.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/06/the-party-left-me-and-other-complaints-of-the-voter-as-atomistic-consumer

"It appears that virtually all of the claims are derived from published sources, as opposed to independent investigations or mere rumor."

i like lemieux

It is also worth noting that this is not an ideological dispute; it is not about FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE TO YOUR LEFT. Noam Chomsky believes that swing-state voters should support the leftmost viable candidate in general elections; Tom Friedman, conversely, shares Freddie’s view that their really needs to be a third-party candidate that agrees with him in every detail because coalition-building should be obsolete for today’s consumer.

burning freddie w/ a friedman comparison <3

Today's Sanders email seems to point pretty clearly to a concession/pivot speech coming tomorrow night:

We are at a critical moment for the future of the Democratic Party and our country. Last night marked the last primary as part of the Democratic nomination process, and we know that our campaign will enter the convention in Philadelphia with more than 1800 delegates.

Our movement has fought against steep odds when so many people counted us out. Together we built a political revolution that fought in every one of more than 50 primaries and caucuses since February. Our delegates from this movement will be the people who vote on the platform of the Democratic Party, and who will have influence on not just who the nominee is this election, but how the next nominee will be elected, too.

The future of our political revolution depends on you. That's why Bernie Sanders will host a live, online video address this Thursday night at 8:30 p.m. EDT / 5:30 p.m. PDT.

omg the vitriol directed at Freddie in the comments is such a gift

i think there's a narrow space where de boer is very useful, or at least someone useful. that space would be certain of his critiques of campus political correctness, speech policing, etc. but once he moves to more ambitious territory he flounders.

somehow i feel like the whole self-regarding idiocy of his position on the general election is encapsulated by the furrowed-brow selfies he uses as his avatars.

er, someWHAT useful.

yeah I agree. His piece last September made a couple decent points about the irony of administrators complaining about student demands when the administrators themselves created the methods of redress.

how long do y'all think this filibuster is going to last?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/mr-smith.jpg

wrong thread for filibuster talk

These insinuations that Obama is sympathetic to ISIS are extraordinarily dangerous not to mention disgusting.

so in addition to being anti-iran deal apparently canova is also kinda a fed weirdo:
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/who-runs-federal-reserve-2008-crash

It would also be worthwhile to break the monopoly of central banks in the issuance of currency by funding some government operations with money created and issued by treasuries and finance ministries—money that would not add a penny to public debt. This is what President Abraham Lincoln did by issuing more than $400 million in U.S. notes, the so-called Greenback, to pay the huge costs of the American Civil War and national economic development programs. A century earlier, colonial Pennsylvania enjoyed fifty-two years of non-inflationary growth by issuing and lending its own currency into circulation, thereby financing major development of infrastructure without incurring debt or high tax burdens. Adam Smith, in his classic work Wealth of Nations (1776), praised Pennsylvania’s success with government-issued money. Such proposals have been introduced in Congress over the years, but Wall Street lobbying has prevented such legislation from passing.

Hate to give FdB any more attention but looolll: https://mobile.twittier.com/crulge/status/730530222274023424

twittier? dunno how i did that: https://mobile.twitter.com/crulge/status/730530222274023424

hahaha

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-republican-national-committee-224403

clown show

The Lewandowski-Manafort-Hicks dynamic is fascinating

The Trump campaign would not comment on the record about its relationship with the RNC. One Trump Tower official called it “a great relationship. I work well with everybody over there and I haven’t heard of anyone who doesn’t have a great relationship with them.”

tee hee

"It's a great relationship. The Greatest. Never has a relationship worked as great as ours. If the RNC was a hot Slavic model, our orgasms would be YUGE!"

next election thread really needs to be named HIRALLY CLIMPS FOR PRESIDETN

A lot being made of this Guccifer2 hack?

Jesus, whenever I think this stupid motherfucker can't get any stupider: Trump: DNC hacked itself

Stop hacking yourself! Stop hacking yourself!

This "I'm going to just constantly assert things that have no bearing whatsoever on reality" tendency that Trump shares with way to many people needs to be fucking wiped out asap.

kasich out http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-kasich-just-cant-vote-for-trump

Nor can Larry Hogan, who is otherwise execrable.

I'm a bit sad about the DNC hack because now Putin will know that Trump has absurdly tiny baby-hands, also that the DNC oppo researchers apparently didn't find anything that could not have been googled.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-calls-her-crooked-hillary-but-his-fans-just-say-b----/2016/06/15/b33e166c-330c-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_bword-615a-top%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Trump that B........

article about one of the two most seen anti-Hillary t-shirts seen at Trump rallies

I'm somewhat surprised at their restraint in not going to that next letter of the alphabet. Just give it time, I guess.

Nor can Larry Hogan, who is otherwise execrable.

hate having to grit my teeth and admit that Larry Hogan is doing the right thing and deserves some credit here

The tiny plurality that elected him (my in-laws included) are likely scratching him off their list of the righteous as we speak, and I am smiling a secret smile.

I'm somewhat surprised at their restraint in not going to that next letter of the alphabet. Just give it time, I guess.

I have a bet with a friend that he's gonna call her one of those words on TV before it's all said and done

^^ I said that to my wife the other day. Probably by the second debate.

man that Trump campaign/RNC infighting is comedy gold. If Trump was an old school fascist he'd be plotting his own Night of the Long Knives by now.

I love the TPM headline

Trump's Not Doing Poorly; He's Not Even Running

Street Talk Tees is a company based in Aurora, Ohio, that sells mostly shirts featuring the names of colleges, cities and sports teams. Along with obscenities. The company’s website includes this disclaimer: “All designs are created just to allow our customers to expres how they feel. FIRST AMENDMENT RULES!”

xp "Do you know what they're calling her? Have you ever heard of "See You Next Tuesday"? Horrible, horrible. But they're saying it!"

Didn't he pull that one already after someone at his rally called Ted Cruz a pussy?

Ha, yeah:

"You're not allowed to say, and I never expect to hear that from you again. She said -- I never expect to hear that from you again! She said he's a pussy! Terrible. Terrible. That's terrible," Trump said to an excited crowd.

Hey, I go right past Aurora once a week! If anyone wants to start a GoFundMe for my legal costs, I'll burn this place down over the weekend.

Meanwhile:

Andrew Stroehlein ✔ @astroehlein
Trump: "Belgium is a beautiful city." Thank goodness for oceans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2iEes9bzbg

xps- that's the best deBoer takedown i've ever read, damn... so good

this is amazing to me

Others might do it well or poorly. But Trump isn't doing any of it. There's a Politico story out today about how the RNC gave him the names of twenty big GOP donors to call. He got bored or frustrated and stopped after calling three. And this comes after deciding that he actually doesn't need to raise a billion dollars.

It is increasingly clear that Donald Trump is perfectly happy to be president, as long as he doesn’t have to work for it.

obv not surprising at all

a reversal from George W. Bush, who was perfectly happy to be president as long as he didn't have to work.

c'mon, he cleared all that brush that one time

these fuckin putzes, so doomed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/us/politics/donald-trump-fundraising-gop.html?_r=0

Donald being forced to raise money after all his nonsense in the primary is some delicious irony

I mean how can you not laugh, what a fucktard:
Moreover, while Mr. Trump lent his campaign more than $43 million in the primaries, he has shown little inclination to self-finance his general election campaign in a large-scale way. Yet many Republican fund-raisers have openly questioned why they would donate their money to a candidate who has claimed a net worth of $10 billion.

Did I say $10 billion? Uh, I meant $10 hundred. And half of that is an abstract valuation of my name brand, so see? I really need the money, thanks!

I used to think that Trump campaign volunteers would be the saddest thing ever, followed by Trump campaign donors. Now I'm not so sure. Perhaps it's the other way round.

apologies if this has been posted:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/15/donald-trump-poll-numbers-us-election-hillary-clinton

The suspicion of protesters reached a point at which Trump supporters were informing on each other for not being “real” supporters. One woman pointed security toward a couple sitting quietly in their seats. “Them,” she mouthed.

The couple seemed baffled and denied to a security agent that they were anything but genuine Trump admirers. He waved them toward the exit and said, “Let’s go.”

Afterward the informer, who declined to give her name, grinned as onlookers congratulated her. “I heard one of them say ‘Never Trump’,” she said. “And one held up three fingers, like this.”

She held up her hand in a Boy Scout salute.

What did the three fingers signify?

“I have no idea,” she said.

Probably posted on the mass shooting thread:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/58885b65cf714811964305b99ca78d93/mccain-obama-directly-responsible-orlando-shooting

Disgusting (and the "I misspoke" clarification doesn't much change that). I hope it helps dispel the idea that McCain was this pillar of virtue in 2008, which is always followed by a cut to him sheepishly telling that woman "No, ma'am, he's an American..." As many have pointed out, he'd been letting that stuff go on for weeks beforehand. He got noble only when the election was clearly not going to go his way. That's when he started cleaning up his image.

I occasionally have some dark, dark thoughts about Trump's supporters that are difficult to square with my generally pacifistic leanings.

Forced sterilization isn't technically violence, right?

that's... p violent

Aw, man.

the bit quoted from the guardian article shows why these kinds of movements inevitably flame out (not without enormous cost, of course)--their rites of purification are inevitably turned inward, the only logical end point is a kind of suicide.

ratfucking suggestion: send ppl to Trump rallies to randomly accuse other ppl in the crowd of being protestors

That would be beautiful. That would be the best ratfucking, absolutely the best.

let me tell you, a lot of people are talking about this ratfucking and really, it's just unbelievable, the rats, the fucking

lol

I don't necessarily believe in this ratfucking but people come up to me every day and say, I can't believe how tremendous the ratfucking would be. It's true. I'm building a wall.

I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my rat, perhaps I’d be fucking her.

ratfeeding suggestion: feed ppl at trump rallies to rats

i have the best rats, they do the best fucking, it's beautiful.

http://www.tuxboard.com/photos/2016/01/send-a-rat-to-donald-720x380.jpg

is the entire trump campaign just an extended advertisement for a new trump tv network?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/donald-trump-tv-network

well mordy i guess you got your wish somehow, bernie sez everyone should run for office

kind of a weird timing?

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/signup/win?source=160616-livestream

why weird? bc after all the primaries? there's still tons and tons of uncontested seats he can help find ppl to run for, but admittedly would've been happier if he had campaigned for fetterman, been looking for primary challengers, etc.

man I saw that trump media empire coming from a mile away

appreciate the congrats for being right on trump media empire, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

VP shortlist leaked: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/16/11954878/hillary-clinton-vice-president-veepstakes

Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), Senator Sherrod Brown (OH), Senator Tim Kaine (VA), Senator Cory Booker (NJ), Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro (TX), Secretary of Labor Tom Perez (MD), Representative Xavier Becerra (CA-34), Representative Tim Ryan (OH-13), and Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles (CA)

No franken :(

If she doesn't select Booker, that'll be good, for it means Booker will lose his will to live and evaporate into a cloud of stale farts over a grave of Atari Democrats.

Man, I sort of wish it was Castro, for all sorts of reasons. I know he was a golden boy for a long time. Has he continued to make good?

Only good thing about Warren, who I love but who Clinton does not really need, is that it would prime her for president, but then again, it could hurt her chances, too, especially if Clinton was a one termer or if she screws up her integrity bona fides by batting too hard for Clinton. It would be weird if they picked her to try to get some lefty support, because of course she would have to temper her progressive talk if she hitched her wagon to Clinton. Do the two have any sort of relationship that anyone knows of? Have they worked together, are they friends?

pulling for castro here too

i don't get why ryan is on the list, just cuz ohio? isnt he a deficit hawk?

a trump network could be a disaster. can you imagine a 24/7 infotainment channel that's /worse/ than fox news?

i mean, it could be a disaster in one or both of two ways

a disaster in the sense that it would fail spectacularly

or a disaster in the sense of, providing a dangerous voice to the fascist element in our society, in a way even more unhinged than fox news

"Mayor of LA" is a choice I like in concept no matter who holds that office; would like to see some mayors run for president.

Man, I sort of wish it was Castro, for all sorts of reasons. I know he was a golden boy for a long time. Has he continued to make good?

http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/will-presidential-reporters-come-here-to-check-julian-castros-record-at-hud-7546888

you be the judge:
"In 2013, after a four-year investigation, HUD found that Lockey and MacKenzie were telling the truth and Dallas was not. HUD found that Dallas had systematically defrauded the federal government over a 10-year period by using money intended for desegregation to fund instead a system of deliberate racial segregation downtown.

Then six months after Castro took office, HUD basically tossed its investigation into the toilet, suggesting that its own investigators hadn’t known what they were doing. Dallas got away with a slap on the wrist and peck on the cheek."

another report, less critical of castro: http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Castro-dealing-with-scandal-laden-HUD-6532244.php

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/09/04/julian-castro-a-radical-revealed/

gotta love this, itll be obama's alinsky/ayers/rev wright shit pt 2

I think everybody, including Warren, agrees that Warren is far more valuable in the senate—especially if there's the prospect the senate will change hands.

Unfortunately, I don't see anybody else on that list that adds even the slightest bit of appeal to the Dem ticket.

not k3vin!

"Mayor of LA" is a choice I like in concept no matter who holds that office; would like to see some mayors run for president.

― Sean, let me be clear (silby), Thursday, June 16, 2016 9:24 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

just be glad rahm emanuel has already been disgraced.

perez seems like the most stand-up guy on the list, but the VP pick is almost wholly symbolic, so a principled policy wonk isn't necessarily a good choice.

i didn't realize the mayor of LA was such a motley mix of ethnicities -- italian/mexican/jewish. it's like he was born to be on a presidential ticket.

(he's already essentially declined btw.)

Mayor of LA isn't much to write home about. The city council has most of the power along with the county supervisors.

I guess for VP being a toothless executive might be beneficial

Only good thing about Warren, who I love but who Clinton does not really need, is that it would prime her for president, but then again, it could hurt her chances, too, especially if Clinton was a one termer or if she screws up her integrity bona fides by batting too hard for Clinton.

Bah - I meant to add that I'm not sure that Clinton managing a two-term presidency wouldn't still be a millstone for Warren - if Obama had picked a black man for VP, how nasty would the campaigns against him be (even in a world where Clinton hadn't a chit that she's cashing in)?

Please please do it

After eight years of largely abstaining from politics, former President George W. Bush is throwing himself into an effort to save his party’s most vulnerable senators, including several whose re-election campaigns have been made more difficult by Donald J. Trump’s presence at the top of the ticket.

In the weeks since Mr. Trump emerged as the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Mr. Bush has headlined fund-raisers for two Republican senators and has made plans to help three more. Among them are Senators John McCain of Arizona, who was one of Mr. Trump’s earliest targets of derision, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who has struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s inflammatory talk.

Friends say that the former president is deeply bothered by Mr. Trump’s campaign message, especially his derogatory remarks about Muslims and immigrants. At the event with Mr. McCain, Mr. Bush stressed the importance of preserving the Republican-held Senate as a “check and balance” on the White House, suggesting that such a check was needed, whether the next president is Mr. Trump or Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

the vp pick would be "symbolic" if the ticket topper wasn't such an epically bad campaigner, sure.

Trump Network's success will carry on the yuge track record of successes evidenced by Trump steaks, Trump magazine, Trump water, Trump University, and Trump wine.

Yeah, but.

See, this is something that seems to me:

Trump, right now, is a winner and not a loser. Particularly in his own mind.

If he loses the election, will he invent some scenario where he actually won and that the count was in error or faked or some such?

Either way, he'll be laughed into oblivion.

We shall see, hopefully.

And that goes for his Trump network too. Especially, in fact.

If he loses the election, will he invent some scenario where he actually won and that the count was in error or faked or some such?

yes

Well, remember that he was essentially apolitical or even a Democrat for decades. He's a horrible person, of course. Dripping with racism and sexism. But he only latched (lamprey-like) onto Republican politics because it was a convenient vehicle for his ego, and it was obvious how to work the levers of the rabid Teahadis in the base.

With Clinton in office, it's not like his life gets worse. Politics never mattered much to him before and it's not about to start. He negs on Hillary because it's convenient, but her existence was palatable enough to him in the past that she went to his wedding. He doesn't share his base's frothing anti-Democrat, kneejerk anti-Clinton sentiment.

The funniest thing would be for him to be like "Eh. That didn't work out." He just goes back to his planes and yachts and whatnot. Maybe he calls up the Slavic Modelbot Factory and orders up a new wife.

And the legion of right-wing red-meat torch-and-pitchfork doodz will be going INSANE with desire to STORM THE CASTLE and shit, and they're like "but where is our noble Orange Leader, who will ride at the head of our column?" When they discover he was not an ideological conservative, and was just using them, their tears will be copious and tasty.

Well, remember that he was essentially apolitical or even a Democrat for decades.

you think he was voting Democratic during the Reagan years?

Yes, and you want to see a cultural boycott? Sticks and stones may break his bones, but removal of people purchasing his products will hurt him the most. As Atilla the Stockbroker once said "You don't just leave the Master Race"

when Trump loses by the worst margin since '84 the GOP elite will place 100% of the blame on the media and the rank & file will

1) blame voter fraud/ "illegals"
2) quickly pivot to how Trump was always a "secret librul and also a Clinton plant to steal the election! here, just look at these pictures of them together!" (that have been passed around the internet since the minute Trump launched his candidacy, which we chose to ignore/ explain away)

and also
3) blame the media

I still don't think '84-style blowouts are possible in 2016 but who knows

There are about a half dozen posts above about ratfucking that have me in tears of lols this morning. Thanks all, you do good work!

Whenever there is a rat to be fucked, ilx will be there.

Whenever the souls of the downtrodden cry out for ratfucking, ilx will be there.

You will hear ilx's buoyant spirit in the cries of the rats in their fuckening.

Oh and just for fun, it happens to be World Refugee Day and here's what a new-citizen swearing-in ceremony looks like these days:

http://i.imgur.com/5ylBBel.jpg?1

Sorry, trumpers.

american flag tank top already fitting in

re: Trump on "if he loses":

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-if-i-lose-i-dont-think-you-will-ever-see-me-again-2016-4

remains to be seen of course, but his humiliation is gonna be pretty total.

To the extent that he has any control over it, Trump will never ever be a private citizen. He would shrivel up and die if people stopped paying attention to him. But naturally he'd never let that fact get in the way of an opportunity to petulantly "threaten" us with his retreat into solitude.

My gf works at a preschool, and stories she relates of the two- and three-year-olds she works with remind me an awful lot of Trump.

Except, of course, that amusing behavior for a two- or three-year-old is fucking repulsive when exhibited by a 70-year-old presidential nominee.

Particularly the "I never ate the cake" one?

hey it's rough when you have tiny hands, ask any 3 year old

We're gonna get great crayons, you'll see. The best crayons.

more #sadtrump memes would be a good result

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13339476_514855762046640_6715788286675081070_n.jpg?oh=5272887641e39273a38d7ea6b3a24ef2&oe=57D8C45B

one bright spot in the mainstreaming of violence directed towards visible minorities as a de facto part of American politics is the creation of hilarious meme pictures

if someone jumps me on the way home today, I'll keep that thought close to my heart as they kick my head in

lol man alive

(I thought he was referring to Trump's loss, not Trump phenomenon in general...)

xp yeah I was talking about the result of a Trump loss

in other news: shenanigans!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dozens-of-gop-delegates-launch-new-push-to-halt-donald-trump/2016/06/17/e8dcf74e-3491-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html

In light of his statement suggesting he'd disappear if he didn't win. Sad.

I just want to remind everyone of what is actually happening here. Trump losing doesn't necessarily make the threat of violence go away, no matter how many hilarious viral memes it generates.

Trump never having existed at all doesn't make that go away.