2016 Presidential Election

[Ma'ake]

I just saw that. It makes no sense, his kids have no "need to know" about anything that would require a security clearance. It is another sigh that he is in over his head.

One way of looking at it is he's in over his head, and trying to run the Executive part of our government like Trump, Inc.

Another aspect of the kids-having-security-clearances is they've been handed the keys to Trump, Inc, while Donald is the President, so it would be beneficial for them to know what's going on in the world, from an investment standpoint.

It's reasonable to think all the chaos and infighting is just a natural extension of Trump's campaign. But it's also a very good smoke screen, should somebody like Bannon or Paul Manafort need to do some work behind the scenes.

Does anyone really believe that Paul Manafort is really, truly, completely out of Trump's ecosystem? He disappeared when the media was finding out just how close he was to the Putin ecosystem, but not before he was lobbying the GOP at the convention to adopt a platform of going easy on Putin.

John McCain appears to have a clue: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/15/donald-trump-john-mccain-vladimir-putin-russia-bashar-assad/93903660/

[Ma'ake]

Looks like she will now be the left's voice of against Trump, at least until Schumer is officially the new Senate minority leader.

Warren and Schumer are old and shrill.

I want to know who the next Bernie Sanders is, a young Millennial Savior, who can get 100,000 people in a stadium, demanding serious change. That's where we're headed, me thinks.

Clinton was the center-right candidate, and she failed. The Sanders supporters I work with are glad she lost, so things can get bad, which will *REALLY* get the millennials motivated to reject the status quo, and whatever Trump brings us.

[LA Ute]

The Wall Street Journal gets Steve Bannon right, I think.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-steve-bannon-1479254631


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Clinton was the center-right candidate, and she failed. The Sanders supporters I work with are glad she lost, so things can get bad, which will *REALLY* get the millennials motivated to reject the status quo, and whatever Trump brings us.

The Millennials are the rising generation but, like all rising generations, are not necessarily a repository of wisdom. Also, the Baby Boomers are not voting now the way they probably would have in the 1960s.

Just a thought.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pangloss]

Warren and Schumer are old and shrill.

I want to know who the next Bernie Sanders is, a young Millennial Savior, who can get 100,000 people in a stadium, demanding serious change. That's where we're headed, me thinks.

Clinton was the center-right candidate, and she failed. The Sanders supporters I work with are glad she lost, so things can get bad, which will *REALLY* get the millennials motivated to reject the status quo, and whatever Trump brings us. I think you're mistaken about Warren. She's a favorite of Maher and was treated like a rock star in the campaign. She may be shrill once in a while, but I've never heard Schumer get agitated about much of anything. Serious certainly, but not shrill. I wonder about Senators Klobuchar and Franken. 100,000 may be too many to ask for, but they're both articulate and relate to average, younger folk. If a Manhattan billionaire reality show star can pull off populism, I think Al Franken could be a serious leader of the forgotten.

But I'm a baby boomer so I no longer know squat.

[pangloss]

Forget any thought that Trump is tacking to moderation. Frank Gafney is on his transition team. If this bigot gets a Govt job, all hope is lost. He's as bad as Bannon.

SPLC: Meet Frank Gafney (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/12/08/meet-frank-gaffney-donald-trump%E2%80%99s-expert-muslim-conspiracies)

[U-Ute]

The Millennials are the rising generation but, like all rising generations, are not necessarily a repository of wisdom. Also, the Baby Boomers are not voting now the way they probably would have in the 1960s.

Just a thought.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True. Boomers calling Millenials selfish is quite ironic.

[LA Ute]

Perhaps another photo would have been better:

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren Named to Senate Democratic Leadership Team

2018

[#1 Utefan]

I'm glad Clinton lost.

Why do Trump's kids need top level security clearance? Do you think that's a little weird? Are they going to be bunking at the White House?

Tell us, #1 Utefan, what is your opinion of Steve Bannon and the Alt Right?

I was disappointed that Trump appears to want Bannon in his administration. I had hoped Trump was going to tone it down and become more presidential in the wake of the election. This included hiring a transition team that would bring solid and reputable people into the administratoon.

While he has done that and I'm still hopeful, cutting ties with Bannon and not giving him a position in his administration would be a good thing for Trump to do. While I think Trump will still get some solid and experiencef people under him, Bannon is a step in the wrong direction IMO.

[Irving Washington]

The Wall Street Journal gets Steve Bannon right, I think.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-steve-bannon-1479254631


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's the gist of the article?

[LA Ute]

What's the gist of the article?

"One post-election question is whether Democrats plan to treat defeat as an education in the limits of personal destruction as a political tool, and the early evidence isn’t promising. Witness the Chernobyl over Steve Bannon, who will be President-electTrump’s 'chief strategist' as liberals assail him as a white supremacist and anti-Semite. Mr. Bannon is the former chairman of the incendiary Breitbart News website, as well asa Goldman Sachs alum, Navy veteran and early investor in 'Seinfeld.' He kept a lowprofile at Donald Trump’s elbow for the final campaign stretch, but according to Senator Elizabeth Warren at the Journal’s CEO Council on Tuesday, 'This is a man who says, byhis very presence, that this is a White House that will embrace bigotry.'

"We’ve never met Mr. Bannon, and we don’t presume to know his character, but maybe one lesson of 2016 is that deciding that Americans who disagree with you are bigots is a losing strategy. Politics would be healthier if accusations of racism in the country that twice elected the first black President were reserved for more serious use.

"We can comment more confidently on Breitbart, whose political priorities and journalistic ethics aren’t ours. Before Mr. Trump’s rise, the site was a hub for 120-decibel screeds against President Obama plus assaults on “the Republican establishment” over immigration, trade and “globalism.” (These columns were a frequent target.) Breitbart became Mr. Trump’s de facto media arm, like much of the mainstream media was Hillary Clinton’s.

“'I’m a Leninist,' Mr. Bannon told a profiler for the Daily Beast in 2014. 'Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.'

"He also called Breitbart 'the platform for the alt-right' in July, referring to the online movement that sometimes trafficks in racism and anti-Semitism. Breitbart continues to prosecute an especially ugly campaign against the Chobani yogurt company and founder Hamdi Ulukaya for employing Iraqi and Afghan refugees who have qualified to live inthe U.S.

"Then again, a yellow press is not a new phenomenon and the obligation of themainstream media is to maintain credibility so readers don’t turn to other options. That so many reporters and editors treated Trump voters like Martian invaders hasn’t helped. But the key point is that Mr. Trump’s political opponents have an interest in exaggerating the alt-right’s influence—which is marginal at best—for the purposes of guilt-by-association. Breitbart publishes offensive items, but we doubt the site will inform the State of the Union address. Internet trolls yearn for their targets to respond so they seem influential, but the best response is usually not to take the bait.

"The recent media habit of searching out neo-Nazis, Confederacy nostalgists and other undesirables to opine about Mr. Trump is also a mistake. These voices have long been relegated to the fringes of politics and there’s no reason to give them a soapbox now. Nobody credible was poring over the Daily Stormer until the left found it politically useful."

"Mr. Trump’s obligation is to avoid lending the prestige of the White House to this political underbelly. About the worst thing for U.S. democracy would be the legitimization of a white-identity grievance politics, mirroring how the left has polarized racial and sexual tensions to motivate voters. The President must represent all Americans, as Mr. Trump has promised to do.

"The political tendency Mr. Bannon represents—and some of the unsavory customers he isn’t responsible for—deserves a watchful eye. Indulging these forces would doom the Trump Presidency, as we hope incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus understands.

"As chief White House strategist, Mr. Bannon will have to decide how he relates to Breitbart from the West Wing. Will Mr. Bannon now direct the site from afar in a command and enforcement role, like the Kremlin’s RT, and attempt to sow more division within the GOP? Like it or not, Mr. Bannon will need the establishment in Congress to pass Mr. Trump’s agenda, persuade the public and govern successfully. Things didn’t turn out so well for Lenin.

"The abiding truth is that partisan propaganda is not a reliable guide to reality, on the right or left. Democrats are now reeling in part because the New York Times, ThinkProgress, MSNBC, Vox and all the rest told them Mr. Trump could never win. Republicans don’t need a right-wing version."

[pangloss]

"Mr. Trump’s obligation is to avoid lending the prestige of the White House to this political underbelly. About the worst thing for U.S. democracy would be the legitimization of a white-identity grievance politics, mirroring how the left has polarized racial and sexual tensions to motivate voters. The President must represent all Americans, as Mr. Trump has promised to do."I had to read that a couple times. The WSJ opinion writer acknowledges Brietbart 'sometimes traffics in racism and anti-Semitism." The writer says Bannon wants to 'destroy all of today's establishment.' The writer confirms most of the damming things about Bannon and Brietbart. Right?

But the worst thing about Bannon being Trump's Chief Strategist is that it would legitimize the grievances levied against the new administration.

Huh?

The worst thing isn't the presence of someone like that holding the reigns of Government. The worst thing is the opposition being correct. Do I have that right?

Rupert Murdoch has some odd folks writing for the WSJ.

[LA Ute]

I had to read that a couple times. The WSJ opinion writer acknowledges Brietbart 'sometimes traffics in racism and anti-Semitism." The writer says Bannon wants to 'destroy all of today's establishment.' The writer confirms most of the damming things about Bannon and Brietbart. Right?

But the worst thing about Bannon being Trump's Chief Strategist is that it would legitimize the grievances levied against the new administration.

Huh?

The worst thing isn't the presence of someone like that holding the reigns of Government. The worst thing is the opposition being correct. Do I have that right?

Rupert Murdoch has some odd folks writing for the WSJ.

The WSJ is a great newspaper. Its news coverage is solid, and will tick off people on both the left and the right from time to time. Its editorial page has always been as conservative as the NY Times' has been liberal, both pre-Rupert and post-Rupert.

I don't think you are being fair about the serious point that editorial makes: About the worst thing for U.S. democracy would be the legitimization of a white-identity grievance politics, mirroring how the left has polarized racial and sexual tensions to motivate voters.

Disagree all you want with the comment about the left's tendency to racialize issues needlessly. I agree with the editorial that to respond to that tendency of the left by mirroring it on the right would indeed be "about the worst thing for U.S. democracy." I don't think Bannon should be anywhere near the levers of power, but this problem ain't moving down a one-way street.

[Devildog]

The SPLC should not be taken seriously as a resource. The bias there is as obvious as any of the other resources cited in this thread.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/03/26/fbi-dumps-southern-poverty-law-center/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/28/editorial-the-fbi-dumps-a-hate-group/

[LA Ute]

The healing continues.

There’s No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter

People voted for a racist who promised racist outcomes. They don’t deserve your empathy.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/there_is_no_such_thing_as_a_good_trump_voter.html

[LA Ute]

For your inner wonk.

Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/)
(http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/)


Based on what most of us would have thought possible a year or two ago, the election of Donald Trump was one of the most shocking events in American political history. But it shouldn’t have been that much of a surprise based on the polls — at least if you were reading FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-dont-ignore-the-polls-clinton-leads-but-its-a-close-race/). Given the historical accuracy of polling and where each candidate’s support was distributed, the polls showed a race that was both fairly close and highly uncertain....

[USS Utah]

I had to read that a couple times. The WSJ opinion writer acknowledges Brietbart 'sometimes traffics in racism and anti-Semitism." The writer says Bannon wants to 'destroy all of today's establishment.' The writer confirms most of the damming things about Bannon and Brietbart. Right?

But the worst thing about Bannon being Trump's Chief Strategist is that it would legitimize the grievances levied against the new administration.

Huh?

The worst thing isn't the presence of someone like that holding the reigns of Government. The worst thing is the opposition being correct. Do I have that right?

Rupert Murdoch has some odd folks writing for the WSJ.

That is not how I read it. Punctuation matters.

About the worst thing for U.S. democracy would be the legitimization of a white-identity grievance politics,

The comma tells us to stop and take a breath. The worst thing, then, would be the legitimization of a white identity grievance politics. After the comma comes a comparison

mirroring how the left has polarized racial and sexual tensions to motivate voters.

The second clause argues that the left has already been legitimizing race and gender grievance politics and that this has not been a good thing for U.S. democracy.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

For your inner wonk.

Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/)
(http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/)

Nate Silver talks to Trevor Noah. http://www.cc.com/video-clips/h68it3/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-exclusive---nate-silver-extended-interview

[Irving Washington]

The WSJ is a great newspaper. Its news coverage is solid, and will tick off people on both the left and the right from time to time. Its editorial page has always been as conservative as the NY Times' has been liberal, both pre-Rupert and post-Rupert.

I don't think you are being fair about the serious point that editorial makes: About the worst thing for U.S. democracy would be the legitimization of a white-identity grievance politics, mirroring how the left has polarized racial and sexual tensions to motivate voters.

Disagree all you want with the comment about the left's tendency to racialize issues needlessly. I agree with the editorial that to respond to that tendency of the left by mirroring it on the right would indeed be "about the worst thing for U.S. democracy." I don't think Bannon should be anywhere near the levers of power, but this problem ain't moving down a one-way street.
I agree and disagree with what I think Bannon is saying. It's important to let that voice be fully heard publicly so that people should know it's out there. What we shouldn't do is say others share it that haven't spoke it, or say that it's more prevalent than it is.
As you can tell, I'm trying to crummy projecting that sentiment too far.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

It's time to start paying attention to Jared Kushner. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/time-pay-attention-jared-kushner

[NorthwestUteFan]

It's time to start paying attention to Jared Kushner. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/time-pay-attention-jared-kushner
It must have been awkward working with Chris Christie, who was the prosecutor who put Kushner's father in prison for tax evasion.

[Ma'ake]

I think you're mistaken about Warren. She's a favorite of Maher and was treated like a rock star in the campaign.

I like Warren. My 80 year old mother *really* likes Warren.

What I'm seeing in the ascendance of Trump and the legitimization of the Alt-Right is a very strong reaction to the empowerment of minorities, and even women. The "ape in heels" remark from West Virginia mirrors the "Golden Negro President" graffiti I read at a restaurant in rural Nevada. When I read the "Golden Negro" I assumed it was an isolated idiot. Apparently it wasn't.

I think most Trump supporters aren't outright racists, but it's fair to assume they feel like they've lost ground, status and respect. I think we may find the robocall from the "White Nationalist" slamming Evan McMullin in Utah wasn't so isolated, either. He probably feels shocked that outside his echo chamber within the Alt-Right, people were seriously offended at his message.

Newton's 3rd law of physics has a political analog - for every action there's an equal, and opposite, reaction. Trump and the Alt-Right are reactions to the past 50 years, civil rights, loss of good paying jobs, perceived elevation of minorities, etc. This reaction reached a crescendo with the election of Obama.

As Sanders' massive crowd at This is the Place monument hinted, the Millennials are ripe for someone to rise to represent their cause. Maybe that's Warren, maybe it's Franken. Power in DC may swivel back and forth, but the much larger movements among the people are what I'm looking at.

Who is the outsider on the Left who will be the reaction to Trump and the Alt-Right?

[pangloss]

Who is the outsider on the Left who will be the reaction to Trump and the Alt-Right?I should have been more clear - when I said I think you're mistaken, I was referring to your description of Warren as shrill and old. Schumer is old, but he's not shrill either.

The race for DNC chair is interesting - Rep. Keith Ellison vs Gov. Howard Dean. There's a ground game going on by some group calling Dean an establishment lobbyist. It's a curious twist.

Dean was the Bernie Sanders of 2004. He was the first to use the internet for fund raising and grassroot organizing. President Obama learned a lot of his campaign organizing from Dean. He was the anti establishment guy to John Kerry - who is another story of transformation from outsider to establishment. I like Dean. He's smart, articulate and energetic. The job needs a full-time person. I hope he wins the chair.

As a Muslim, Rep. Ellison is good poke in Trump's eye. But I don't know much more than that about him.

I don't know if Warren or Franken have ambitions for higher office. But I hope they, DNC chair, and all the prospective candidates are on media stand-by to jump on every Trump misstep.

I like your third law analogy. I'll also be interested to see if Trump's election is seen by the alt-right nuts as some sort of sanction to be more vocal and open in their bigoted rants. It's a strange time.

[LA Ute]

I think making Ellison the DNC Chair would be a huge mistake and a misread of this election, but far be it from me to get in the DNC's way.

2020

[U-Ute]

Newton's 3rd law of physics has a political analog - for every action there's an equal, and opposite, reaction. Trump and the Alt-Right are reactions to the past 50 years, civil rights, loss of good paying jobs, perceived elevation of minorities, etc. This reaction reached a crescendo with the election of Obama.


I like this. It is an interesting parallel.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I think making Ellison the DNC Chair would be a huge mistake and a misread of this election, but far be it from me to get in the DNC's way.

2020
LOL. That's a good one. Rep. Ellison is perhaps the perfect foil for the current Republican message. He is black, he is Muslim, comes from heart of Midwest Manufacturing (Dearborn, MI, iirc). He the leader of the House Progressive Caucus. He its tremendous on front of a large crowd, as can be seen by his speech the DNC. And he is full of positive energy. This is exactly what is needed for a party chair, who is first and foremost a fundraiser, and not necessarily a policy person.

My problem with Keith Ellison is the fact that this job might need a full-time person. This person needs to log 200k+ sky miles every year. But then again, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz did it as a congresswoman. Granted, she followed the easy money and ran interference to get the easy money's candidate the nomination.

[#1 Utefan]

I like Warren. My 80 year old mother *really* likes Warren.

What I'm seeing in the ascendance of Trump and the legitimization of the Alt-Right is a very strong reaction to the empowerment of minorities, and even women. The "ape in heels" remark from West Virginia mirrors the "Golden Negro President" graffiti I read at a restaurant in rural Nevada. When I read the "Golden Negro" I assumed it was an isolated idiot. Apparently it wasn't.

I think most Trump supporters aren't outright racists, but it's fair to assume they feel like they've lost ground, status and respect. I think we may find the robocall from the "White Nationalist" slamming Evan McMullin in Utah wasn't so isolated, either. He probably feels shocked that outside his echo chamber within the Alt-Right, people were seriously offended at his message.

Newton's 3rd law of physics has a political analog - for every action there's an equal, and opposite, reaction. Trump and the Alt-Right are reactions to the past 50 years, civil rights, loss of good paying jobs, perceived elevation of minorities, etc. This reaction reached a crescendo with the election of Obama.

As Sanders' massive crowd at This is the Place monument hinted, the Millennials are ripe for someone to rise to represent their cause. Maybe that's Warren, maybe it's Franken. Power in DC may swivel back and forth, but the much larger movements among the people are what I'm looking at.

Who is the outsider on the Left who will be the reaction to Trump and the Alt-Right?


Are we really moving to a political system of extremes at the right and left instead of center? The continuing negative backlash, ridiculous protesting, and endless whining over how this year's election played out is getting tired fast.

I am still hoping Trump moderates and seeks moderate Republicans like Romney for his advisors and cabinet (not sure they would accept). In the meantime, all this ongoing witchhunt and controversy by the media is doing is preventing any healing from taking place and further dividing the country.

If you are hoping for a far left figure like Sanders to rise four years from now to lead the millineals and new direction of the Democratic party and the country, be careful what you ask for. Sanders spent the 60's reading Marx and Lenin while honeymooning in the Soviet Union. Despite referring to himself as a "Democratic Socialist", he was a full blown Marxist at heart. I want no part of that type of politician and future for my country.

[LA Ute]

Romney and Trump to discuss secretary of state position, NBC source says (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/17/romney-and-trump-to-discuss-secretary-of-state-position-nbc-source-says.html)
:blink:

2021

[pangloss]

Romney and Trump to discuss secretary of state position, NBC source says (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/17/romney-and-trump-to-discuss-secretary-of-state-position-nbc-source-says.html)

"Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe. They - they fight every cause for the world's worst actors." - Gov. Romney (March 2012)



Romney was right.

[LA Ute]

The words "brilliant" and "Trump" don't go together well, but if he does this it will be a brilliant move.

Romney, Haley, Cruz? Donald Trump Makes Friends With Onetime Foes (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/11/17/romney-haley-cruz-donald-trump-makes-friends-with-onetime-foes/)

[Ultimate Ute]

Yes, Trump sucks, but the Hildabeast mega sucks. I've lived in the same neighborhood 30 years next month, I'm pretty considerate and low key. Believe it or not, at about 10:30 p.m. on election night, my wife as my witness, when I realized that the DEAL promoted by pop culture/hollywood/egg sucking dog biased liberal media was not going to go down, I opened up the sliding doors and windows to my house and cranked the last two minutes of this song, full volume.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj2yikTmfKE

[Ma'ake]

If you are hoping for a far left figure like Sanders to rise four years from now to lead the millineals and new direction of the Democratic party and the country, be careful what you ask for. Sanders spent the 60's reading Marx and Lenin while honeymooning in the Soviet Union. Despite referring to himself as a "Democratic Socialist", he was a full blown Marxist at heart. I want no part of that type of politician and future for my country.

I liked *some* of what Sanders campaigned on, but thought Clinton to be a more moderate candidate, even with her array of flaws.

But Sanders' ability to motivate people who had previously ignored the political process was impressive. In a sense he was the Trump of the Left.

I don't hope for a Millennial Savior to carry on the Sanders mantle, but the past 30 years clearly indicate the political gyrations of our nation are growing more extreme.

If the rise of Trump was a reaction to the ascendance - and re-election - of Obama, it would be foolish to think there won't be a similar reaction from the Left. The energy and "whining" of the anti-Trump protesters are just the veneer.

I would prefer movement toward a middle, more moderate political reality, but I don't see how that will happen.

[Irving Washington]

The words "brilliant" and "Trump" don't go together well, but if he does this it will be a brilliant move.

Romney, Haley, Cruz? Donald Trump Makes Friends With Onetime Foes (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/11/17/romney-haley-cruz-donald-trump-makes-friends-with-onetime-foes/)
Summary? It's hard to think of anything involving Cruz being brilliant. Tactically smart, maybe, but bad for the country. I'm afraid I don't know who Haley is. Will be bring Bill Haley back from the dead?

[Ma'ake]

The words "brilliant" and "Trump" don't go together well, but if he does this it will be a brilliant move.

Romney, Haley, Cruz? Donald Trump Makes Friends With Onetime Foes (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/11/17/romney-haley-cruz-donald-trump-makes-friends-with-onetime-foes/)



Obama - "the most leftist President in US History" - had multiple Republicans in his cabinet. Would Trump do the same? I would be impressed.

If nothing else, the discussions with Romney, Haley and Cruz help calm down a concerned Republican base and provide a "maybe things won't be so bad, after all" impression.

It's either part of the Rope-a-Dope, or maybe Trump is actually moderating, maybe he's been changed by becoming a Christian.

If Bannon / (a hidden Manafort) is still part of Trump's inner circle, these other folks in the cabinet may just be window dressing.

[Irving Washington]

I liked *some* of what Sanders campaigned on, but thought Clinton to be a more moderate candidate, even with her array of flaws.

But Sanders' ability to motivate people who had previously ignored the political process was impressive. In a sense he was the Trump of the Left.

I don't hope for a Millennial Savior to carry on the Sanders mantle, but the past 30 years clearly indicate the political gyrations of our nation are growing more extreme.

If the rise of Trump was a reaction to the ascendance - and re-election - of Obama, it would be foolish to think there won't be a similar reaction from the Left. The energy and "whining" of the anti-Trump protesters are just the veneer.

I would prefer movement toward a middle, more moderate political reality, but I don't see how that will happen.
The Dem's need to focus on their core values, and let the candidate follow. It may be liberal progressive, it could be some kind of moderate progressive. They just need to message better to the middle class. Maybe the focus needs to be more on income rather than race or ethnicity, as we are moving to with some types of aff action. As I write this I'm thinking that I sound like the Repubs after 2008 and 2016. I guess I have more faith in the Dems's principles, that they will result in a broader base.

[U-Ute]

Jeff Sessions for AG.

This is a guy who says the worst thing about the KKK is that they smoke weed.

[pangloss]

If nothing else, the discussions with Romney, Haley and Cruz help calm down a concerned Republican base and provide a "maybe things won't be so bad, after all" impression. It's either part of the Rope-a-Dope, or maybe Trump is actually moderating, maybe he's been changed by becoming a Christian.I heard one of Diane Ream's guests say emphatically that the Romney & Cruz visits were not interviews for cabinet positions but more like pledges of fealty by the vanquished. He said Trump never forgets a slight. Romney eviscerated him last March.

We'll see I guess.

[LA Ute]

Jeffrey Goldberg again:

The Lessons of Henry Kissinger

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/the-lessons-of-henry-kissinger/505868/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

What you you all think of this? Not trolling, just wondering. I know there is another side to the story.


What Democrats should realize, because everyone else does, is that voters rejected both their policies (which have undermined middle- and low-income families) and their governance (which has fueled rage at a power-hungry federal government). Hillary Clinton proposed more of the same. Coal workers said no. Blue-collar union workers said no. Suburban moms said no. Small businessmen, drowning under Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare, said no.

Instead Democrats think last week was an accident. Mrs. Clinton tells donors that she only lost because of FBI Director Jim Comey.Barack Obama faults Hillary’s tactics—she didn’t spend enough time in the right states. Michael Dukakis says Democrats only lost because of the Electoral College. Rachel Maddow blames third-party candidates.

All this denial has cleared the field for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the leading voice now calling on the party to recognize it has erred and needs change. She is telling the masses, however, that Democrats lost because they didn’t go big enough. They didn’t spend enough. Didn’t regulate enough. Didn’t socialize health care enough. Her prescription: Double down.

That is precisely what Democrats are doing. The party is falling in line to install a Minnesota radical, Rep. Keith Ellison, as head of the Democratic National Committee. No one seems concerned that Mr. Ellison is a progressive to make even Mrs. Warren blush, utterly out of tune with the concerns of average Americans.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-double-down-1479427359

[pangloss]

What you you all think of this? Not trolling, just wondering. I know there is another side to the story.
Well, since you're just wondering and not trolling, I'll bite softly.

As a very conservative columnist, the author, Kimberley Strassel, lacks the objectivity needed to make valid and unbiased conclusions about the Democratic party.

The election was extremely close. Look at Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. If any two of these three states had voted sanely, er.. for Clinton, the election would have gone to Clinton. All three traditionally vote Democratic. The percentage of the total vote that gave Trump the victory in the three was 0.97%, 0.26% and 1.18%. The percentage of the total for all three was 0.8% for Trump. Beyond whining about the outcome (I'm guilty), I think any grandiose conclusions by some folks like Strassel are misguided. And I imagine Strassel is somewhat motivated by her WSJ pay per word rate for submissions that make Roger Ailes happy.

If two of those three very close states had gone to Clinton the national conversation would be whether the Republican party will survive. A bunch of deep thinkers like Strassel would be writing about mistakes that caused Trump's nomination -- and probably pin it on the national media.

My point is, making profound conclusions that the nation's "voters rejected both their (the Democrats) policies (which have undermined middle- and low-income families) and their governance (which has fueled rage at a power-hungry federal government) is misguided. Similarly, a hard core progressive wailing about the country's selection of hate and bigotry is misguided.

And finally, the author states pinning the election's determination on small factors is wrong and a misguided denial of realtiy. She's mistaken. Going into the election, the final 538 projection based on averages of polls had Clinton up 5.3% in Wisc, 3.7% in Pennsylvania, and 4.2% in Michigan. The Clinton campaign barely campaigned those three states, until the last day, thinking all three were safe.

So something happened to swing the vote radically right. If the swing had been slightly less radical, Clinton would have won. If the reports are true, Bill Clinton was pushing for campaign efforts in those states. Comey's interjections didn't help Clinton. And Trump's victory margin was fewer votes than fourth party candidate Jill Stein got. Did one or a combination of those quirks throw it? Yea, probably. Maybe. Who knows. But I discount a very conservative columnist's opinion that the election signals a major shift in the electorate. My take is that it was a tragic fluke. I hope it doesn't doom the country. Tomorrow might be another day.




cheers

[Ma'ake]

The Dem's need to focus on their core values, and let the candidate follow. It may be liberal progressive, it could be some kind of moderate progressive. They just need to message better to the middle class. Maybe the focus needs to be more on income rather than race or ethnicity, as we are moving to with some types of aff action. As I write this I'm thinking that I sound like the Repubs after 2008 and 2016. I guess I have more faith in the Dems's principles, that they will result in a broader base.

My thesis is that most of the alienation in Trump voters is economic in nature, at the root. Like with Brexit, many people feel left behind, feel marginalized. Their jobs have left, they see minorities on TV making a ton of money as athletes, they fear the Muslims coming to wreak havoc. "We want our America back!"

Trump won't be able to adequately address economic inequality. I don't know if anyone can defy the tide of technology and globalization, for long. He's not going to be able to bring the jobs back from China, because A) slapping a big tariff on Chinese imports would drive up inflation for the working class and middle class, and/or B) those manufacturing jobs don't exist anymore, due to higher levels of manufacturing automation. The manufacturing employment footprint will get much, much smaller.

Clinton was an unattractive candidate, trying to break the glass ceiling in a period of high economic anxiety where people were subconsciously looking for a strong alpha male to project strength and security.

In four years, Trump may face a Democratic opponent who will offer a sharply contrasting view of how to rectify the economic issues for the lower 60% of Americans, to restore a sense that the middle class is no longer at risk of extinction.

Trump rode a wave of anger, especially from undereducated white males. In 2020 these same people will realize that Trump was really Oz, that he simply couldn't deliver what he promised. And they may be ready to roll the dice toward a Warren-type candidate who is far less charitable toward the capitalist class, and disenchanted with the capitalist system.

Donald Trump is the consummate capitalist, of course, and with Ivanka and his other kids attending meetings with heads of state, like today, Trump may become the world's first $ Trillionaire. That would make Donald enormously happy, but the less educated white voters who he conned into voting for him would still be holding the bag, economically.

[LA Ute]

Well, since you're just wondering and not trolling, I'll bite softly.

As a very conservative columnist, the author, Kimberley Strassel, lacks the objectivity needed to make valid and unbiased conclusions about the Democratic party.


Fair enough. But who can make such conclusions? If we dismiss all opinion journalism because of the author's bias, how do we learn anything from it - right or left?

Regarding the closeness of the election in certain states, I think emphasizing that misses an important aspect of the outcome: those Blue Wall states used to be very solidly Democratic. That any Republican even came close, let alone won, is remarkable. I think it's short-sighted to write that result off to moral flaws in the winning candidate and a duped electorate. Is there nothing wrong with the Democrats' message?

Along those lines, here's a thoughtful piece on that subject by a liberal:

The End of Identity Liberalism

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.com

[Ma'ake]

Regarding the closeness of the election in certain states, I think emphasizing that misses an important aspect of the outcome: those Blue Wall states used to be very solidly Democratic. That any Republican even came close, let alone won, is remarkable. I think it's short-sighted to write that result off to moral flaws in the winning candidate and a duped electorate. Is there nothing wrong with the Democrats' message?

David Brooks had an insightful column earlier this year about the rise of Trump and Sanders. Basically, the axis of politics is morphing from the size and scope of government to whether to have an open or closed society and economy. Brexit, angry, alienated rural Germans and French, along with the rise of Trump and Sanders here in the US signify the expression of anxious, angry people who feel left behind.

To be charitable toward my Republican friends, the GOP didn't win the White House, Trump did... by mowing through a field of more conventional Republicans.

Ryan and DC Republicans are trying to ride the wave and show Donald how the Swamp actually works, and why it needn't be drained. Trump promised term limits, quick action on getting lobbyists out of DC / draining the swamp, and getting millions of people deported.

Does Trump turn Republicans into marauders, or do DC Republicans domesticate Trump? Donald must deliver to his core, or be labeled a sellout imposter. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell should be retiring soon, or Donald lost to the GOP.

[Rocker Ute]

If "Did Not Vote" had been a candidate

2024

http://brilliantmaps.com/did-not-vote/ (http://brilliantmaps.com/did-not-vote/)

^^ Kind of disturbing to see this fact represented this way.

I've read a lot of arguments defending the electoral college and other arguing why it should go away. Perhaps the most important is it disenfranchises voters. How many in this thread said something like, "I'm writing in someone because my vote does count in my state..."?

As I understand it, the purpose was to avoid mob rule. However that was developed so the electoral college could vote their conscience. Now they vote simply by who won their state.

If suddenly your vote does count would turnout be better? If suddenly candidates has to address the needs of the whole country and not just pander to manufacturing jobs in the rust belt does the discourse change and we can talk about what really ails us as a whole?

This isn't sour grapes either, I really do believe it is harming our nation indirectly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

David Brooks had an insightful column earlier this year about the rise of Trump and Sanders. Basically, the axis of politics is morphing from the size and scope of government to whether to have an open or closed society and economy. Brexit, angry, alienated rural Germans and French, along with the rise of Trump and Sanders here in the US signify the expression of anxious, angry people who feel left behind.

The feeling of being left behind stems not only from economic issues. There's a faint whiff of condescenion from many liberals who are trying to explain why their candidate lost traditional Democrat constituencies. The folks who chose not to vote for Hillary, either by staying home or voting for Trump, probably had some cultural concerns. They are not knuckle-draggers. That's too convenient an explanation. In that regard, this is an insightful piece by a Columbia humanities professor. It almost made me want to be a liberal:

*****

"But how should this diversity shape our politics? The standard liberal answer for nearly a generation now has been that we should become aware of and 'celebrate' our differences. Which is a splendid principle of moral pedagogy — but disastrous as a foundation for democratic politics in our ideological age. In recent years American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.

"One of the many lessons of the recent presidential election campaign and its repugnant outcome is that the age of identity liberalism must be brought to an end. Hillary Clinton was at her best and most uplifting when she spoke about American interests in world affairs and how they relate to our understanding of democracy. But when it came to life at home, she tended on the campaign trail to lose that large vision and slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop. This was a strategic mistake. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. If you don’t, those left out will notice and feel excluded. Which, as the data show, was exactly what happened with the white working class and those with strong religious convictions. Fully two-thirds of white voters without college degrees voted for Donald Trump, as did over 80 percent of white evangelicals.

"The moral energy surrounding identity has, of course, had many good effects. Affirmative action has reshaped and improved corporate life. Black Lives Matter has delivered a wake-up call to every American with a conscience. Hollywood’s efforts to normalize homosexuality in our popular culture helped to normalize it in American families and public life.

"But the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life. At a very young age our children are being encouraged to talk about their individual identities, even before they have them. By the time they reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good. In large part this is because of high school history curriculums, which anachronistically project the identity politics of today back onto the past, creating a distorted picture of the major forces and individuals that shaped our country. (The achievements of women’s rights movements, for instance, were real and important, but you cannot understand them if you do not first understand the founding fathers’ achievement in establishing a system of government based on the guarantee of rights.)

"When young people arrive at college they are encouraged to keep this focus on themselves by student groups, faculty members and also administrators whose full-time job is to deal with — and heighten the significance of — 'diversity issues.' Fox News and other conservative media outlets make great sport of mocking the 'campus craziness' that surrounds such issues, and more often than not they are right to. Which only plays into the hands of populist demagogues who want to delegitimize learning in the eyes of those who have never set foot on a campus. How to explain to the average voter the supposed moral urgency of giving college students the right to choose the designated gender pronouns to be used when addressing them? How not to laugh along with those voters at the story of a University of Michigan prankster who wrote in 'His Majesty'?'

...

"But it is at the level of electoral politics that identity liberalism has failed most spectacularly, as we have just seen. National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality. And it will be dominated by whoever best captures Americans’ imaginations about our shared destiny. Ronald Reagan did that very skillfully, whatever one may think of his vision. So did Bill Clinton, who took a page from Reagan’s playbook. He seized the Democratic Party away from its identity-conscious wing, concentrated his energies on domestic programs that would benefit everyone (like national health insurance) and defined America’s role in the post-1989 world. By remaining in office for two terms, he was then able to accomplish much for different groups in the Democratic coalition. Identity politics, by contrast, is largely expressive, not persuasive. Which is why it never wins elections — but can lose them.

"The media’s newfound, almost anthropological, interest in the angry white male reveals as much about the state of our liberalism as it does about this much maligned, and previously ignored, figure. A convenient liberal interpretation of the recent presidential election would have it that Mr. Trump won in large part because he managed to transform economic disadvantage into racial rage — the “whitelash” thesis. This is convenient because it sanctions a conviction of moral superiority and allows liberals to ignore what those voters said were their overriding concerns. It also encourages the fantasy that the Republican right is doomed to demographic extinction in the long run — which means liberals have only to wait for the country to fall into their laps. The surprisingly high percentage of the Latino vote that went to Mr. Trump should remind us that the longer ethnic groups are here in this country, the more politically diverse they become.

"Finally, the whitelash thesis is convenient because it absolves liberals of not recognizing how their own obsession with diversity has encouraged white, rural, religious Americans to think of themselves as a disadvantaged group whose identity is being threatened or ignored. Such people are not actually reacting against the reality of our diverse America (they tend, after all, to live in homogeneous areas of the country). But they are reacting against the omnipresent rhetoric of identity, which is what they mean by “political correctness.” Liberals should bear in mind that the first identity movement in American politics was the Ku Klux Klan, which still exists. Those who play the identity game should be prepared to lose it.

"We need a post-identity liberalism, and it should draw from the past successes of pre-identity liberalism. Such a liberalism would concentrate on widening its base by appealing to Americans as Americans and emphasizing the issues that affect a vast majority of them. It would speak to the nation as a nation of citizens who are in this together and must help one another. As for narrower issues that are highly charged symbolically and can drive potential allies away, especially those touching on sexuality and religion, such a liberalism would work quietly, sensitively and with a proper sense of scale. (To paraphrase Bernie Sanders, America is sick and tired of hearing about liberals’ damn bathrooms.)

"Teachers committed to such a liberalism would refocus attention on their main political responsibility in a democracy: to form committed citizens aware of their system of government and the major forces and events in our history. A post-identity liberalism would also emphasize that democracy is not only about rights; it also confers duties on its citizens, such as the duties to keep informed and vote. A post-identity liberal press would begin educating itself about parts of the country that have been ignored, and about what matters there, especially religion. And it would take seriously its responsibility to educate Americans about the major forces shaping world politics, especially their historical dimension.

"Some years ago I was invited to a union convention in Florida to speak on a panel about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous Four Freedoms speech of 1941. The hall was full of representatives from local chapters — men, women, blacks, whites, Latinos. We began by singing the national anthem, and then sat down to listen to a recording of Roosevelt’s speech. As I looked out into the crowd, and saw the array of different faces, I was struck by how focused they were on what they shared. And listening to Roosevelt’s stirring voice as he invoked the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want and the freedom from fear — freedoms that Roosevelt demanded for “everyone in the world” — I was reminded of what the real foundations of modern American liberalism are."

--Mark Lilla, The End of Identity Liberalism (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.com)

[pangloss]

Fair enough. But who can make such conclusions? If we dismiss all opinion journalism because of the author's bias, how do we learn anything from it - right or left?

Regarding the closeness of the election in certain states, I think emphasizing that misses an important aspect of the outcome: those Blue Wall states used to be very solidly Democratic. That any Republican even came close, let alone won, is remarkable. I think it's short-sighted to write that result off to moral flaws in the winning candidate and a duped electorate. Is there nothing wrong with the Democrats' message?

Along those lines, here's a thoughtful piece on that subject by a liberal:

The End of Identity Liberalism

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.comThat's a good piece.

You're right - emphasizing the closeness and speculating on what-if scenarios miss the question, what the hell happened to the rust belt 'firewall'?

Sec. Clinton took her core constituency in those states for granted. She should have listened to 1992 Bill Clinton, "It's the economy, stupid" and stuck with it. It's always the economy. It would have been tough to emphasize the economy while running as Obama's third term, but still it's the economy, stupid.

I think the author you link, Lilla, is right. But I'm not sure it was a conscious decision of Sec. Clinton's campaign to focus on identity politics. I listened to her nomination acceptance, but only pieces of her stump speech. It seemed like the only portions that were reported were identity stuff and attacks on Trump. If she talked about foreign or domestic policy I didn't hear it (I did read her positions on the web, so I am familiar with them, but I'm a retired nerd so I imagine dozens of us actually read candidate positions).

It seemed like most of the campaign cycle was focused on the latest asinine Trump statement. The country and Clinton's campaign woke up with "Oh my God, Trump said what?" In response, I imagine the Clinton campaign staffed a couple intricate responses, ran the alternative responses past focus groups, chose the appropriate mix of condemnation and outrage, and then two days after the Trump-burst they were responding to, they delivered their brilliant, well-crafted response. No one listened. By that time, Trump, the media, and the country had moved on to the next outrageous Trump comment.

The subject of the media's attention was always Trump - either something he said, someone's reaction to something he said, or someone's attack on him for something he said last week. When Clinton came up in the media, it was in terms of her inevitability or Trump calling her crooked, something to do with email -- all negative.

Trump played the daily outrageous comment strategy throughout the primary and general. Every day he said something outrageous. At the time, I thought it was Trump's nature as a thin-skinned loose cannon with no self control. But I'm not so sure now. He dominated the conversation for 18 months - positive and negative - and won. All publicity is good publicity.

I think Ma'ake is correct, the GOP didn't win, Trump won. Trump's wall, infrastructure, and 're-build' of the military are enormous spending programs and his anti trade policy are not GOP mainstays (military spending excepted). His tax cut proposal makes the Reagan and Bush tax cuts look timid. He even ran against low interest rates and said the Fed was rigging things for Clinton. If he gets his way on the fiscal side, the deficit will skyrocket. His idea to pay for it with 5 or 6% GDP growth won't happen, the Fed will hit the brakes to hold off inflation. If the stakes weren't so high, it would be entertaining to see how long the honeymoon with Ryan and McConnel lasts.

What do you think the over-under is on one new war in the next four years. I'll take the over.

[Irving Washington]

Interesting discussions going on right now about the Paris climate accord. There will be meetings next week to flesh out the details of the agreement. With Trump threatening to pull us out of the accord some countries are talking about imposing a carbon tariff on US exports. Industries hardest hit would include steel and concrete. It makes sense. Not only would the U.S. pulling out hurt efforts for climate change control, but U.S. industries would gain a competitive advantage over countries imposing carbon taxes. Some of the Rust Belt states would feel it. Escalating trade wars.

[USS Utah]

How many in this thread said something like, "I'm writing in someone because my vote does count in my state..."?

I said I would likely write in a candidate, and I did -- though I briefly entertained the idea of voting for McMullin -- but I never said my vote doesn't count. Many folks on both sides argued that I would be wasting my vote if I didn't vote for the candidates they supported. My response was that the only wasted vote is the one not cast. IMO, whatever I do with my vote, it counts.

[LA Ute]

This liberal pundit thinks the Democrats should now rebuild by fully embracing "left populism." I hope they don't because of how divisive that would be.

http://theweek.com/articles/662514/how-democratic-party-rebuild



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

Shots fired...

No idea who put this together but I think it expresses a lot of the anger the left is feeling right now...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1315508435208874&id=346937065399354&_rdr

[LA Ute]

Shots fired...

No idea who put this together but I think it expresses a lot of the anger the left is feeling right now...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1315508435208874&id=346937065399354&_rdr

I took a quick look at the comments. Wow! Anger is right.

[U-Ute]

I took a quick look at the comments. Wow! Anger is right.

I think she has a fair point that political discourse has gone out the window with Trump. I bet we see more of this.

[Irving Washington]

The feeling of being left behind stems not only from economic issues. There's a faint whiff of condescenion from many liberals who are trying to explain why their candidate lost traditional Democrat constituencies. The folks who chose not to vote for Hillary, either by staying home or voting for Trump, probably had some cultural concerns. They are not knuckle-draggers. That's too convenient an explanation. In that regard, this is an insightful piece by a Columbia humanities professor. It almost made me want to be a liberal:

*****

"But how should this diversity shape our politics? The standard liberal answer for nearly a generation now has been that we should become aware of and 'celebrate' our differences. Which is a splendid principle of moral pedagogy — but disastrous as a foundation for democratic politics in our ideological age. In recent years American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.

"One of the many lessons of the recent presidential election campaign and its repugnant outcome is that the age of identity liberalism must be brought to an end. Hillary Clinton was at her best and most uplifting when she spoke about American interests in world affairs and how they relate to our understanding of democracy. But when it came to life at home, she tended on the campaign trail to lose that large vision and slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop. This was a strategic mistake. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. If you don’t, those left out will notice and feel excluded. Which, as the data show, was exactly what happened with the white working class and those with strong religious convictions. Fully two-thirds of white voters without college degrees voted for Donald Trump, as did over 80 percent of white evangelicals.

"The moral energy surrounding identity has, of course, had many good effects. Affirmative action has reshaped and improved corporate life. Black Lives Matter has delivered a wake-up call to every American with a conscience. Hollywood’s efforts to normalize homosexuality in our popular culture helped to normalize it in American families and public life.

"But the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life. At a very young age our children are being encouraged to talk about their individual identities, even before they have them. By the time they reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good. In large part this is because of high school history curriculums, which anachronistically project the identity politics of today back onto the past, creating a distorted picture of the major forces and individuals that shaped our country. (The achievements of women’s rights movements, for instance, were real and important, but you cannot understand them if you do not first understand the founding fathers’ achievement in establishing a system of government based on the guarantee of rights.)

"When young people arrive at college they are encouraged to keep this focus on themselves by student groups, faculty members and also administrators whose full-time job is to deal with — and heighten the significance of — 'diversity issues.' Fox News and other conservative media outlets make great sport of mocking the 'campus craziness' that surrounds such issues, and more often than not they are right to. Which only plays into the hands of populist demagogues who want to delegitimize learning in the eyes of those who have never set foot on a campus. How to explain to the average voter the supposed moral urgency of giving college students the right to choose the designated gender pronouns to be used when addressing them? How not to laugh along with those voters at the story of a University of Michigan prankster who wrote in 'His Majesty'?'

...

"But it is at the level of electoral politics that identity liberalism has failed most spectacularly, as we have just seen. National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality. And it will be dominated by whoever best captures Americans’ imaginations about our shared destiny. Ronald Reagan did that very skillfully, whatever one may think of his vision. So did Bill Clinton, who took a page from Reagan’s playbook. He seized the Democratic Party away from its identity-conscious wing, concentrated his energies on domestic programs that would benefit everyone (like national health insurance) and defined America’s role in the post-1989 world. By remaining in office for two terms, he was then able to accomplish much for different groups in the Democratic coalition. Identity politics, by contrast, is largely expressive, not persuasive. Which is why it never wins elections — but can lose them.

"The media’s newfound, almost anthropological, interest in the angry white male reveals as much about the state of our liberalism as it does about this much maligned, and previously ignored, figure. A convenient liberal interpretation of the recent presidential election would have it that Mr. Trump won in large part because he managed to transform economic disadvantage into racial rage — the “whitelash” thesis. This is convenient because it sanctions a conviction of moral superiority and allows liberals to ignore what those voters said were their overriding concerns. It also encourages the fantasy that the Republican right is doomed to demographic extinction in the long run — which means liberals have only to wait for the country to fall into their laps. The surprisingly high percentage of the Latino vote that went to Mr. Trump should remind us that the longer ethnic groups are here in this country, the more politically diverse they become.

"Finally, the whitelash thesis is convenient because it absolves liberals of not recognizing how their own obsession with diversity has encouraged white, rural, religious Americans to think of themselves as a disadvantaged group whose identity is being threatened or ignored. Such people are not actually reacting against the reality of our diverse America (they tend, after all, to live in homogeneous areas of the country). But they are reacting against the omnipresent rhetoric of identity, which is what they mean by “political correctness.” Liberals should bear in mind that the first identity movement in American politics was the Ku Klux Klan, which still exists. Those who play the identity game should be prepared to lose it.

"We need a post-identity liberalism, and it should draw from the past successes of pre-identity liberalism. Such a liberalism would concentrate on widening its base by appealing to Americans as Americans and emphasizing the issues that affect a vast majority of them. It would speak to the nation as a nation of citizens who are in this together and must help one another. As for narrower issues that are highly charged symbolically and can drive potential allies away, especially those touching on sexuality and religion, such a liberalism would work quietly, sensitively and with a proper sense of scale. (To paraphrase Bernie Sanders, America is sick and tired of hearing about liberals’ damn bathrooms.)

"Teachers committed to such a liberalism would refocus attention on their main political responsibility in a democracy: to form committed citizens aware of their system of government and the major forces and events in our history. A post-identity liberalism would also emphasize that democracy is not only about rights; it also confers duties on its citizens, such as the duties to keep informed and vote. A post-identity liberal press would begin educating itself about parts of the country that have been ignored, and about what matters there, especially religion. And it would take seriously its responsibility to educate Americans about the major forces shaping world politics, especially their historical dimension.

"Some years ago I was invited to a union convention in Florida to speak on a panel about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous Four Freedoms speech of 1941. The hall was full of representatives from local chapters — men, women, blacks, whites, Latinos. We began by singing the national anthem, and then sat down to listen to a recording of Roosevelt’s speech. As I looked out into the crowd, and saw the array of different faces, I was struck by how focused they were on what they shared. And listening to Roosevelt’s stirring voice as he invoked the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want and the freedom from fear — freedoms that Roosevelt demanded for “everyone in the world” — I was reminded of what the real foundations of modern American liberalism are."

--Mark Lilla, The End of Identity Liberalism (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.com)
This is one of the best re-election pieces I've read. Don't know how I missed it. Thanks.
If liberals do take this approach, will you join us?

[LA Ute]

This is one of the best re-election pieces I've read. Don't know how I missed it. Thanks.

If liberals do take this approach, will you join us?

Doubtful. But I'll feel much better about you all! (And the country.)

[LA Ute]

I am hoping my liberal friends have a sense of humor....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKOb-kmOgpI

[U-Ute]

I am hoping my liberal friends have a sense of humor....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKOb-kmOgpI

LOL. As usual, SNL is on point. That's awesome.

[U-Ute]

Trump is free to funnel Secret Service funds into his pockets.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13641538/trump-plane-secret-service

[pangloss]

This liberal pundit thinks the Democrats should now rebuild by fully embracing "left populism." I hope they don't because of how divisive that would be.
http://theweek.com/articles/662514/how-democratic-party-rebuild

Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkFor a while (12 - 18 months) I don't think it matters much what the Democrats say regarding an alternative populist agenda. There are three parties in DC now, Democrats, Republicans, and Trumpets - the power is in the opposite order: T, R, D.

Divisiveness is probably inevitable. When Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and Trump signs away the DREAM act, the Democrats won't sign on. When Congress & the administration implement tax cuts that prove to be modest or negligible for nearly everyone, and yuuuge for the very, very rich, and corporate taxes go from 35% to 15% - Democrats won't sign on.

If Trump fights for his populist agenda items - infrastructure, child care, opposition to cuts in Soc Sec and Medicare, push for universal health coverage (of a sort yet to be defined) - then I think he could cobble a coalition of Democrats & Republicans to push that agenda through. I think a lot of Republicans, including Speaker Ryan, got nauseous when Trump supported those items.

If Trump doesn't disclose his taxes and fails to implement clean separation between his business and administration I anticipate the Democrats will yell corruption allegations very loudly. The meeting between him and his family with the Indian real estate executives -- after the election -- is a bad start. The meeting was described by the Indian press, and confirmed by one of the Indian principals, as a discussion of expanding their partnership now that he's president-elect. The allegations of conflict of interest will be non-stop unless he moves decisively and transparently. And I doubt he has any intention of doing that, I don't think he believes there's an issue.

I guess we will also see if the media and populace see an ethical distinction between donations to a not-for-profit, international charitable foundation while the founder's wife was Sec. of State; and a closely held private corporation with far flung holdings and deals leveraging their brand name with the presidency to advance their business interests. My favorite neo-Con, David Frum, tweeted "Foreground: booing at Hamiton.Background: Trump organization muscling foreign diplomats into staying at a hotel owned by the president" Populism indeed.

[USS Utah]

"Those who live by the crystal ball wind up eating ground glass." -- Larry Sabato

[pangloss]

Here's a little left / progressive anger well aimed at Cornell West. It's not exactly how I feel, but it's fairly close.
"Progressive" Cornel West Takes A Victory Lap After Helping Elect Donald Trump (http://thedailybanter.com/2016/11/cornel-west-donald-trump/)

[Irving Washington]

Doubtful. But I'll feel much better about you all! (And the country.)
Then you'll only have Republicans to worry about.

[Ma'ake]

"The moral energy surrounding identity has, of course, had many good effects. Affirmative action has reshaped and improved corporate life. Black Lives Matter has delivered a wake-up call to every American with a conscience. Hollywood’s efforts to normalize homosexuality in our popular culture helped to normalize it in American families and public life.

"But the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life. At a very young age our children are being encouraged to talk about their individual identities, even before they have them. By the time they reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good. In large part this is because of high school history curriculums, which anachronistically project the identity politics of today back onto the past, creating a distorted picture of the major forces and individuals that shaped our country. (The achievements of women’s rights movements, for instance, were real and important, but you cannot understand them if you do not first understand the founding fathers’ achievement in establishing a system of government based on the guarantee of rights.)
"We need a post-identity liberalism, and it should draw from the past successes of pre-identity liberalism. Such a liberalism would concentrate on widening its base by appealing to Americans as Americans and emphasizing the issues that affect a vast majority of them. It would speak to the nation as a nation of citizens who are in this together and must help one another.
"Some years ago I was invited to a union convention in Florida to speak on a panel about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous Four Freedoms speech of 1941. The hall was full of representatives from local chapters — men, women, blacks, whites, Latinos. We began by singing the national anthem, and then sat down to listen to a recording of Roosevelt’s speech. As I looked out into the crowd, and saw the array of different faces, I was struck by how focused they were on what they shared. And listening to Roosevelt’s stirring voice as he invoked the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want and the freedom from fear — freedoms that Roosevelt demanded for “everyone in the world” — I was reminded of what the real foundations of modern American liberalism are."

--Mark Lilla, The End of Identity Liberalism (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.com)

Some good points and admirable ordeals to be worked toward.

But reality necessitates some of what he sees as damaging, such as positive identity development for young kids, leading to ethnic student associations in colleges. Early efforts to send Native American kids to school to prepare them for the big American experience were a disaster, and those schools closed. Even today, many minority kids who go to college are at a serious disadvantage, because they're often the first in their families to go to college, they have no idea what the ropes are, let alone how to navigate them. The biases and obstacles they deal with are subtle, but real.

My youngest son's girlfriend is a Jr at the U in Biomedical Engineering. Her father is half Mexican, is a plumber and former gang teen from Las Vegas. Her mom is from Utah, they're now divorced. By appearances, she's white, but her last name betrays her Hispanic background, and nobody in either side of her family had been to college. 4.0 student in HS, she was told college probably wasn't her best choice, money is limited, etc. When my wife found out, near her high school graduation, she quickly found several scholarship opportunities and got her into SLCC on a 2 year transfer schollie, and now she's evaluating grad school options.

Her high school counselor was probably overworked, or assumed she was high risk to give a scholarship to, based on background.

She wishes her dad and grandma taught her Spanish, but she also knows she's not white. Giving kids positive identity based on their background is important. Now, if we have Kindergarten NAACP chapters, that's obviously going WAY too far, but suffice it to say there are enormous challenges for a lot of kids that are mitigated if they see people who look like them as role models, and I'm guessing Trump's victory will spur a lot of Latino kids to hang together even more closely than they already do. White - Brown student tensions may increase, and this could spur the Latino kids to lash out, and maybe work harder in school. Based on what you see in rural whites, the Latinos could become even more skeptical of education.

The US is looked to as the biggest, most powerful multicultural nation on Earth. It would be one thing if we taught historic liberalism among a population of white kids, Chinese kids, and kids from India. But we've got groups blended in with serious historic baggage, and we're trying to lift them up, while appealing to everyone.

Besides that, Identity Politics has been in politics for a long time. In Utah, the dog whistles are "Utah values", "coastal elites", the word liberal becoming a 4 letter word, etc.

So, in my experience, maybe the identity politics of race could be pulled back a little, but who thinks Republicans don't motivate their rural voters by exacerbating historic problems for political gain?

Lee... is that you, Lee Atwater, echoing through our discourse?

[LA Ute]

It's not just a matter of Donald saying, "Mitt, you've got the job," and Mitt saying, "Great! When do I start?"

A Checklist for Mitt Romney to Consider Before Signing On as Trump’s Secretary of State (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/11/20/a-checklist-for-mitt-romney-to-consider-before-signing-on-as-trumps-secretary-of-state/)
I remember Mitt saying that he didn't want a cabinet position if McCain won because of his father's experience as HUD Secretary -- having to take instructions from 30-somethings at the White House.

[Ma'ake]

Trump on setting up a blind trust for his kids to run his businesses (while giving them top level security clearances and letting them attend meetings between their father and other heads of state): "I would probably have my children run it with my executives and I wouldn't ever be involved because I wouldn't care about anything but our country".

US media were excluded from the meeting between Trump and Abe, but Japanese media covered the meeting, and provided photos showing Ivanka's presence, taking notes.

Today Trump apparently gave very frank criticism to US media executives, probably because coverage of him was not flattering. He's also talked about maybe giving a "reset" with the US media, which probably means "I'll forgive you of your sins as long as you start towing the line in supporting me and my agenda".

If Trump can't quickly get much more positive, pro-Trump media stories, the autocratic dictatorship's playbook would suggest Trump will use a combative relationship with the media as a pretext for pulling press credentials, on a wide-scale basis.

The US media and the Russian media are very different, in many ways - size, sophistication, maturity, history. Trump would certainly have his supporters on his side if he tries to bully the US media, but how the rest of the population reacts, or how effective the bullying would be in accomplishing his goals, remains to be seen.

[U-Ute]

Oh my....

1o6-bi3jlxk

[pangloss]

Trump on setting up a blind trust for his kids to run his businesses (while giving them top level security clearances and letting them attend meetings between their father and other heads of state): "I would probably have my children run it with my executives and I wouldn't ever be involved because I wouldn't care about anything but our country".

US media were excluded from the meeting between Trump and Abe, but Japanese media covered the meeting, and provided photos showing Ivanka's presence, taking notes.

Today Trump apparently gave very frank criticism to US media executives, probably because coverage of him was not flattering. He's also talked about maybe giving a "reset" with the US media, which probably means "I'll forgive you of your sins as long as you start towing the line in supporting me and my agenda".

If Trump can't quickly get much more positive, pro-Trump media stories, the autocratic dictatorship's playbook would suggest Trump will use a combative relationship with the media as a pretext for pulling press credentials, on a wide-scale basis.

The US media and the Russian media are very different, in many ways - size, sophistication, maturity, history. Trump would certainly have his supporters on his side if he tries to bully the US media, but how the rest of the population reacts, or how effective the bullying would be in accomplishing his goals, remains to be seen.Today's Trumptweets...

He tweets "Many people would like to see @Nigel_Farage represent Great Britain as their Ambassador to the United States. He would do a great job!" That's a major diplomatic faux pas. One country doesn't suggest who another country appoints to be its ambassador - particularly when that country already has an ambassador. Farage is the Brexit guy that helped screw up the UK.

One of today's tweets deals with conflict of interest, "Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world. Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!" So his attitude toward the basic government ethics tenet to eliminate conflicts of interest is for the media to look the other way, the people don't care, they knew who they were voting for. Kind of breathtaking.

It looks like he will bypass the press and try to go directly to the populace via Facebook and Twitter with his video posting on Twitter about the first 100 days. No press conferences, just favorable coverage.

Your comparison of Russian and US media followed by Trump's ability to bully media is scary as hell. Russian media that criticizes Putin gets mysteriously murdered.

[LA Ute]

I feel like I am watching a football game between two teams I am not a fan of. (Or maybe "a cock fight without my bird in it" is a better analogy.) :snack:

Here's one point of view from a conservative purist type who has been a never-Trumper:

The Hysterical Left Is Making NeverTrumpers Reconsider (https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-hysterical-left-is-making-nevertrumpers-reconsider/)


And here's the white-shoe commentator view from Bill McGurn at the Wall Street Journal:

Anti-Trumpers Channel Their Inner Donald (http://www.wsj.com/articles/anti-trumpers-channel-their-inner-donald-1479774178)

[LA Ute]

Good piece.

Trump Condemns the Alt-Right, but Its Ally Is Still Down the Hall

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442416/trump-condemns-alt-right-its-ally-still-down-hall

[LA Ute]

Another one.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/19/in-trumps-america-social-justice-warriors-need-to-do-the-one-thing-they-hate/

[USS Utah]

I feel like I am watching a football game between two teams I am not a fan of. (Or maybe "a cock fight without my bird in it" is a better analogy.) :snack:

Here's one point of view from a conservative purist type who has been a never-Trumper:

The Hysterical Left Is Making NeverTrumpers Reconsider (https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-hysterical-left-is-making-nevertrumpers-reconsider/)



Nothing the left is doing is making me reconsider anything regarding Trump.

[Ma'ake]

This may be a serious problem. In counties with electronic voting systems, Clinton received 7% fewer votes than expected, based on neighboring counties with conventional vote counting. *Computer scientists* are urging Clinton to ask for a recount in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Obama said its nearly impossible to hack a US election because its so de-centralized, but nobody thought about the need to hack just certain counties in certain states.

While everyone has been assuming the election was above board in the actual counting, it takes computer scientists to see enough of a pattern to bring up the topic, long after everyone else has accepted the election.

We know that the Russians have attempted to hack into state systems, and generally manipulated information to Trump's advantage. That's what we know. Quite conceivably, there's more that we don't know.

I'm no fan of Clinton, but Americans should be outraged if our electoral system was compromised by foreign intelligence operatives. It would exonerate Nate Silver and all the predictors. They surely want to know.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/

[U-Ute]

This may be a serious problem. In counties with electronic voting systems, Clinton received 7% fewer votes than expected, based on neighboring counties with conventional vote counting. *Computer scientists* are urging Clinton to ask for a recount in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Obama said its nearly impossible to hack a US election because its so de-centralized, but nobody thought about the need to hack just certain counties in certain states.

While everyone has been assuming the election was above board in the actual counting, it takes computer scientists to see enough of a pattern to bring up the topic, long after everyone else has accepted the election.

We know that the Russians have attempted to hack into state systems, and generally manipulated information to Trump's advantage. That's what we know. Quite conceivably, there's more that we don't know.

I'm no fan of Clinton, but Americans should be outraged if our electoral system was compromised by foreign intelligence operatives. It would exonerate Nate Silver and all the predictors. They surely want to know.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/

In my experience of electronic sausage making, I know I've read in multiple sources that those electronic voting machines are far from secure. I don't trust them any further than I could throw Isaac Asiata.

[LA Ute]

I think if Clinton challenges the election outcome it will be disastrous for the USA. I mean, just think about it. Please, don't do it, Hillary. I'd say the same about Trump.

[Ma'ake]

Here's Medium entry from Alex Halderman, the U of Michigan Computer Science professor: https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.ho6xc4pkm

His hunch is the pollsters were wrong, but it's important to validate the election results, because - like U-Ute says above - these systems are far from being bullet-proof secure.

Working in IT Sec, I can tell you we're far, far less secure than we think we are.

The guys I work with - who are much deeper into this stuff than I am - are telling me that beyond the varieties of Email phishing, ransomware, script-kiddie digital graffiti, etc, that our networks are being mapped by hackers, some of whom seem less interested in making a quick buck off ransomware or password grabbers, and more interested in knowing how we function, as organizations. Call it the "Great Surveillance". Our government has been watching a lot of people for a long time... it shouldn't be a surprise that other governments or organizations are doing the same thing.

In a sense, whoever won the election is a less important question. (Tens of millions of politically detached Americans would agree.)

[pangloss]

I think if Clinton challenges the election outcome it will be disastrous for the USA. I mean, just think about it. Please, don't do it, Hillary. I'd say the same about Trump.I tend to agree with you. But the prospect of it being true - that the election has been corrupted and the winner determined by something other than voters would be stunning. And the even more remote prospect of it being orchestrated by Russia, yikes -- that's approaching an act of war.

The statistical analysis showing one type of voting machine has a 7% bias toward Trump in Michigan needs to be explained. It doesn't mean the machine's chips or software have been rigged. Maybe they are used in the more affluent or less diverse (i.e. white) districts.

It just looks weird, really weird.

I can't fathom a repeat of the the nightmare of the 2000 election. But I want to have unwavering faith in the sanctity of the country's electoral institutions.

[Ma'ake]

News: Hillary's lead in the popular vote exceeds two million.

Trump tweet: "I've never been a fan of the Electoral College until now"

I don't think Donald was trying to be funny, but that was some quality work.

[#1 Utefan]

I tend to agree with you. But the prospect of it being true - that the election has been corrupted and the winner determined by something other than voters would be stunning. And the even more remote prospect of it being orchestrated by Russia, yikes -- that's approaching an act of war.

The statistical analysis showing one type of voting machine has a 7% bias toward Trump in Michigan needs to be explained. It doesn't mean the machine's chips or software have been rigged. Maybe they are used in the more affluent or less diverse (i.e. white) districts.

It just looks weird, really weird.

I can't fathom a repeat of the the nightmare of the 2000 election. But I want to have unwavering faith in the sanctity of the country's electoral institutions.


I have to kind of chuckle about this discussion. The Republicans have been accusing Democrats of voter fraud for at least the past two elections (and the lefts vehement opposition to common sense voter ID laws seemingly supports the theory).

Now we have the left's version of voter fraud only now it is mysterious computers in isolated counties in the Midwest likely hacked by Putin operatives. I don't pretend to know what may have or may not have occurred with all this but lets just say I'm skeptical.

I am a Republican "never Trumper" that voted 3rd party. Put me in the camp of never Trumpers" so turned off by the lefts (and left leaning media) reaction to this election's result (incessant whining about the electoral college which is part of our Constitution and has been in place since the countries birth ranks at the top of my pet peeves) that I am totally turned off.

The election is over. Deal with it, stop crying, and stop with the conspiracy theories already.

[Rocker Ute]

I think if Clinton challenges the election outcome it will be disastrous for the USA. I mean, just think about it. Please, don't do it, Hillary. I'd say the same about Trump.

In this case I feel just the opposite. I think this needs to be investigated and give people the confidence that the electoral process we have is sound. It is funny because I was thinking back when they were claiming attempts to hack the system by the Russians and people assuring that our system was unhackable thinking, "You don't need to hack the whole nation, just key states."

So challenge, investigate and let's get to the truth. It does more harm to the nation to have enemies influencing the outcome.

[Rocker Ute]

I have to kind of chuckle about this discussion. The Republicans have been accusing Democrats of voter fraud for at least the past two elections (and the lefts vehement opposition to common sense voter ID laws seemingly supports the theory).

Now we have the left's version of voter fraud only now it is mysterious computers in isolated counties in the Midwest likely hacked by Putin operatives. I don't pretend to know what may have or may not have occurred with all this but lets just say I'm skeptical.

I am a Republican "never Trumper" that voted 3rd party. Put me in the camp of never Trumpers" so turned off by the lefts (and left leaning media) reaction to this election's result (incessant whining about the electoral college which is part of our Constitution and has been in place since the countries birth ranks at the top of my pet peeves) that I am totally turned off.

The election is over. Deal with it, stop crying, and stop with the conspiracy theories already.

I get where you are coming from, and I too was tired of the incessant wining of voter fraud by the left, but if the system is rigged wouldn't you want to know? I mean, we'd rather string up Pete Rose but in this case it's a call to just let it go?

[LA Ute]

In this case I feel just the opposite. I think this needs to be investigated and give people the confidence that the electoral process we have is sound. It is funny because I was thinking back when they were claiming attempts to hack the system by the Russians and people assuring that our system was unhackable thinking, "You don't need to hack the whole nation, just key states."

So challenge, investigate and let's get to the truth. It does more harm to the nation to have enemies influencing the outcome.

I also think we should find out what happened. But that is different from challenging the outcome, which I think would be disastrous.

[LA Ute]

I thought this was a smart short piece in the NY Times:

*****

If there was a key moment that, in hindsight, should have alerted Republicans and Democrats that Donald Trump was a true threat to win the White House, it was in the first Republican primary debate. As Megyn Kelly confronted him with a litany of his abusive and insulting comments about women (including using words like “fat pigs,” “dogs,” and “disgusting animals”), he interrupted and claimed he’d said those things only about Rosie O’Donnell. The crowd went wild.

One has to live and work well outside the core of blue America to understand how frustrated – no, furious – millions of Americans are with the censorious and scolding progressive impulse that is branded under the catch-all category of “political correctness” or just “P.C.”Never mind that he had actually insulted far more women than just Ms. O’Donnell; he had signaled something important to a crowd desperate for a champion against the progressive elite. He wouldn’t back down. He wouldn’t apologize. He would speak his mind fearlessly.

It’s one thing to support gay marriage, transgender rights, affirmative-action, amnesty for illegal immigrants and large-scale Muslim immigration. They’re ideas worth debating. It’s another thing entirely to write off opponents of progressive ideology as homophobes, transphobes, racists and Islamophobes.

Upholding orthodox Christian views of marriage and human sexuality is not an act of hate. Expressing concern about the effect of large-scale immigration on wages and job opportunities is not an act of racism. And it turns out that people deeply resent being told they’re evil. They resent censorship even more.

This is why many of my pro-Trump friends and neighbors supported him even if they disagreed with his proposed temporary ban on Muslim immigration – or even if they disagreed with his proposed mass deportations. At least his mind was open to unorthodox solutions. At least he wasn’t cowed by a progressive orthodoxy that narrowed choices even as it narrowed minds.

Loathing political correctness carries its own dangers, however. The best responses to P.C. excess are grounded in truth and conviction, not in a defiant spirit that is designed mainly to annoy or enrage. Manners still matter, and in flouting political correctness Trump often used rhetoric that seemed intentionally crafted to reinforce the worst stereotypes of Republicans. In the P.C. wars, both sides now feel empowered, and conflict will rage with no end in sight.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/23/is-criticism-of-identity-politics-racist-or-long-overdue/progressive-orthodoxy-narrows-choices-and-minds

[#1 Utefan]

In this case I feel just the opposite. I think this needs to be investigated and give people the confidence that the electoral process we have is sound. It is funny because I was thinking back when they were claiming attempts to hack the system by the Russians and people assuring that our system was unhackable thinking, "You don't need to hack the whole nation, just key states."

So challenge, investigate and let's get to the truth. It does more harm to the nation to have enemies influencing the outcome.


I don't disagree but I would be willing to wager a significant sum right now that the alleged glitches or supposed fraud turns out to be nothing. Does anyone know who these "computer scientists" are that are the source of these conspiracies? Given the lefts overtop and seemingly never ending reaction to the election results so far, something tells me it is a group with an agenda.

Honestly, with all these protests by former Bernie Sanders supporters (half of whom sound like they didn't even bother to vote), it is starting to feel like we live in a banana republic.

[Rocker Ute]

I also think we should find out what happened. But that is different from challenging the outcome, which I think would be disastrous.

Not trying to be adversarial, just trying to understand the distinction. If they do a study and find that results have been altered how would that be any better than if it was challenged? I tend to think it is worse because a known injustice will be allowed to be carried out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

I should also add that while this looks suspicious the odds of it happening still seem pretty low to me. It seems more probable they'll find demographic information tied to the machines in question that caused the discrepancy. Yet it is still worth investigating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

I love the whining and the conspiracy theory in this thread. I LOVE IT! Anti-Trump democrats are just as crazy as ANY Trump supporter could be, and you keep showing it over and over.

[Devildog]

All the educated opinion here, and at it's core... just some humans with a specific ideology. Whaaaaa cry me a river. I am so happy to see things shaken up in Washington.

[Devildog]

Say hello to the new Secretary of Defense. Obama or Hillary would never pick a man like this to lead our nation's defense... because they couldn't handle a strong self assured leader and outspoken warrior to run defense. Mattis will be a yes man to nobody... and Trump will probably pick him.

http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/RuggedH2/Wimps_zpsgnndc2fn.jpg (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/RuggedH2/media/Wimps_zpsgnndc2fn.jpg.html)

[Rocker Ute]

Shouldn't you be polishing imaginary medals?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Not trying to be adversarial, just trying to understand the distinction. If they do a study and find that results have been altered how would that be any better than if it was challenged? I tend to think it is worse because a known injustice will be allowed to be carried out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From my undergraduate poli sci days I remember that in 1960 the voting in Cook County, Illinois (Chicago, Mayor Daley's lair) was very questionable. Kennedy won Illinois narrowly because of a huge margin in that county. Nixon could have challenged the outcome but chose not to because he thought doing so would hurt the country -- there would have been a long, controversial battle with an uncertain outcome. (Tricky Dick had his problems but it seems like he has gotten credit from historians for this one self-sacrificing decision.) in the present political climate I can't imagine anything more divisive than a challenge to he election's outcome. As you've said it's doubtful that anything conclusive could come out of an inquiry anyway.

I am confident I would say the same thing if the parties were reversed.

Here's a bit on the 1960 election:

http://historynewsnetwork.org

[Ma'ake]

Pivoting from the election, I really like the idea of Apple bringing iPhone manufacturing back to the US, from China. The dramatically lower labor costs in China are less relevant, as FoxConn, the Chinese manufacturer of Apple's hardware, has laid off 60,000 workers since 2014, as robotics pick up more of the workload.

China has nudged iPhone's to the sideline in the Chinese domestic market in lieu of domestic phone companies, so there's little damage to be done to Apple in the way of Chinese retaliation.

Tesla's Elon Musk adds some detail to what could be the path forward: Musk is aiming to get the Tesla factory in Fremont, CA completely automated... but it turns out Musk has a soul. Besides striving for environmentally responsible manufacturing, he's behind the minimum salary movement, which could be a possible way forward as a society as the Technology Revolution threatens to replace millions of jobs.

The conservative mindset is that this is a horrific idea, that our youth will sit around, smoke pot and play computer games all day.

But the conservative mindset can't explain how Airbus produces truly excellent airliners, at least as good as Boeing, the capitalist American company. The Airbus engineers should have no motivation to get off the couch every day and produce highly innovative ideas for making their jets better. But they do.

Look for California to lead, again.

[More controversial ideas below]

If red America can't tolerate these radical ideas... Calexit ! "Pacifica" would negotiate favorable trade agreements with a smaller USA, and be free to push on the accelerator in moving forward. Oregon and Washington would probably join, in a heartbeat, as would Hawai'i. Long term agreements with the US and Canada on defense issues would address those concerns.

I would trade homes with LA Ute, he could rejoin his tribe up here in Utah, I would return to my origins in LA, California, Pacifica.

[Rocker Ute]

Having spent the majority of my career in Park City, the capital of California flight, I've never heard the term "California ... leads, again" in a positive way. The consensus of that biased sample is the weather is about the only good thing about CA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[#1 Utefan]

Pivoting from the election, I really like the idea of Apple bringing iPhone manufacturing back to the US, from China. The dramatically lower labor costs in China are less relevant, as FoxConn, the Chinese manufacturer of Apple's hardware, has laid off 60,000 workers since 2014, as robotics pick up more of the workload.

China has nudged iPhone's to the sideline in the Chinese domestic market in lieu of domestic phone companies, so there's little damage to be done to Apple in the way of Chinese retaliation.

Tesla's Elon Musk adds some detail to what could be the path forward: Musk is aiming to get the Tesla factory in Fremont, CA completely automated... but it turns out Musk has a soul. Besides striving for environmentally responsible manufacturing, he's behind the minimum salary movement, which could be a possible way forward as a society as the Technology Revolution threatens to replace millions of jobs.

The conservative mindset is that this is a horrific idea, that our youth will sit around, smoke pot and play computer games all day.

But the conservative mindset can't explain how Airbus produces truly excellent airliners, at least as good as Boeing, the capitalist American company. The Airbus engineers should have no motivation to get off the couch every day and produce highly innovative ideas for making their jets better. But they do.

Look for California to lead, again.

[More controversial ideas below]

If red America can't tolerate these radical ideas... Calexit ! "Pacifica" would negotiate favorable trade agreements with a smaller USA, and be free to push on the accelerator in moving forward. Oregon and Washington would probably join, in a heartbeat, as would Hawai'i. Long term agreements with the US and Canada on defense issues would address those concerns.

I would trade homes with LA Ute, he could rejoin his tribe up here in Utah, I would return to my origins in LA, California, Pacifica.


Well, there is Airbus. Generally, however, most European socialistic economies save Germany are in decline and becoming increasing irrelevant globally.

You want manufacturing jobs back in the US? Lower the corporate tax rate like Trump has proposed so US corporations are incentivized to repatriate the billions they've kept overseas. At 35%, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Ironically, it is the Obama administration and the left that advocate these high corporate tax rates that disincentivize companies from bringing capital and possible jobs for the middle class back to the US.

I am not a fan of Trump's populist, tariff and anti-trade rhetoric. I think if implemented, it will likely damage the economy (his philosophy on trade is more Democrat than Republican). He is spot on on trying to encourage US companies to repatriate their earnings and encourage investment in growth and jobs here by lowering the corporate tax rate, however.

As for the People's Republic of California, you can have it. They still have tech but a lot of companies are leaving or shifting operations to Texas and more business friendly states. California is one of the most poorly managed and indebted states in the country and gradually headed south

[Ma'ake]

Honestly, with all these protests by former Bernie Sanders supporters (half of whom sound like they didn't even bother to vote), it is starting to feel like we live in a banana republic.

Every banana republic has a strongman. Trump and his family are quickly accumulating power and access at a rate that would make the Somoza family that ruled Nicaragua envious.

(Say what you will about Malia and Sasha Obama - they weren't given top security clearances and weren't suggested by their father as having the potential to make Israel and the Palestinians live in peace. Can you imagine the howling from the right if Obama did?)

Banana Republic, indeed.

[Diehard Ute]

Pivoting from the election, I really like the idea of Apple bringing iPhone manufacturing back to the US, from China. The dramatically lower labor costs in China are less relevant, as FoxConn, the Chinese manufacturer of Apple's hardware, has laid off 60,000 workers since 2014, as robotics pick up more of the workload.

China has nudged iPhone's to the sideline in the Chinese domestic market in lieu of domestic phone companies, so there's little damage to be done to Apple in the way of Chinese retaliation.

Tesla's Elon Musk adds some detail to what could be the path forward: Musk is aiming to get the Tesla factory in Fremont, CA completely automated... but it turns out Musk has a soul. Besides striving for environmentally responsible manufacturing, he's behind the minimum salary movement, which could be a possible way forward as a society as the Technology Revolution threatens to replace millions of jobs.

The conservative mindset is that this is a horrific idea, that our youth will sit around, smoke pot and play computer games all day.

But the conservative mindset can't explain how Airbus produces truly excellent airliners, at least as good as Boeing, the capitalist American company. The Airbus engineers should have no motivation to get off the couch every day and produce highly innovative ideas for making their jets better. But they do.

Look for California to lead, again.

[More controversial ideas below]

If red America can't tolerate these radical ideas... Calexit ! "Pacifica" would negotiate favorable trade agreements with a smaller USA, and be free to push on the accelerator in moving forward. Oregon and Washington would probably join, in a heartbeat, as would Hawai'i. Long term agreements with the US and Canada on defense issues would address those concerns.

I would trade homes with LA Ute, he could rejoin his tribe up here in Utah, I would return to my origins in LA, California, Pacifica.

Come on Ma'ake, you're smarter than this.

The idea that leaving the US is so easy is silly. Canada's defense relies heavily on being the US' neighbor. And you really think there'd be this "hey, you left, but sure we'll still protect you" thing going on?

California needs to stop with this stupid crap and you know it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Come on Ma'ake, you're smarter than this.

The idea that leaving the US is so easy is silly. Canada's defense relies heavily on being the US' neighbor. And you really think there'd be this "hey, you left, but sure we'll still protect you" thing going on?

California needs to stop with this stupid crap and you know it.

I don't think it would ever get to California actually breaking off, but if there's anything we've learned recently, it's that aggressive rhetoric and hard-bargaining gets leverage, and in California's case flexibility in forging solutions the rest of the nation might eventually see as good.

The states are laboratories of innovation.

As for defense, the exorbitant prices we pay for systems like the F-35 can't last, and development of high-tech, highly cost effective drones would benefit California, Canada, probably the NATO countries Trump is trying to get reimbursement for our defense expenditures there, and eventually the US taxpayer would benefit. Some competition in defense systems would be good. Trump started that conversation by threatening to reduce our NATO commitment.

In short, I've come around on the idea of Brexit, and as conservative Americans cheerlead the (potential) breakup of the EU, I don't see why a similar thing would have to be a bad thing for the US.

I think the debate is healthy, and California as the magnet for really intelligent immigrants from all over the world, along with bright minds like Elon Musk, are probably the ones to lead us through the technology revolution.

The Utah Republican party and Gary Herbert are almost certainly not the ones to lead us through the changes coming.

[USS Utah]

I thought this was a smart short piece in the NY Times:

*****

If there was a key moment that, in hindsight, should have alerted Republicans and Democrats that Donald Trump was a true threat to win the White House, it was in the first Republican primary debate. As Megyn Kelly confronted him with a litany of his abusive and insulting comments about women (including using words like “fat pigs,” “dogs,” and “disgusting animals”), he interrupted and claimed he’d said those things only about Rosie O’Donnell. The crowd went wild.

One has to live and work well outside the core of blue America to understand how frustrated – no, furious – millions of Americans are with the censorious and scolding progressive impulse that is branded under the catch-all category of “political correctness” or just “P.C.”Never mind that he had actually insulted far more women than just Ms. O’Donnell; he had signaled something important to a crowd desperate for a champion against the progressive elite. He wouldn’t back down. He wouldn’t apologize. He would speak his mind fearlessly.

It’s one thing to support gay marriage, transgender rights, affirmative-action, amnesty for illegal immigrants and large-scale Muslim immigration. They’re ideas worth debating. It’s another thing entirely to write off opponents of progressive ideology as homophobes, transphobes, racists and Islamophobes.

Upholding orthodox Christian views of marriage and human sexuality is not an act of hate. Expressing concern about the effect of large-scale immigration on wages and job opportunities is not an act of racism. And it turns out that people deeply resent being told they’re evil. They resent censorship even more.

This is why many of my pro-Trump friends and neighbors supported him even if they disagreed with his proposed temporary ban on Muslim immigration – or even if they disagreed with his proposed mass deportations. At least his mind was open to unorthodox solutions. At least he wasn’t cowed by a progressive orthodoxy that narrowed choices even as it narrowed minds.

Loathing political correctness carries its own dangers, however. The best responses to P.C. excess are grounded in truth and conviction, not in a defiant spirit that is designed mainly to annoy or enrage. Manners still matter, and in flouting political correctness Trump often used rhetoric that seemed intentionally crafted to reinforce the worst stereotypes of Republicans. In the P.C. wars, both sides now feel empowered, and conflict will rage with no end in sight.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/23/is-criticism-of-identity-politics-racist-or-long-overdue/progressive-orthodoxy-narrows-choices-and-minds

Minds and choices have also been narrowed by conservative orthodoxy. This is the fruit of extremism from both sides.

[USS Utah]

Not trying to be adversarial, just trying to understand the distinction. If they do a study and find that results have been altered how would that be any better than if it was challenged? I tend to think it is worse because a known injustice will be allowed to be carried out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would be better to challenge the outcome based on evidence rather than speculation.

[USS Utah]

Say hello to the new Secretary of Defense. Obama or Hillary would never pick a man like this to lead our nation's defense... because they couldn't handle a strong self assured leader and outspoken warrior to run defense. Mattis will be a yes man to nobody... and Trump will probably pick him.

Mattis is a great pick for SecDef. However, there are some anti-common core folks who are dismayed at Trump's pick for Sec Education, who supports common core, which he vowed to eliminate.

[Ma'ake]

Well, there is Airbus. Generally, however, most European socialistic economies save Germany are in decline and becoming increasing irrelevant globally.

You want manufacturing jobs back in the US? Lower the corporate tax rate like Trump has proposed so US corporations are incentivized to repatriate the billions they've kept overseas. At 35%, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

First of all, any US corporation that pays 35% in taxes deserves to go out of business.

The European experiment of binding nations based on geography has failed, to a significant extent, and the American experiment is fraying. We need to be honest. LA Ute fears the secularization of California, the advance of gay rights / persecution of religious people, and I know a lot of brown people who fear what many other parts of America appear to be becoming.

Why not let this play out a little further - let California / Pacifica sharply curtail 2nd Amendment rights, and expand civil rights for gays, etc. Let them be free to attract talented immigrants from wherever they want, and see what happens. Let them establish manufacturing with a much smaller employment footprint, and tax their cheap exports to the rest of the US and the world, to subsidize a base salary, and see what kind of pent up creativity is unleashed if people work less, but don't go into poverty.

[#1 Utefan]

First of all, any US corporation that pays 35% in taxes deserves to go out of business.

The European experiment of binding nations based on geography has failed, to a significant extent, and the American experiment is fraying. We need to be honest. LA Ute fears the secularization of California, the advance of gay rights / persecution of religious people, and I know a lot of brown people who fear what America appears to be becoming.

Why not let this play out a little further - let California / Pacifica sharply curtail 2nd Amendment rights, and expand civil rights for gays, etc. Let them be free to attract talented immigrants from wherever they want, and see what happens. Let them establish manufacturing with a much smaller employment footprint, and tax their cheap exports to the rest of the US and the world, to subsidize a base salary, and see what kind of pent up creativity is unleashed if people work far less, but don't go into poverty.


If they want to, I say go for it. As I stated pre iously, California is one of the worst managed and indebted states in the country. The high taxes and liberal economic policies are gradually eroding their business base. Add the cost of defense and California would crumble pretty quickly.

[USS Utah]

First of all, any US corporation that pays 35% in taxes deserves to go out of business.

Exactly. So, those upset at corporations and the wealthy paying less in taxes because of breaks and loopholes should blame the people in Washington to wrote and passed the tax code and sighed it into law instead.

[Ma'ake]

If they want to, I say go for it. As I stated pre iously, California is one of the worst managed and indebted states in the country. The high taxes and liberal economic policies are gradually eroding their business base. Add the cost of defense and California would crumble pretty quickly.

From the conservative mindset, California should have crumbled, long ago... either by falling into the sea from God's vengeance, or by liberal policies, or social decay, etc.

But California's economy grew by 4.1% in 2015. Texas declined a bit, probably from the drop in oil.

CA's economy is the 6th biggest in the world, with the EU, China, Japan, Germany and the UK being ahead of it, and notable nations of France, India, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea and even Putin's Russia behind it. Actually Russia is about 53% the size of California's economy.

Certainly it's arguable that California would survive fine, on its own, especially if it was able to loosen the immigration laws in pulling talent from India and China, and other nations.

[Rocker Ute]

At 7am this morning this was at $2.4M. As of this posting it is just shy of $3.9M. $1.5M raised in 6 hours. Wow.

https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount

A lot of people are looking for answers on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pangloss]

Someone asked the identity of the folks that flagged the statistical discrepancies between the different polling methods and are encouraging Clinton to call for a recount. Here is his web site, he's a Univ of Michigan professor - J. Alex Halderman (https://jhalderm.com/) His field is computer security, so he must be brilliant.

The prospect that the polling machines were hacked seems far-fetched to me. But I don't have much doubt that if the Russians could have done it, they would have. Here's some more light reading from Esquire (not fake news). Russia's Involvement in the 2016 Election Is Growing by the Day (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50738/russia-wikileaks-2016-election/)

I'm dismayed by some of my conservative brothers' suggestion that the issue is whining and that we ought to get over it. It isn't left, right or moderate. All is not fair in politics when it comes to foreign involvement. Maybe it's because I spent my career in the defense industry and watched horror movies of real spies doing harm to our country. But this is disturbing stuff for me. The bad guys in Russia are real bad guys. Our country needs to know to what extent the election was nudged, influenced, or fixed by Russia.

Imagine if the roles were reversed and it looked like a winning left candidate like Sanders or a moderate candidate with accusations of socialist leanings like Obama had been helped by KGB operatives. I think right wing folks would be revolting (in the rising against constituted authority sense, not the disgusting sense).

[Rocker Ute]

Imagine if the roles were reversed and it looked like a left candidate like Sanders had been helped by KGB operatives. I think right wing folks would be revolting (in the rising against constituted authority sense, not the disgusting sense).

The right would be calling for war with Russia.

I will say I agree it is unlikely but at the same time would it surprise you if it is revealed as true?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sancho]

The right would be calling for war with Russia.


And they would be laughed to scorn.

This rigged election stuff is exactly what people on the left were mocking Trump supporters for.

It's over people. Even if it was unfair, it's over. It's like Okie State losing to Central Michigan. The Cowboys would be playoff contenders if not for that game. But the game is over.

[pangloss]

From the conservative mindset, California should have crumbled, long ago... either by falling into the sea from God's vengeance, or by liberal policies, or social decay, etc.

But California's economy grew by 4.1% in 2015. Texas declined a bit, probably from the drop in oil.

CA's economy is the 6th biggest in the world, with the EU, China, Japan, Germany and the UK being ahead of it, and notable nations of France, India, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea and even Putin's Russia behind it. Actually Russia is about 53% the size of California's economy.

Certainly it's arguable that California would survive fine, on its own, especially if it was able to loosen the immigration laws in pulling talent from India and China, and other nations.The other great experiment conservative economic theory has been Kansas. Their governor, Sam Brownback, is a tea party true believer elected in 2010. He launched his "pro-growth tax policy" of huge tax cuts for business and high earning individuals in 2012 promising it would be an economic shot in the arm - a field test of supply-side, libertarian dogma. It's been an utter failure. Before Brownback implemented his plan the state was 12th in the nation in personal economic growth. It is now 41st. School districts and universities are hurting badly. Neighboring states are doing much better. The state's highway was robbed to fix other shortfalls. The Topeka Capital-Journal wrote that Brownback's "vision for fiscal policy has been devastating. As revenue shortfalls persist, and the outlook for the state grows bleaker, Brownback and his staff usually find someone, or something, to blame. … The excuses, however, grow old"

[Rocker Ute]

Lowering corporate taxes is not going to bring jobs back to the US. Jobs have gone overseas because of labor costs. What it may bring back is corporations who have located HQs overseas to avoid the high tax rate in the US. So a lot of this operates off the theory that collecting 15% of something is better than 35% of nothing. However I don't think enough tax dollar has been displaced to justify the 20% reduction nor is it incentive to bring the business HQs back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

And they would be laughed to scorn.

This rigged election stuff is exactly what people on the left were mocking Trump supporters for.

It's over people. Even if it was unfair, it's over. It's like Okie State losing to Central Michigan. The Cowboys would be playoff contenders if not for that game. But the game is over.

Being laughed to scorn has not stopped either side from beating their drums.

Unfortunately it isn't like a football game because this is real life. Another country affecting our elections is a BIG deal.

Now what is right for either candidate to do is another debate, but we as a country need to have confidence in election results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Shouldn't you be polishing imaginary medals?


Hahaha your google search has convinced you of what you already believed. Amazing, no wonder you thought Hillary would crush Trump in a landslide. Jenius (intentional, spelled out just for you Rocker). Bring on your conspiracy theory crazy.

[sancho]

Unfortunately it isn't like a football game because this is real life. Another country affecting our elections is a BIG deal.


I have to admit, I was pretty disappointed on election night, and that had never happened to me before with politics. The silver lining on Utah's loss last week was when I realized that the game made me far more sad than the election. I was relieved to know I hadn't lost my perspective.

I wonder if we are past the point of having confidence in election results. Everyone thought Trump and his supporters were going to cry foul after a loss, and now it's actually happening with Clinton supporters. I wonder if this will happen after every close election now.

[LA Ute]

Minds and choices have also been narrowed by conservative orthodoxy. This is the fruit of extremism from both sides.

I think that is true, and I appreciate your desire to be even-handed about this subject. The difference is that because the left has a greater hold on the news media and especially on academia, its orthodoxy is much more powerful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

Hahaha your google search has convinced you of what you already believed. Amazing, no wonder you thought Hillary would crush Trump in a landslide. Jenius (intentional, spelled out just for you Rocker). Bring on your conspiracy theory crazy.

I just can't believe you show your face around here anymore. People get arrested for what you do. I think you owe at least USS Utah an apology for mocking him not serving in the military. Then go find somewhere else to play pretend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

Pretty funny stuff -

Make sure to read both the reviews and the Q&A: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N67D8HO/ref=tsm_1_fb_lk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

I just can't believe you show your face around here anymore. People get arrested for what you do. I think you owe at least USS Utah an apology for mocking him not serving in the military. Then go find somewhere else to play pretend.


Rocker, I feel sorry for you. I am sorry for you that your girl that you were positive would win ... lost the election. I am sorry that you are so petty and this is so important to you that you feel the need to denigrate me here personally. You are wrong in your assumptions about me. I have tried to tell you repeatedly, and privately that I would be happy to meet you and you can judge for yourself who and what I am, and what I have done... but you appear afraid to actually do that. I'll buy you a drink, a soda pop if you like. Your google search ability doesn't make your assumptions correct... Meet me and determine for yourself.

Once again, I'm sorry this matters this much to you that you have to act this way here. Meet me and determine for yourself who you think I am.

Please ask yourself... If I am wrong, what kind of asshole does this make me?... because Rocker, you are wrong... again.

We couldn't be more than 30 minutes apart.

[Rocker Ute]

Rocker, I feel sorry for you. I am sorry for you that your girl that you were positive would win ... lost the election. I am sorry that you are so petty and this is so important to you that you feel the need to denigrate me here personally. You are wrong in your assumptions about me. I have tried to tell you repeatedly, and privately that I would be happy to meet you and you can judge for yourself who and what I am, and what I have done... but you appear afraid to actually do that. I'll buy you a drink, a soda pop if you like. Your google search ability doesn't make your assumptions correct... Meet me and determine for yourself.

Once again, I'm sorry this matters this much to you that you have to act this way here. Meet me and determine for yourself who you think I am.

Please ask yourself... If I am wrong, what kind of asshole does this make me?... because Rocker, you are wrong... again.

We couldn't be more than 30 minutes apart.

So you come here acting like a tough guy, didn't want to be forthright in basic questions about where you served and now you want to meet? Uh... No thanks.

Me questioning your suspicious claims doesn't make me anything. You've denigrated yourself. You are the one coming here trying to bully people with your military service. You were the one being evasive when I started asking simple questions about your service and you are the one who mistook the name of the operation that you served under, which strains all credulity.

I'll admit your behavior here had me suspicious of your claims before your slip-up because it was so unlike all servicemen I know. But when you did that, well that just doesn't legitimately happen.

So, please explain how exactly that could be. I've met a lot of servicemen and never had one of them make that sort of mistake.

And I'll tell you what, why don't I just go on ignoring you and you can ignore me and you can go keep seeking validation from people you barely know on the internet and pretending to be whomever you'd like. Then we don't have to drag these fine people through your mud any further. Deal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USS Utah]

I think that is true, and I appreciate your desire to be even-handed about this subject. The difference is that because the left has a greater hold on the news media and especially on academia, its orthodoxy is much more powerful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Talk radio and the internet provide a counterbalance.

[USS Utah]

I just can't believe you show your face around here anymore. People get arrested for what you do. I think you owe at least USS Utah an apology for mocking him not serving in the military. Then go find somewhere else to play pretend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe he already apologized to me. Not to excuse what he did, but I I think I know what happened, it was probably this statement which set him off:


I have always sought to put myself in the boots of the soldier

Now, I meant shoes, as in, walk a mile in someone's shoes. I don't know why I said boots, but it appears he took it as me trying to be something I am not.

[Devildog]

http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/RuggedH2/Dont%20care_zpswmwmdyki.jpg (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/RuggedH2/media/Dont%20care_zpswmwmdyki.jpg.html)

[Devildog]

I am encouraged that Trump has so far bypassed the traditional media since his election. The bias in journalism is so obvious these days, they make no attempt to be objective or even appear so anymore. I hope he continues to go around them. I hope he uses social media to go straight to the American people. The traditional media is completely indoctrinated and has sold out to the left, they will continue to criticize everything he does.

[#1 Utefan]

From the conservative mindset, California should have crumbled, long ago... either by falling into the sea from God's vengeance, or by liberal policies, or social decay, etc.

But California's economy grew by 4.1% in 2015. Texas declined a bit, probably from the drop in oil.

CA's economy is the 6th biggest in the world, with the EU, China, Japan, Germany and the UK being ahead of it, and notable nations of France, India, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea and even Putin's Russia behind it. Actually Russia is about 53% the size of California's economy.

Certainly it's arguable that California would survive fine, on its own, especially if it was able to loosen the immigration laws in pulling talent from India and China, and other nations.

The tech industry is already getting plenty of "talent" from India and China. The problem with immigration isn't skilled legal immigration, it is illegal and undocumented immigration.

California has a large economy but without the umbrella of the country, military, and support of the federal government, it would crater quickly. It is too poorly managed and indebted to think otherwise (not that the federal government is much better).

[USS Utah]

http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/RuggedH2/Dont%20care_zpswmwmdyki.jpg (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/RuggedH2/media/Dont%20care_zpswmwmdyki.jpg.html)

Oh . . . the irony. Trump and many of his supporters are famously thin-skinned.

[Devildog]

Oh . . . the irony. Trump and many of his supporters are famously thin-skinned.

OK, but weren't you gonna leave a while back when you got upset?

[USS Utah]

OK, but weren't you gonna leave a while back when you got upset?

HALT. Never make a decision when you are Hungry, Angry, Lonely or Tired. Also, noisy board exits are never a good idea.

Thus I am still here.

[Devildog]

HALT. Never make a decision when you are Hungry, Angry, Lonely or Tired. Also, noisy board exits are never a good idea.

Thus I am still here.

Glad that you are actually. Everybody is a damn hypocrite when viewed from another's perspective.

[LA Ute]

Interesting insider report.

Obama urged Clinton to concede on election night

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307536-obama-urged-clinton-to-concede-on-election-night

[LA Ute]

Talk radio and the internet provide a counterbalance.

Only for a certain segment of the population. Cultural norms are heavily affected by the mainstream news and entertainment media.

[Devildog]

NSFW


https://www.facebook.com/mbest11x/videos/946479392162395/

[Devildog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul7JtS-vhWk

[LA Ute]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/23/brooklyn-grocery-store-played-sweet-home-alabama-everyone-lost-minds/

[LA Ute]

I'll just leave this here.


We don't have to wait until she dies to act. Hillary Clinton's name belongs on ships, and airports, and tattoos. She deserves straight-up hagiographies and a sold-out Broadway show called RODHAM. Yes, this cultural canonization is going to come after the chronic, constant, nonstop "On the other hand" sexist hedging around her legacy. But such is the courage of Hillary Clinton and her supporters; we reverse patriarchal orders. Maybe she is more than a president. Maybe she is an idea, a world-historical heroine, light itself. The presidency is too small for her. She belongs to a much more elite class of Americans, the more-than-presidents. Neil Armstrong, Martin Luther King Jr. ....

http://www.lennyletter.com/politics/a613/hillary-clinton-is-more-than-a-president/

[Rocker Ute]

Lol, LA your articles are pointing out that I am struggling at this point to distinguish parody from reality. And no I'm not kidding. The progressives have really become a parody of themselves. None of this stuff is far from reality. In fact maybe it is, I really don't know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[#1 Utefan]

I'll just leave this here.



http://www.lennyletter.com/politics/a613/hillary-clinton-is-more-than-a-president/


I hope this was "lennyletter" was sarcasm by the author. Shows a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution as well as a loose grip on reality.

[Ma'ake]

Speaking of the mainstream media's grip on cultural norms, did you hear that CNN ran 30 minutes of pornography on Thanksgiving. Dirty liberals, degrading society.

Or, maybe not: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/11/25/false-cnn-porn-report-shows-how-fast-fake-news-spreads/94441324/

More evidence of Russian activity focused on disrupting the election, including, pushing fake news: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/307508-report-russian-propaganda-efforts-propelled-fake-election-news

Now, we're more than capable of generating our own fake news, of course, but Putin's investment in disrupting our election is paying off: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/307501-russia-tells-us-to-get-out-of-the-way-in-syria (Who thinks Putin would be this brash had Clinton won?)

[The irony of my playing devil's advocate on Calexit is not lost on me. With or without Putin's shenanigans, we're a sharply divided nation.]

[#1 Utefan]

Speaking of the mainstream media's grip on cultural norms, did you hear that CNN ran 30 minutes of pornography on Thanksgiving. Dirty liberals, degrading society.

Or, maybe not: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/11/25/false-cnn-porn-report-shows-how-fast-fake-news-spreads/94441324/

More evidence of Russian activity focused on disrupting the election, including, pushing fake news: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/307508-report-russian-propaganda-efforts-propelled-fake-election-news

Now, we're more than capable of generating our own fake news, of course, but Putin's investment in disrupting our election is paying off: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/307501-russia-tells-us-to-get-out-of-the-way-in-syria (Who thinks Putin would be this brash had Clinton won?)

[The irony of my playing devil's advocate on Calexit is not lost on me. With or without Putin's shenanigans, we're a sharply divided nation.]


I am no fan of Putin but lets be honest, Obama's foreign policy blunders in Syria and the Middle East (Libya and Egypt) has in large part led to the current situation.

At least we can agree that you dirty liberals are degrading society, though ;).

[Ma'ake]

I hope this was "lennyletter" was sarcasm by the author. Shows a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution as well as a loose grip on reality.

The comedian Lewis Black explains - this election year represents the intersection of satire and reality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXLMR_fc38Q

The first part of the video was Black's satire about Trump... from the 2012 election.

[LA Ute]

From The Economist:

Democrats on the brink

The American left is in danger of learning precisely the wrong lesson from defeat

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21710273-american-left-danger-learning-precisely-wrong-lesson-defeat-democrats?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fpe%2Fed%2Fdemocrats onthebrink

Excerpt:


To simplify, populists of the left talk about fairness: an abstract idea. They call for government to break up big banks, make sure the rich pay taxes or erect tariff or regulatory barriers to keep globalisation at bay. Populists of the right happily borrow leftish lines about putting domestic workers first, and curbing the might of international finance. But then instead of talking about fairness, they talk of safety and control, of defending precious values that are under assault, and of keeping The Other at bay. Rather than fixing the system, they talk of taking their country back. If it suits their needs, populists of the right will present government itself as an agent of tyranny. Those are potent slogans that appeal to the gut, not the head—and in America just helped Republicans to elect a billionaire who calls tax-avoidance “smart”. They are reasons why the centre-left should beware of choosing to fight the right on populist ground.

[Irving Washington]

Only for a certain segment of the population. Cultural norms are heavily affected by the mainstream news and entertainment media.
Help me, because I don't really see this, as far as mainstream news goes. Conservatives have the WSJ, liberals have the NYT. USA Today is neutral. Conservatives have the WT, NYP and NYDN. CNN is neutral, as is PBS, for the most part. Liberals have MSNBC and conservatives have Fox.

[Ma'ake]

I am no fan of Putin but lets be honest, Obama's foreign policy blunders in Syria and the Middle East (Libya and Egypt) has in large part led to the current situation.

No question Obama's foreign policy wasn't perfect. He admitted that Libya was not handled well.

The situation in Syria presented real problems, from an American standpoint. Do we fight Assad, as many advocated? Wouldn't that have facilitated the strength of ISIS?

Putin's strategy in Syria is very straight-forward: ruthlessly prosecute a war - including bombing hospitals - to prop up Assad, and claim you're fighting ISIS. Trump bought that line, hook, line & sinker, of course.

Do the generals auditioning for Trump have a plan for Syria? Or is the plan simply to let Syria play out, blame it all on Obama, and look for the next chapter? It looks like ISIS is being defeated, systematically, from the east... and we're not bombing hospitals to accomplish it.

What will be really interesting is do Mattis and Flynn have a plan to counter Putin's increasingly belligerent behavior toward nations like Sweden, and how do they sell an anti-Putin strategy to Trump?

[Ma'ake]

From The Economist:

Democrats on the brink

The American left is in danger of learning precisely the wrong lesson from defeat

I'll read the Economist article - they tend to be pretty astute.

But the Populist Left needs only to let the Populist Right fail to deliver - on evidently insincere economic promises - and, with four years of empty promises to fuel the fire, the Populist Left will sound good enough to swing the pendulum 5 percentage points, which is all it takes.

Or, will Trump's 2020 campaign slogan be "Re-elect me, and I'll drain the DC Swamp - and this time I really mean it!"

[LA Ute]

Joel Kotkin is a Democratic Leadership Council guy:

"The Democratic Party’s current festival of re-examination is both necessary and justified. They have just lost to the most unpopular presidential candidate in recent memory. Lockstep media support and a much larger war chest were not enough to save them from losing not only the presidency, but also in state races across the country.

"Since President Obama’s first election, Democrats have lost control of the House and Senate, as well as a dozen governors’ houses and roughly 900 state legislative seats. Republicans have control of all levels of government in 24 states, while Democrats have total control over six. Overall, the party seems incapable of reaching out to the middle part of the country, white and middle-class voters.

"This contrasts with the 1990s, when a group of party activists consciously rebuilt the party to appeal to middle-class Americans. Groups like the Democratic Leadership Council — for whose think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, I worked for several years — pushed notions of personal responsibility, welfare reform, tough crime policies and economic growth that, embraced by Bill Clinton, expanded the party’s base in the Midwest, the Appalachians and even the Southeast.

"Such a shift to the middle is unlikely today. Progressives generally see Hillary Clinton’s loss as largely a rejection of her husband’s neoliberal policies and want to push the party further to the left.

"This parallels developments in the United Kingdom, where, following their defeat in 2015, the Labour Party promoted a far-left figure, Jeremy Corbyn, as its leader. This was driven by grassroots progressives — deeply green, multiculturalist and openly socialist. Many, including several high up in Labour’s parliamentary party, believe the party has little chance to win under such leadership.

"Democrats face a similar dilemma. Driven by their dominant academic and media 'thought police,' any shift to the middle on issues like crime, climate change or regulation now seems unimaginable. Self-described progressives who now dominate the party generally adhere to a series of policies — from open borders to draconian climate change policies — that are unlikely to play well outside the coastal enclaves."

http://m.ocregister.com/articles/most-736472-democratic-necessary.html

[U-Ute]

Does Donald know how the Constitution works?

803567993036754944

[LA Ute]

Does Donald know how the Constitution works?

803567993036754944

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/facepalm-smiley-emoticon.gif

[Devildog]

Does Donald know how the Constitution works?

803567993036754944

!st amendment... 2nd amendment, was Obama different? He was the best damn gun salesman in the history of the world

[pangloss]

Does Donald know how the Constitution works?

803567993036754944
2034

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

2034

Perfect. Actually, it might be more accurate to have his insider appointments as the suitcases since most Trump voters actually want him to burn up Obamacare and Medicaid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

My liberal friends will like this.

The End of the Anglo-American Order

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/magazine/the-end-of-the-anglo-american-order.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fm agazine&_r=1&referer=

[LuckyUte]

A little late on this one, but interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/books/richard-rortys-1998-book-suggested-election-2016-was-coming.html?_r=0

[LA Ute]

An interesting interview with the New York Times public editor. Worth watching.


https://youtu.be/UZjZJ3seKZY


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Speaking of Anglo-American exceptionalism, perhaps this is our version of the British soccer hooligans... except they play a lot of computer games, and have very high rates of opiod use: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865668431/Jobless-by-choice-or-pain.html

One out of 8 men in the age group of 25-54 have no job, aren't even considered unemployed because they're not actually trying to find work.

[Ma'ake]

I'm starting to warm up to the way Trump is either A) badly stumbling into areas he knows nothing about, or B) maybe is going to surprise everyone, flummox our adversaries, who will surrender to America's resurgent greatness.

The brewing story about his call with President of Taiwan, a big no-no in the diplomatic world, reveals interesting predictions. The best case scenario is to tell the Chinese he really doesn't understand what he's doing, so don't get angry. The worst case is he's signaling that America will forcefully establish western values in China, and they better prepare for war.

EDIT - an Australian newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, had the headline, "Donald Trump blunders into global conflict, Knowing Little, and Caring Less".

Trump defended himself, via Twitter "She CALLED ME!" and Taiwan pointed out that these kinds of phone calls are pre-arranged, so Team Trump certainly was aware of the situation.

A senior Australian foreign policy expert said Australian diplomats need to educate Trump's advisors on the issues and players in that part of the world, to help avoid these kind of mistakes that could lead to war.

Rush Limbaugh yesterday said Trump will reverse decades of American apologies, and show the rest of the world what true greatness is, and they will follow us, as the unquestioned greatest nation, ever.

Most Americans couldn't care less, of course. Taiwan, Thailand... what's the difference?

[Devildog]

Ma'ake I really respect your Ute football takes. I really think you are very astute in your understanding of our team. Politically though... well, I really like to read your posts... they bring me happiness. We couldn't stand any further apart politically. You are an intelligent person. But you remind me of every crazy that was pointed to during the last 8 years from the other side.

This is going to be a fun 4 years... who knows? Maybe 8

[LA Ute]

Counter-intuitive.

Americans' Support for Electoral College Rises Sharply

http://www.gallup.com/poll/198917/americans-support-electoral-college-rises-sharply.aspx

[Devildog]

Ohhh the whining that the left is going to do over the next 4 years. It's going to be epic. It's going to make anything said about Obama pale in comparison. Hell it's already begun and he is a month away from taking office. Love love love it! I hope they whine so hard that that they lose again. That would be hilarious.

[Devildog]

Oh and LA Ute... you are as bad as any liberal here... you can kiss the entire ass too, you sellout. Who needs conservatives like you? Well Apparently, nobody. Stand for something, hell, anything, you fence sitting lame ass. Mitt Romney is so upset with a Trump presidency...that he is trying to be the Secretary of State.

[LA Ute]

Oh and LA Ute... you are as bad as any liberal here... you can kiss the entire ass too, you sellout. Who needs conservatives like you? Well Apparently, nobody. Stand for something, hell, anything, you fence sitting lame ass. Mitt Romney is so upset with a Trump presidency...that he is trying to be the Secretary of State.

I think you are getting upset about nothing, He might be a successful president. I hope so. I am a patriotic American, and love this country just as much as you do. I'm happier to have Trump than HRC by a long ways. For example, there was no chance HRC would appoint Supreme Court justices I will like. There's a great chance Trump will. And he's also making good appointments.

But come on. Like millions of good, patriotic Americans -- including millions of conservatives -- I think there were lots of reasons to worry about him. For one thing his unhinged rhetoric was repulsive. (As a military guy, how did you feel about him calling John McCain a loser because McCain was captured?) So if you want to continue trying to be like he was during the campaign, and start calling everybody who had concerns about him names, then go right ahead. But have you noticed that he's not doing that anymore? The election is over. He won. Time to move on. If you can't do that, let's not bother trying to talk about politics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

I think you are getting upset about nothing, He might be a successful president. I hope so. I am a patriotic American, and love this country just as much as you do. I'm happier to have Trump than HRC by a long ways. For example, there was no chance HRC would appoint Supreme Court justices I will like. There's a great chance Trump will. And he's also making good appointments.

But come on. Like millions of good, patriotic Americans -- including millions of conservatives -- I think there were lots of reasons to worry about him. For one thing his unhinged rhetoric was repulsive. (As a military guy, how did you feel about him calling John McCain a loser because McCain was captured?) So if you want to continue trying to be like he was during the campaign, and start calling everybody who had concerns about him names, then go right ahead. But have you noticed that he's not doing that anymore? The election is over. He won. Time to move on. If you can't do that, let's not bother trying to talk about politics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OH no no no... you were very anti Trump during the election. You had nothing nice to say about him. Now you are singing a different tune. McCain has always pissed me off as a politician. I'm only calling you names because it's fun for me. You were square against Trump, now you are open to him only because he won. I would have bet you voted for Hillary based on what you posted here for months. I'm on a victory lap and well... It's going on for a bit.

[LA Ute]

OH no no no... you were very anti Trump during the election. You had nothing nice to say about him. Now you are singing a different tune. McCain has always pissed me off as a politician. I'm only calling you names because it's fun for me. You were square against Trump, now you are open to him only because he won. I would have bet you voted for Hillary based on what you posted here for months. I'm on a victory lap and well... It's going on for a bit.

I said all along I'd never vote for Hillary and I didn't. They were both terrible candidates. A huge chunk of the GOP voted for Trump only reluctantly. But now he won and we will try to make this work. I'm not sad that he won. I am worried, but I'm hoping he will be a good president. If that happens it will be great for the country and I will be super happy.

By the way, I am not a big fan of McCain as a politician either. But he sure did sacrifice a lot for this country that you and I love. You didn't answer my point. Was it OK with you that Trump called him a loser for being captured?

[Devildog]

By the way, I am not a big fan of McCain as a politician either. But he sure did sacrifice a lot for this country that you and I love. You didn't answer my point. Was it OK with you that Trump called him a loser for being captured?

It's politics. Hillary was my worst nightmare... I couldn't care less that Trump railed on McCain in retaliation for comments McCain made about him. Serving this country never guarantees people will respect what you've sacrificed.

[Devildog]

I feel bad for calling you those names LA Ute. I knew that I called you those things as a friend and good naturedly, because I actually talk like that to my close friends. The group I run in is all pretty thick skinned and know from experience that we all speak that way to each other.

This format loses the other parts of communication like tone and gesture... When all you have is the text to go from, well I didn't mean it as it sounds. I actually like you LA and I think you are a good dude. Even if you are an "F" bomb Nazi.

[USS Utah]

Oh and LA Ute... you are as bad as any liberal here... you can kiss the entire ass too, you sellout. Who needs conservatives like you? Well Apparently, nobody. Stand for something, hell, anything, you fence sitting lame ass. Mitt Romney is so upset with a Trump presidency...that he is trying to be the Secretary of State.

LA has more confidence in Trump, the former Democrat Clinton lover, than I do.

[USS Utah]

OH no no no... you were very anti Trump during the election. You had nothing nice to say about him. Now you are singing a different tune. McCain has always pissed me off as a politician. I'm only calling you names because it's fun for me. You were square against Trump, now you are open to him only because he won. I would have bet you voted for Hillary based on what you posted here for months. I'm on a victory lap and well... It's going on for a bit.


Criticizing McCain for his politics is one thing, taking cheap shots at his military record is another. Trump demonstrated himself to be a clown by attacking a vet who had served his country with honor.

[USS Utah]

Serving this country never guarantees people will respect what you've sacrificed.

"A nation that forgets its heroes will itself soon be forgotten." __ Calvin Coolidge

[Devildog]

Criticizing McCain for his politics is one thing, taking cheap shots at his military record is another. Trump demonstrated himself to be a clown by attacking a vet who had served his country with honor.

OK in theory.

But humans are human. If I piss people off by saying things that they disagree with or that make them angry, then the fact that I served in the military doesn't change the fact that I pissed them off. When I was younger I was involved in several barroom brawls over Marines acting stupid, but I still fought on their side even when I thought they acted the ass and started the whole thing. That shit was good for the soul.

[Devildog]

LA has more confidence in Trump, the former Democrat Clinton lover, than I do.

I respect your opinion USS. I disagree with it, but I respect it. I respect LA Ute's too. He is just fun to give shit to.

[USS Utah]

The period between Election Day and January 20 is a great time for a refresher course on the state of world today and what the next administration must do to ensure that the U.S. can juggle the equally important tasks of keeping this country secure and not overextending America’s diplomatic, economic, and military resources. Here are four realities that soon-to-be President Donald Trump (http://breakingdefense.com/tag/donald-trump/)will need to come to terms with.



North Korea is already a nuclear state.
Syria's Assad is likely to stay in power.
Iraq is too dependent on the U.S.
On nukes, at least, Iran cooperating.


Donald Trump has never led or managed a bureaucracy as large as the U.S. government before. He possesses less foreign policy experience than almost any other president, a fact that could cause him trouble when an international crisis hits — particularly if he doesn’t assemble a steady and knowledgeable team around him. Like all presidents, Trump will have a tremendous amount of work to do during his first 100 days. Understanding the world as it is, rather than buying into the conventional Washington wisdom, will help ease what is bound to be the most difficult job on the planet.

Link:

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/trump-won-four-global-realities-he-faces/


(http://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/trump-won-four-global-realities-he-faces/)

[USS Utah]

Video:

http://www.militarytimes.com/video/mattis-discusses-the-military-civilian-divide

[Devildog]

Video:

http://www.militarytimes.com/video/mattis-discusses-the-military-civilian-divide

Thanks for posting this... I agree with everything he said. The man will be a great SecDef. IMO.

[LA Ute]

LA has more confidence in Trump, the former Democrat Clinton lover, than I do.

I'd call it more hope than confidence.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

ACOE denies Dakota Access pipeline easement. Interesting development.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

Ann Coulter turns on Trump.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161204/4207270895e1e7eb4c49b68bc2d16ba3.jpg

[USS Utah]

Allies respond favorably to Mattis pick:

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/12/everybody-loves-mad-dog-mattis-pick-reassures-allies/

[U-Ute]

An interesting take on the election.

-rSDUsMwakI

[Ma'ake]

I'm sure glad we have true patriots who are willing to stand up to bad stuff happening in our nation, like this Clinton backed child-sex ring:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/the-inevitability-of-more-comet-pizza-incidents/509567/

(This bit of fake news made legitimate by incoming National Security Advisor Mike Flynn's son, who says "until it's proven wrong, it's true".)

A serious question is how do we as a nation deal with the problem of fake news? Our president-to-be seems to thrive on it: "Hillary Clinton started the Birther Movement, and today, I'm ending it".

I used to work with this crazy old Russian guy who was really struggling to adapt to life in America. His daughter eloped with her boyfriend, disappeared for a week, then called home to tell them she was safe, and in Baltimore. My co-worker drove down to the SLC airport, hopped on a flight to Baltimore that day, and took a taxi to where his daughter said she was staying, and THEN he was relieved that she was OK.

I thought this was really, acutely weird. He said it was because of "Russian materialism", which he explained as you can't believe anything unless it is there in front of you, and you can see it with your eyes.

Very oddly... 25 years later, I'm starting to understand where he was coming from, and I think some significant part of our population is already there. The fringes are growing bigger.

If Trump imitates Putin, expect to see a lot more outright lies, which are later waved off as sincere belief.

Rush Limbaugh was explaining part of this last week, when he said he marvels at how Trump connects with the big crowds that, to this day keep chanting "Lock her up! Lock her up!"

Limbaugh: "The media reports on what Trump says, but they completely misunderstand how people don't really care about the details - they are ONE with Trump, this is a bonding that liberals and the media will never understand".

Like George Costanza used to say: "It's not a lie, if you believe it".

Or... "I could go out onto to 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and not lose a single voter!"

[LA Ute]

I love watching this stuff. :snack:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X77K_zeZUu4

I am very curious to see if Trump will simply walk away from all his unhinGed rhetoric during the campaign and double-cross his true believers (who will probably forgive him instantly).

[Rocker Ute]

I love watching this stuff. :snack:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X77K_zeZUu4

I am very curious to see if Trump will simply walk away from all his unhinGed rhetoric during the campaign and double-cross his true believers (who will probably forgive him instantly).

Wow Tucker Carson has a job again (minus the bow tie) eh? Remember when John Stewart absolutely dismantled him? Looks like he is back to his same garbage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pangloss]

A pretty good article in the Wash Post about Trump's delusional and/or misleading statements.

Take Trump seriously and literally (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/take-trump-seriously-and-literally/2016/11/16/cbdcf2c8-ac25-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html?utm_term=.1130c0a52152)

An excerpt: "If they gave Pulitzer Prizes for pithiness, journalist Salena Zito’s (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/)analytical couplet on the surprise winner of Campaign 2016 would get one. The press took Republican Donald Trump “literally, but not seriously,” she wrote, whereas Trump’s supporters took him “seriously, but not literally.”

The people that scare me take Trump seriously and literally. Some of his supporters are in that group. Let's hope the Chinese leadership is not. I hope international leaders cut us some slack. Maybe if we tell them we've inadvertently elected an idiot.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I'm sure glad we have true patriots who are willing to stand up to bad stuff happening in our nation, like this Clinton backed child-sex ring:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/the-inevitability-of-more-comet-pizza-incidents/509567/

(This bit of fake news made legitimate by incoming National Security Advisor Mike Flynn's son, who says "until it's proven wrong, it's true".)

A serious question is how do we as a nation deal with the problem of fake news? Our president-to-be seems to thrive on it: "Hillary Clinton started the Birther Movement, and today, I'm ending it".

I used to work with this crazy old Russian guy who was really struggling to adapt to life in America. His daughter eloped with her boyfriend, disappeared for a week, then called home to tell them she was safe, and in Baltimore. My co-worker drove down to the SLC airport, hopped on a flight to Baltimore that day, and took a taxi to where his daughter said she was staying, and THEN he was relieved that she was OK.

I thought this was really, acutely weird. He said it was because of "Russian materialism", which he explained as you can't believe anything unless it is there in front of you, and you can see it with your eyes.

Very oddly... 25 years later, I'm starting to understand where he was coming from, and I think some significant part of our population is already there. The fringes are growing bigger.

If Trump imitates Putin, expect to see a lot more outright lies, which are later waved off as sincere belief.

Rush Limbaugh was explaining part of this last week, when he said he marvels at how Trump connects with the big crowds that, to this day keep chanting "Lock her up! Lock her up!"

Limbaugh: "The media reports on what Trump says, but they completely misunderstand how people don't really care about the details - they are ONE with Trump, this is a bonding that liberals and the media will never understand".

Like George Costanza used to say: "It's not a lie, if you believe it".

Or... "I could go out onto to 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and not lose a single voter!"

Wow. I guess it's not too surprising when you combine people with an affinity for guns, conspiracy theories and internet gullibility. My mother in law's husband spends half his day sharing these fake news stories on Facebook. He's an otherwise genuinely nice, good-hearted man but he has absolutely zero interest in being corrected on this stuff. It doesn't matter how you try and engage him about the facts, he doesn't care one iota. It's impossible to say whether he doesn't believe the facts or doesn't care what the facts are because he refuses to have a discussion about it. I wish he would because I'd love to try and understand it better.

[pangloss]

Wow. I guess it's not too surprising when you combine people with an affinity for guns, conspiracy theories and internet gullibility. My mother in law's husband spends half his day sharing these fake news stories on Facebook. He's an otherwise genuinely nice, good-hearted man but he has absolutely zero interest in being corrected on this stuff. It doesn't matter how you try and engage him about the facts, he doesn't care one iota. It's impossible to say whether he doesn't believe the facts or doesn't care what the facts are because he refuses to have a discussion about it. I wish he would because I'd love to try and understand it better.
I remember a decade and a half ago some folks, maybe some folks on this board, made fun of the asinine rumors that spread like wildfire in the 'Arab street'. There were all sorts of goofy rumors back then about wild conspiracies involving 9-11, Bush, Chaney, Israel, Saudi Arabia, bin Laden - silly crap.

Now, Facebook, Twitter, and fake news generators (KGB?) have inadvertently collaborated to dumb down the US with crap that rivals the Arab Street nonsense. There have been crackpots spreading nonsense forever (John Birch Society, Socialist Workers Party, etc.). But social media and memes in the hands of crackpots has advanced and spread the outrageous rumor art-form like kudzu.

And now we have a president who plays innuendo and lies on social media with remarkable expertise. The guy apparently chooses to forego the Presidential Daily Briefing to browse Twitter - at least that's the rumor I've heard.

Now I'm a skeptic about everything I read and half of what I see. I'm not even sure I spell 'Tяump' correctly.

[Ma'ake]

Here is what we selected as president - can't really claim most of the voters selected, but I digress..

Here's how investors can capitalize on Trump's phone call with Taiwan: http://www.barrons.com/articles/the-trump-taiwan-call-how-investors-can-profit-1480966261

Aaaand... in this corner, the Chinese media are beginning to mock Trump for running the US on Twitter: https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/308864-chinese-media-mocks-trump-for-running-the-country-with-twitter

I guess we hope that Trump and the Chinese Communist Party disconnect from their respective military commands as the piss fest escalates, so as to avoid a "miscalculation".

[Ma'ake]

Good news on the Pizza fake news shooting - nobody killed, the shooter surrendered - after he found out the pizzeria wasn't really a child sex slave operation, after all.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pizzagate-gunman-surrendered-after-finding-no-evidence-fake-conspiracy-court-n692321

Apparently the fake story got started based on some of John Podesta's hacked emails, which included some correspondence between Podesta and the owner of the Pizzaria.

Let's see... information in hacked emails ends up in "4Chan", a whirlpool of conspiracy thinkers and dis-information, and somehow ends up as an allegation of a child sex slave operation, backed by the Clintons.

This seems inline with this article about the Russian propaganda efforts: http://bangordailynews.com/2016/11/26/news/nation/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/?ref=latest

Sen Ron Wyden of Oregon is pressing for rapid declassification of US intelligence which determined Russian interference in our election: http://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/334860-214729-wyden-cites-russian-intervention-during-election-at-talk-with-hillsboro-high-school-students

While most Americans appear to have moved on / don't care / are happy with the results, Germany seems to have taken notice: https://www.ft.com/content/96d598da-abfa-11e6-9cb3-bb8207902122

Or... maybe it's really all due to the 400 pound fat guy sitting on a bed that Trump talked about, because the Russians really are our valuable allies.

[LA Ute]

Damon Linker:

Hillary Clinton blew the most winnable election in modern American history. And it's her own fault.

http://theweek.com/articles/664828/hillary-clinton-blew-most-winnable-election-modern-american-history-fault

Excerpt:

****

"I don’t care if the 'fundamentals' favored the GOP. Trump was a fundamentals-defying opponent who should have landed flat on his face regardless of the baseline assumptions. I don’t care if Clinton racks up a nearly 3 million vote lead in the popular tally by grabbing up gobs of electorally superfluous ballots in California. She lost the election because she failed to win where she needed to win and where Democrats had a long record of winning — the upper Midwest — as well as where they win when they’re doing their jobs well (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina). That’s a sign of a campaign screw-up of monumental proportions.

"Most of all, I don’t want to hear about how unfairly Clinton was treated by the media. In comparison to whom? All the other candidates who’ve run for president while under criminal investigation by the FBI? (Maybe that substantial handicap should have overridden the party’s presumption that she was owed the nomination because it was 'her turn.') Or do you mean, instead, that she was treated badly in comparison to her opponent? Really? You mean the one whose 24/7 media coverage was overwhelmingly, relentlessly negative in tone and content? Either way, a halfway competent campaign should have been able to take advantage of the great good fortune of running against Donald J. Trump and left him bleeding in the ditch.

"Why didn’t it happen?"

*****

Read the whole thing. Linker is a progressive pundit and is always intellectually honest.

[UtahsMrSports]

This could make things interesting...........

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=42466707&nid=1296

Admittedly, its probably only going to reach 'interesting' levels. Probably not enough to tip the scale one way or the other. But man........we would be in a lot of chaos if enough electoral voters said..........'yeah.............no.' to Drumpf.

[Rocker Ute]

Meanwhile Trump attends only two of his daily intelligence briefings, a man who by his own admittance doesn't know foreign policy well, but when he does finally learn it, he'll know more than anyone on earth.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/amp/donald-trump-has-attended-only-two-intel-briefings-steep-drop-n687916?client=safari

I'm not big on whining about the outcome of this election and view a lot of the stuff being said about Trump right as histrionics (like the people convinced the environment is going to collapse in months and they are going to round up all the gay people) , but he lacks some core fundamentals that are disconcerting and he seems to be completely apathetic about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Damon Linker:
Hillary Clinton blew the most winnable election in modern American history. And it's her own fault.


I agree with the article. Clinton really underperformed, when it came down to it.

I think the media was fairly strongly biased against Trump, not so much because of the inherent liberal bias among people with college degrees, but because Trump was/is such a fundamentally flawed individual. Basically what Romney was trying to tell us. When the Russian/WikiLeaks stuff became apparent, the bias was stronger. The media assumed most people would figure while Hillary was flawed, Trump was completely unacceptable. The media highly underestimated how little most Americans think of them, and they grossly overestimated their ability to inform people.

In terms of strategic use of information, I thought the WikiLeaks leaks were well played, and ultimately most people were unaware of the Russian interference, or didn't care, or thought the media was trying to appoint Hillary, or chose the lesser of two evils, or whatever.

Now we have a public that trusts the media even less, with fake news / propaganda people in the White House (Flynn, Bannon, et al).

On Ron Wyden's call for Obama to release the Intelligence assessment of Russian interference, I have mixed opinions. I think the public has a right to know what happened, but I think releasing the report would smack of sour grapes (obviously) and it would undermine the incoming president.

The people who voted for Trump would mostly just consider the Intelligence to be cooked, which would undermine any remaining faith in our system of government... which is exactly what Putin wants.

If Obama doesn't de-classify the Intel assessment, Trump would deep-six it, and the Republicans would pretend no such document exists, which would further erode confidence in Trump, in the Republicans, etc. Which is exactly what Putin wants.

[Sullyute]

Meanwhile Trump attends only two of his daily intelligence briefings, a man who by his own admittance doesn't know foreign policy well, but when he does finally learn it, he'll know more than anyone on earth.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/amp/donald-trump-has-attended-only-two-intel-briefings-steep-drop-n687916?client=safari

I'm not big on whining about the outcome of this election and view a lot of the stuff being said about Trump right as histrionics (like the people convinced the environment is going to collapse in months and they are going to round up all the gay people) , but he lacks some core fundamentals that are disconcerting and he seems to be completely apathetic about it.


I guess Trump wasn't kidding when asked a few months ago who he listened to for foreign policy advice and he said, "“I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things." :flush:

[Ma'ake]

This could make things interesting...........


I remember J.D. Williams talking about a few instances where Electors voted their consciences, but it was never in this kind of circumstance.

If nothing else, this provides the opportunity to remind people that voting for the president is not a democratic process, exactly. The Electoral College is not "democracy in action", was never intended to be.

Doing the math, voters in Wyoming have 3 and a half times more electoral "power" when they vote for president than do voters in California, and 2.5 times the power of voters in Utah.

There really needs to be big disclaimers on the ballot that remind voters that when they vote for the President / Vice President, it's really just an expression of preference, not a direct vote.

[Applejack]

Comet pizza (where the shooting took place) is right near our house). It's pretty gross pizza, but not child sex ring bad.

[Rocker Ute]

Comet pizza (where the shooting took place) is right near our house). It's pretty gross pizza, but not child sex ring bad.

We usually reserve that level of bad for Little Caesars.

[Ma'ake]

[Who wants to read or talk about Trump when we can re-live the remarkable comeback the Utes had last night, and Van Dyke's first best moment as a Ute? Very worthy question.

It's human nature to avoid negative topics and look for more positive things - a big part of why most people avoid the news. This stuff is certainly corrosive to the soul, it's more than an academic debate. My instinct is to steer away, but I feel an obligation to speak up / pass along some of this info, at the risk of being tuned out.]

Michael Flynn, Jr is no longer part of the Trump transition team, after his remarks about the CometPizza child sex ring fake news / rumor.

Today, Fox News' Megyn Kelly admits to dealing with death threats, instigated by another Trump insider, Dan Scavino. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/06/megyn-kelly-donald-trump-social-media-online-abuse

Simple question: If these two incidents had originated from Obama's camp in December 2008, what would be the reaction?

Most people are likely looking away, seeking more positive news, tired of politics. Maybe some are giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, hoping he'll be inspired by the position he's been elected to.

My (uncomfortable) question - given that both Flynn and Scavino were/are part of Trump's inside circle, is this a larger issue most Americans should know about / be concerned about?


Back to a more uplifting topic, *awesome* late comeback by the Utes. Great to see Zamora emerge, we'll have 3-4 excellent guards, and Van Dyke's clutch shot reveals him as a Jacobsen-like threat, hopefully.

[Applejack]

Back to a more uplifting topic, *awesome* late comeback by the Utes. Great to see Zamora emerge, we'll have 3-4 excellent guards, and Van Dyke's clutch shot reveals him as a Jacobsen-like threat, hopefully.


Woah there big fella. Little lord PVD was clutch but to compare him to the ultimate heartthrob, Nicky J? A tad premature.

[LA Ute]

Guess who is Time's Person of the Year?

http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2016-donald-trump-choice/

[Diehard Ute]

Guess who is Time's Person of the Year?

http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2016-donald-trump-choice/

First Ooompa Loompa to earn the award.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

First Ooompa Loompa to earn the award.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is a notable achievement for Orangutan-Americans.

[Ma'ake]

This is a notable achievement for Orangutan-Americans.

Hairspray tycoons are pinching themselves, giggling uncontrollably.

[pangloss]

Michael Flynn, Jr is no longer part of the Trump transition team, after his remarks about the CometPizza child sex ring fake news / rumor.

Today, Fox News' Megyn Kelly admits to dealing with death threats, instigated by another Trump insider, Dan Scavino. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/06/megyn-kelly-donald-trump-social-media-online-abuse

Simple question: If these two incidents had originated from Obama's camp in December 2008, what would be the reaction?

Most people are likely looking away, seeking more positive news, tired of politics. Maybe some are giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, hoping he'll be inspired by the position he's been elected to.



Flynn's father is still tapped to be the National Security Advisor. During the campaign, he retweeted a lot of the fake news including the pedophile nonsense. His son's offense was apparently tweeting it after the election. Gen. Flynn forwarded some outrageous crap, including the lies that Clinton has "secretly waged war” (https://twitter.com/Darren32895836/status/786686648520015872) on the Catholic Church" and Obama is a “jihadi” (https://twitter.com/AmyMek/status/785350953666871296) who “laundered” money for Muslim terrorists. From what I've read, Gen. Flynn's actions during the campaign are out of character. In uniform, he was described as level-headed and smart. I don't get warm feelings that one of the primary consumers of intelligence in the White House could believe this stuff - maybe he's just a lying scum bag politician now. Either way, he's a dupe that believes nonsense or he's a scum-bag, it's not good for our country. If it continues, people will die.

Politico article (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-conspiracy-pizzeria-trump-232227)


The hue & cry if Omaba or anyone close to him had committed similar sins would have been deafening and non-stop. Trump gets a pass, maybe due to his skill at manipulating the news cycle.

[Devildog]

Look at the liberals whine. Crazy as any conservative... ever.

[LA Ute]

I'm going to see the movie but these guys have behaved foolishly.

'Star Wars' Writers Get Political: Will Anti-Trump Tweets Hurt 'Rogue One'? (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-writers-get-political-will-anti-trump-tweets-hurt-rogue-one-949023)

[LA Ute]

Attack on the GOP Ascendency

John Podhoretz

The Republican Party is in the ascendancy. Who could have predicted it? No one. The response of Democrats and liberals since the election has been screaming, crying, and telling tall tales about racist incidents on social media while providing no evidence that they’ve taken place—and, on the activist Left, rioting. That, alas, maybe anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear could have predicted.

First, the ascendancy. Among the many things everybody got wrong about this election, including me, was what we were seeing happening on the Right side of the political divide. We looked at the heated primary, the rise of Donald Trump, the right-of-center politicians who refused to support him and criticized him, and the conservative media that attacked him, and we concluded that the Republican Party was in crisis and in danger of breaking up. Up until the moment it became clear Trump was winning Florida, the major discussion point about the Right was the “civil war” that was about to break out and whether for the first time in 160 years the United States would see the rise of a serious third party.

Oops. Crow eaten, very much including by me.

After election night, the Republican Party is just fine. More than fine. The Republican Party is arguably in the strongest position it has held in the modern era—holding the Presidency, House, Senate, 33 governorships, 69 of 99 state legislatures, total control of offices in 25 states.

It turns out the crisis is not within Republicanism, but within conservatism. This isn’t a complete surprise, of course; fissures have been evident for years on various aspects of foreign and domestic policy. But if Trump does 20 percent of what he has said he’ll do when it comes to his policy agenda, he will create crises on the Right in relation to trade, the size of government, American commitments abroad, and the projection of American power. He will be a Republican president pushing an agenda that unsettles and upends many (largely) settled questions.

Will conservatives abandon their principles because the team with which they are aligned now has extraordinary political power? Will conservatives decide honestly they were wrong about certain fundamentals if Trump implements new approaches and those approaches work? If the changes Trump does make do not work, of course, his heresies will be blamed. What’s even more important, if they don’t work, the Republican ascendancy will end as quickly and decisively as it began.

The question for Democrats, liberals, and Leftists is this: After eight years in which perhaps their key talking point was that the problem with American governance was the GOP’s utter refusal to work with Democrats, can they now turn on a dime and simply do the same to the Trump Republicans? As the Magic 8-Ball says, signs point to yes. How else to interpret the behavior over the past five days, the riots and public nervous breakdowns by Leftists and liberals who cannot believe that what has happened has happened?

There is no real way to claim Trump’s electoral college majority of 304 is illegitimate–a charge that has been the favored tactic of the more paranoiac and conspiratorially-minded Right and Left over the past 16 years. George W. Bush was deemed illegitimate because he supposedly stole Florida; Barack Obama was deemed illegitimate because of the ridiculous charge he wasn’t actually born in America. Both of these absurdities seized the emotions and darkest ids of those whose true problem was that they couldn’t bear the policies being enacted and felt impotent in their efforts to block them.

So the claim instead is that Trump is, in his person, illegitimate. He’s racist and sexist and a demagogue and terrible. And this, I believe, has begun an interior process within the Democratic Left that opposing him by any means necessary is not only vital but a mark of moral superiority. And this grants people license to do illegitimate things in pursuit of delegitimizing the results of the election.

Many of the stories being retailed on Facebook and Twitter and elsewhere about watermelons being smashed on cars and swastikas being etched into cars and water fountains suddenly featuring signs that say “Whites Only” are so patently invented it’s staggering how easily people are falling for them. (Case in point: How many arrests have been made in these cases? How many actual news stories verifying these supposed incidents have you read?) The ones that are lies are being told by those who are telling them because, I expect, they believe they are revealing a deeper truth: They may be inventing these hate crimes but, since Trump is himself a walking hate crime, it is in service to a higher cause.

So, too, the rioting, which is nonsensical since the places in which the riots are taking place were Hillary Clinton strongholds. It happened to set a marker and make it clear that the Republican ascendancy will be opposed at every turn by every possible means.

I feel entirely free to make this argument precisely because I myself viewed Trump’s rise during the Republican primaries as a frightening event that was lowering American discourse. Perhaps had, say, the GOP candidates going up against him chose to aim their fire and hundreds of millions at Trump rather than at each other in the fall and winter, and had the horrified media of the past two months not been devoted to giving him $2 billion worth of air time and attention, Trump might have been stopped before he was given the inestimable gift of facing the worst presidential candidate since Walter Mondale. (At least Mondale was an upstanding and morally unimpeachable person, as opposed to the egregiously amoral and crooked Hillary Clinton.)

Instead, there was a certain glee as liberals watched what they believed was a Republican dumpster fire from which they would benefit immeasurably. When Les Moonves of CBS said he didn’t like Trump but thought he was good for the bottom line, he was saying two things at once: I’m making money off the other guy and it’s a double delight because the team I oppose is going to be punished! No, they didn’t like Trump, but they believed he had risen up from the bubbling depths and would destroy conservatism and the GOP for them.

My views on Trump’s fitness haven’t changed. But I do not question his legitimacy. Instead, I question the legitimacy of the lies being told to discredit him and the riots being staged to set a marker for worse civil unrest to come. Every serious person should.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/attack-on-the-gop-ascendancy-donald-trump/

[Rocker Ute]

The hue & cry if Omaba or anyone close to him had committed similar sins would have been deafening and non-stop. Trump gets a pass, maybe due to his skill at manipulating the news cycle.

I align myself pretty close to you in this matter and my feelings about Trump but I do have to say the cries ARE deafening and non-stop, it probably just doesn't sound like deafening noise to you.

People are protesting, donating millions for recounts and EVERY story in my news feed is about the evilness, foolishness or incompetence of Trump and his cabinet choices. Other than outright civil war or societal shutdown I'm not sure what more cries one could expect. I'm actually fearful that if things go slightly wrong with Trump it may result in that.

I'm as weary now of it as I was of the right complaining about Obama, the difference is now I mostly agree with it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

I align myself pretty close to you in this matter and my feelings about Trump but I do have to say the cries ARE deafening and non-stop, it probably just doesn't sound like deafening noise to you.

People are protesting, donating millions for recounts and EVERY story in my news feed is about the evilness, foolishness or incompetence of Trump and his cabinet choices. Other than outright civil war or societal shutdown I'm not sure what more cries one could expect. I'm actually fearful that if things go slightly wrong with Trump it may result in that.

I'm as weary now of it as I was of the right complaining about Obama, the difference is now I mostly agree with it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Civil war? Between liberals and conservatives? Actual fighting? OK, that would be over in about 30 minutes.


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

[Ma'ake]

Civil war? Between liberals and conservatives? Actual fighting? OK, that would be over in about 30 minutes.


I think actual fighting would be in the category of foolishness of "fighting the previous war". Shall there be muskets and proper uniforms to distinguish the combatants? Uhhh... probably not.

The euphoria and optimism you feel is familiar - I really thought America had passed a milestone when Obama was first elected. Sure, we had a really serious financial meltdown underway, but it was remarkable that a man who would have been a slave, or not allowed to vote 40 years previously, had become president. Heady times.

In hindsight, that optimism was misplaced... in large part because a LOT of America felt great loss/anger at the election of a black man as president.

Enjoy the moment, enjoy the victory, by all means, savor our liberal whining. Here's the difference: we won't be enjoying your disappointment or anger or whatever, when the Trump euphoria comes back to earth and you realize we still have very serious problems that Trump isn't going to be able to fix, and may make worse.

Since you claim to respect my football observations, let me put some of the concern in football terms: Some percentage of our football players at the U are here in the US illegally, without a doubt some of their parents came illegally, over-staying their tourist visas. These parents aren't vicious, they're not trying to destroy America, etc. Most of them just wanted better lives for their kids, and they see rules and laws differently than our culture does.

[Ma'ake]

Attack on the GOP Ascendency


Podhoretz is correct... undermining electoral results is a growing phenomenon, in the US.

Fake news used to be laughable. Now it's increasingly corrosive... to what J.D. Williams used to call "the American experiment".

The headlines today are ridiculous stories like the Comet Pizza "hero" who came to rescue the child sex slaves. The corrosion among the left of Trump's selection of all those Billionaires will metastasize into a strong belief, a felt "truth" that Trump and his cronies are selling out America, are engaged in a Panama Papers-like draining of the nation.

As a Utah liberal / California centrist, I hope the furor dies down, and Democrats retool their message, find a better messenger for next time, etc.

I really sense the energy and anger that Sanders tapped into is really just barely apparent, and the boomerang will come back with more energy than the right (likely unwittingly) put into it.

The amplifications are getting bigger.

[Rocker Ute]

"The amplifications are getting bigger..." is on the mark. The media wants to portray the death knell of the left or the right which isn't what is happening at all in my opinion.

Trump isn't a conservative, he has just tapped into people's frustration with the establishment and how that continues to affect Main Street. Bernie is the same thing.

All the left needs to do is present a supposed anti-establishment candidate and they'll take back the White House. I believe that is the real tenor happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pangloss]

I align myself pretty close to you in this matter and my feelings about Trump but I do have to say the cries ARE deafening and non-stop, it probably just doesn't sound like deafening noise to you.

People are protesting, donating millions for recounts and EVERY story in my news feed is about the evilness, foolishness or incompetence of Trump and his cabinet choices. Other than outright civil war or societal shutdown I'm not sure what more cries one could expect. I'm actually fearful that if things go slightly wrong with Trump it may result in that.

I'm as weary now of it as I was of the right complaining about Obama, the difference is now I mostly agree with it.



Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkYup, I agree.

The point I failed to make is the lack of follow-up on the daily Trump outrage. There's been a few dozen events that the talking heads predicted would be the end of him. This is a guess, but I think Trump manages the news cycle through tweets and daily outrage. The public and press are continuously off guard. There's little in-depth analysis. Superficial, dishonest and misleading fits the times.

[pangloss]

Want to know more about the Air Force One program? If you read all this stuff, I bet you'll know more about it than Trump.

First, the Air Force program is called the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR).

Trump said he will personally renegotiate the contract and if he can't get the costs down he will terminate it. A termination for convenience is one of the most profitable things that can happen to a defense contractor. If Trump cancels AF1, buy Boeing stock on the share price dip. One of the most profitable contracts I was ever involved with was the Small ICBM termination. T for C is literally money for nothing. Trump doesn't have a clue.



So, why not keep flying the two current airplanes?

"The VC-25A Presidential fleet represents the only passenger carrying 747-200 aircraft in the United States. The aircraft will reach their planned 30 year service life in 2017. Due to this, it is becoming increasingly more expensive to maintain these aircraft. Increased heavy maintenance and parts obsolescence costs require the Air Force to begin planning for the VC-25A fleet replacement. Analysis has shown that it is cost beneficial to replace the VC-25A aircraft and operate a new and more efficient aircraft." (FedBizOps Sources Sought Notice, 2013)


That's how the ball started rolling.

The latest contract action was for $127 million, Jul 15 2016

Here's the FBO page Solicitation Number: FA8625-15-C-6599 (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=39038bf2328a04947f30e14ee325bd6d&tab=core&_cview=1)


This is from a March 2016 GAO report on major DOD programs.

(Quote)
The PAR program plans to replace the current VC- 25A fleet with a new fleet of aircraft to support the President of the United States as Head of State, Chief Executive, and Commander in Chief. The PAR aircraft will be a four engine wide-body, commercial derivative aircraft, uniquely modified to provide the President, staff, and guests with safe and reliable air transportation with the equivalent level of security and communications capability available in the White House.

Current Status
The PAR program acquisition strategy was approved in September 2015 after several years of analysis related to risk reduction, requirements, sustainment, and technology and manufacturing maturity. According to officials, the milestone decision authority approved the PAR program to release a request for proposal to Boeing for design and risk reduction studies. The contract award for this effort is planned for January 2016. The program will seek a waiver from the requirement to conduct competitive prototyping before entering system development and to award a sole-source contract to Boeing for two 747-8 aircraft, which will then be modified to meet required capabilities with existing technologies. Program officials stated that they will participate in Boeing supplier selections for the subsystems and intend to acquire data rights to enable competition to the maximum extent practicable for future modifications and sustainment activities. Program officials acknowledge risks associated with the integration of these technologies but stated that the majority of the mission-related systems required have worked together before on different platforms, and many of these systems havelegacy or related equivalents on the current VC-25A fleet. The two aircraft will be modified and tested in a phased approach. Once development is completed, the aircraft will be delivered as fully capable to support presidential missions, currently planned for fiscal year 2024.

Estimated Program Cost and Quantity (fiscal year 2016 dollars):
Total program (fiscal years 2010-2020): $3,210.6 million
Research and development (fiscal years 2010-2020): $1,987.1 million
Procurement (fiscal years 2017-2020): $282.2million
Quantity: 2

Next Major Program Event: Engineering manufacturing and development request for proposal release decision, July 2016

Program Office Comments: In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the program office provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.
(End Quote)

Two aspects jump out at me -- 1) $2 billion in R&D - that one hell of a lot of research and development. And 2)Google "how much does a 747 cost?" Google answers "US$351.4 million 747-8F: US$352 million" So the GAO procurement estimate of $282.2 million is very low. Maybe some of the R&D is going into the procurement cost. But I doubt it, mixing different colors of appropriated money is a serious offense.

Here's a little more
Air Force Article "Program works to reduce risk on next Air Force One" (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/841536/program-works-to-reduce-risk-on-next-air-force-one.aspx)


Cheers

[Ma'ake]

Peter Morici is a conservative economist:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865668909/Peter-Morici-Trump-must-prepare-for-showdown-with-China.html

Essentially, he's saying Trump needs to prepare to bring China to heel, which likely will include a military confrontation.

As aggressive as China has been, they've consistently contrasted themselves against what the US has done in the Mideast, militarily.

"China seeks a peaceful rise"

The Chinese have been indoctrinated to believe their destiny is to become the world's most dominant nation, and that throughout history external powers have held them down. The British, and more recently, the US. Nationally, they're prepared for confrontation.

[USS Utah]

Podhoretz is correct... undermining electoral results is a growing phenomenon, in the US.

Fake news used to be laughable. Now it's increasingly corrosive... to what J.D. Williams used to call "the American experiment".

The headlines today are ridiculous stories like the Comet Pizza "hero" who came to rescue the child sex slaves. The corrosion among the left of Trump's selection of all those Billionaires will metastasize into a strong belief, a felt "truth" that Trump and his cronies are selling out America, are engaged in a Panama Papers-like draining of the nation.

As a Utah liberal / California centrist, I hope the furor dies down, and Democrats retool their message, find a better messenger for next time, etc.

I really sense the energy and anger that Sanders tapped into is really just barely apparent, and the boomerang will come back with more energy than the right (likely unwittingly) put into it.

The amplifications are getting bigger.

At best I expect the national game of tit for tat that has been going on since at least 1992 (my first election) will continue. At worst, the escalation of that game will accelerate until the bloody short campaigns of the 19th century look tame.

[USS Utah]

Peter Morici is a conservative economist:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865668909/Peter-Morici-Trump-must-prepare-for-showdown-with-China.html

Essentially, he's saying Trump needs to prepare to bring China to heel, which likely will include a military confrontation.

As aggressive as China has been, they've consistently contrasted themselves against what the US has done in the Mideast, militarily.

"China seeks a peaceful rise"

The Chinese have been indoctrinated to believe their destiny is to become the world's most dominant nation, and that throughout history external powers have held them down. The British, and more recently, the US. Nationally, they're prepared for confrontation.

Coming soon to the South China Sea -- Maritime Hybrid Warfare:

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-12-0/maritime-hybrid-warfare-coming

[Ma'ake]

The breaking news about the Russian hacking intelligence assessment is as sobering as it gets, folks.

As a nation, we have a pretty small window to wake up, because a Trump administration wouldn't just stifle the release of the assessment, it would probably find some drugged up wannabe hacker from New Jersey to use as a decoy, and get a confession.

Consider the flagrant dishonesty in Trump's reaction to the breaking news about the consensus intelligence assessment of Russian hacking:

"This is from the same people who gave us the Saddam WMD intelligence, and besides, that election happened so long ago".

Throw the entire intelligence community under the bus for a politically based, controversial assessment from 13 years ago, and announce the election *last month* was "so long ago"?

A lot of Trump supporters will buy this line as is, but are our fellow citizen Republicans really *this* blinded by power?

Will anyone besides John McCain and Lindsey Graham speak up? I expect Utah Republicans to pretend this news never arose. What about people like LA Ute?

[This is part of how the fake news device is useful - create so much noise and distraction that when serious issues are revealed, they can be fairly easily swatted down. And after awhile, people don't really believe anything, including serious issues. Richard Nixon would be deeply envious. There's a method to the madness.]

[LA Ute]

The breaking news about the Russian hacking intelligence assessment is as sobering as it gets, folks.

As a nation, we have a pretty small window to wake up, because a Trump administration wouldn't just stifle the release of the assessment, it would probably find some drugged up wannabe hacker from New Jersey to use as a decoy, and get a confession.

Consider the flagrant dishonesty in Trump's reaction to the breaking news about the consensus intelligence assessment of Russian hacking:

"This is from the same people who gave us the Saddam WMD intelligence, and besides, that election happened so long ago".

Throw the entire intelligence community under the bus for a politically based, controversial assessment from 13 years ago, and announce the election *last month* was "so long ago"?

A lot of Trump supporters will buy this line as is, but are our fellow citizen Republicans really *this* blinded by power?

Will anyone besides John McCain and Lindsey Graham speak up? I expect Utah Republicans to pretend this news never arose. What about people like LA Ute?

[This is part of how the fake news device is useful - create so much noise and distraction that when serious issues are revealed, they can be fairly easily swatted down. And after awhile, people don't really believe anything, including serious issues. Richard Nixon would be deeply envious. There's a method to the madness.]

I am still learning about this. What do you think should, or can, be done about it? I am sure that this information will now be used to question Trump's legitimacy as POTUS. Just speculating, I wonder if that was the result the Russians wanted, no matter who won the election? You can bet that if Hillary had won and this news came out, there would be 8 years of screaming from the right that she was not legitimately elected. I think the Russians know us all too well.

[Ma'ake]

I've learned a lot about our nation and culture, by looking through the eyes of people of different cultures and nations... hence my name, "Ma'ake", which is Mark, in Tongan. Many fascinating insights, and in the process I've come to really appreciate a lot of America, and American history, our culture, our Founding Fathers, etc.

We ain't perfect, but there's a helluva lot of GOOD in the world, because of Americans and our ideals.

A coworker is a woman in her mid-50s, from Mexico, a healthcare outreach professional, who came to the US in the 90s. She said she and her friends - also professionals, from Mexico - are alarmed mostly at the cabinet Trump is putting together. "This is exactly what happened to Mexico, with Carlos Salinas".

I vaguely remember Salinas, who was an economist who as president in the mid 90s oversaw the dismantling of Mexico's state-owned industries, in the process created some powerful oligarchs, such as the richest man in the world, Carlos Slim, who was given the Mexican telcom enterprise.

"Lupe" told me Salinas created the oligarchy, which led to some pretty severe corruption, which eventually led to ties to with the drug cartels and the dysfunctional hellish situation that characterizes a lot of Mexico, today. Salinas ended up fleeing Mexico and is somewhere in Europe, today.

Mexico and the US are very different, in many ways. So, how does Mexico's situation relate to US? Read on...

A broad array of economists have decried the Carrier jobs deal, because working out deals with individual corporations is an invitation to quid pro quo corruption. "What is it going to take for you to keep these jobs here?"

Conservatives and most economists prefer to establish a level playing field, and let the market determine winners and losers, at least in general. Democrats prefer greater government intervention to spur broader initiatives - solar energy - and Republicans prefer less regulation and less government involvement. It's an honest debate, but no Democrat is looking to nationalize an entire industry, and Republicans aren't looking to dismantle the EPA. Our politics are more common, than different, on the broader scale.

A cabinet full of Billionaires, including a Pro-wrestling magnate, a fast-food tycoon (who is pushing for more automation in fast food, because "robots don't call in sick"), an EPA Director with pending litigation against the EPA... these are all sending off huge alarms with my professional coworker, who says "I've seen this movie before".

"I left Mexico because what Salinas did there, and now Trump is the incoming president here. The similarities make my skin crawl."

As for Carlos Slim, the Mexican world's richest man - he says that if Trump "succeeds" in America, Mexico wins. "I would be more worried as an American about Trump, than I would be as a Mexican".

That might be worthless BS from a Mexican oligarch. Or maybe he has some insight, knows what's coming.

[Ma'ake]

I am still learning about this. What do you think should, or can, be done about it? I am sure that this information will now be used to question Trump's legitimacy as POTUS. Just speculating, I wonder if that was the result the Russians wanted, no matter who won the election? You can bet that if Hillary had won and this news came out, there would be 8 years of screaming from the right that she was not legitimately elected. I think the Russians know us all too well.

I think you're exactly right. Putin may have held a grudge against Clinton for how she held his feet to the fire in previous Russian moves, but the larger goal is to simply de-stabilize the US, wreak havoc and more broadly, weaken the West, weaken NATO.

This is the same stuff the Russians have pulled in Eastern Europe, and what Angela Merkel is now warning against in Germany, for their elections coming up. (Remember, Merkel and Putin go way back, to his Soviet days. She knows him.)

When it was becoming clear what was happening, Congressional Democrats pushed Obama to release the findings - in September - but he held off, not wanting to appear to sway the election. My hunch is Obama and Democratic professionals felt Clinton was likely to win, and for the sake of the nation, it was better to keep this information out of the campaign.

We already had enough problems - no need to give life to Trump's contention that the election was rigged.

With any other Republican candidate, had Hillary lost it would have been part of our national "fabric" of ebb and flow in political power. I think Obama is truly out is looking for the best interests of the United States, having served his time. Even though many have honest disagreements with his politics, I think most people can agree Obama's been presidential about things, in general.

I think at this point Obama - and probably people like McCain and Graham - think it's better to get this information out, because this goes quite a bit beyond any given election.

If Republicans - and Democrats - can effectively moderate Trump, maybe we can get through this. If Trump is trying to turn America into a genuine autocratic oligarchy, that's something neither Republicans nor Democrats, nor 99% of Americans, would want.

We're seeing the beginnings of the "nationalism" Steve Bannon talks about (with or without the racial aspects).

My sense is that people like Mitt Romney are trying to jump in to do just that - act as a moderating force, in the interests of the nation. If I thought Mitt Romney stood a chance at surviving in a Trump oligarchic circus, I would be more optimistic about things. (This explains how Mitt went from his previous harsh criticism of Trump to wanting to be Sec of State).

[Rocker Ute]

You really should compare Trump's response to this to Bill Cosby's response when asked if he drugged and raped women. Anyone with a basic knowledge of interviews and interrogation could see the parallels and the dodge that came with these statements. Basically it was this:

Interviewer: Did you drug and rape women?
Cosby: (Rambling answer that doesn't address the issue...)

Correct answer if innocent: "No, I did not do any of those things..."

CIA: It appears Russia was actively tampering with the election in favor of Trump's campaign
Trump: This from an organization that claimed there were WMD in Iraq. Plus the election was so long ago...

Correct answer if not involved: This is a concerning development and we need to maintain the integrity of the election process. We as a campaign would have never been complicit in any foreign election tampering and as an administration will actively look into exactly what happened and how to prevent such purported attacks on democracy in the future.

LA, you ask what we should do? Congress should set a commission to investigate these claims and the places where recounts are being requested shouldn't be obstructed. People act like what is done is done, but there is no reason to not investigate this stuff and if necessary impeach. If it can't be proved that Trump was involved we still need to know how to protect our democratic process in the future.

Every American should be alarmed by this, it could just be the tip of an iceberg.

[LA Ute]

This is indeed disturbing, but I think it is too early to get very alarmed about it. There should be an investigation - by Congress? The FBI? Who's got credibility these days?

Here's a blog post by a law professor who writes regularly on politics. She's a registered independent who voted for Obama both times. I don't know who she voted for this time. She persuades me to tap the brakes in responding to this NYT report.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/12/american-intelligence-agencies-have.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

IMO, it's politically explosive to assert / determine there was active collusion between Putin and Trump.

I'm not sure the nation is strong enough to deal with a fairly rapid impeachment and trial of a president who recently won a very highly contentious election between two candidates with very high negative ratings.

When it became clear to me that the Russians were feeding WikiLeaks to bend the election their way - or simply undermine Clinton - and it was quite possible that Trump might win, I wondered if "real" Republicans and Democrats might come together and essentially put the nation into a kind of receivership, until another election could be held, maybe in two years.

This idea is problematic for a number of reasons.

At this point I think Trump needs to be monitored very closely, and mainstream Republicans need to be *really* cautious about aligning too closely with him. We need more American politicians, particularly Republicans, to publicly let Trump know there are boundaries he better not cross, along the lines of what McCain has said about Trump vis-à-vis Putin.

I'd like to think people like Paul Ryan have enough integrity to stand up if Trump starts to actively move toward autocratic rule, ie, declares a state of emergency and starts to cleanse the nation of his opponents.

For example, does the Department of Defense put in place some breakers to prevent Trump from ordering a nuclear strike driven from rage from a Twitter fight? Trump is a moronic hothead, compared to Carlos Salinas.

I never thought this kind of situation would be conceivable in the US, and we're still not as fragile as Mexico or the Philippines...

...but we've blown past all the previous reasonable expectations.

[LA Ute]

Persuasive stuff from a very conservative pundit:

Congress should hold hearings on Russia’s interference in the election

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/10/congress-should-hold-hearings-on-russias-interference-in-the-election/


“Time to move on.” That’ll be an early test of how much spine congressional Republicans can muster in standing up to Trump. If they can’t risk spending a few days questioning intelligence officials about their considered assessment that a U.S. enemy was trying to tilt the election because they’re afraid it’ll make Trump mad, they’re finished institutionally. Trump will own them for the next four years. As for Trump himself, he must have a head injury to blithely dismiss something like this with a “WUT ABOUT WMD?” burn. The IC will be his eyes and ears in less than two months and he’s telling you here, up front, that they’re not worth believing. Between this and him blowing off many of his daily intel briefings, he seems to have zero confidence in the information being given to him. If he’s convinced that U.S. intelligence is inherently untrustworthy then he should “drain the swamp” by dismantling the CIA and rebuilding a new intel bureau from the ground up. Although … now that I think about that, creating a new spy agency that owes its existence to a strongman president seems like a uniquely terrible idea.

We need to find out what happened here.

[Devildog]

I'd like to think people like Paul Ryan have enough integrity to stand up if Trump starts to actively move toward autocratic rule, ie, declares a state of emergency and starts to cleanse the nation of his opponents.

For example, does the Department of Defense put in place some breakers to prevent Trump from ordering a nuclear strike driven from rage from a Twitter fight? Trump is a moronic hothead, compared to Carlos Salinas.

I never thought this kind of situation would be conceivable in the US, and we're still not as fragile as Mexico or the Philippines...

...but we've blown past all the previous reasonable expectations.

You cannot actually be serious here. Are you actually serious? You have blown this thing completely out of proportion. You sound unhinged.

[Devildog]

Damn gents... I was pissed when Obama got elected, twice... but my conspiracy theory never kicked in like you guys have going on. Damn fellas... get a grip. Legitimately, get a grip on reality. It's going to be OK. This election is not going to force the world to immediately result in nuclear war and genocide. Seriously lefties, find a safe space and breathe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvDCKd-OQjs

[LA Ute]

Damn gents... I was pissed when Obama got elected, twice... but my conspiracy theory never kicked in like you guys have going on. Damn fellas... get a grip. Legitimately, get a grip on reality. It's going to be OK. This election is not going to force the world to immediately result in nuclear war and genocide. Seriously lefties, find a safe space and breathe.

Now that this is out and has some credibility
we all need to know what happened. If it's true, we need to take action against Russia. Ditto if it's false, or if some intelligence people are trying to undermine the president-elect. If it's not investigated the political mischief and rumor-mongering will never end. This would be true no matter who had won the election.

All that said, I find the idea that Russia didn't want HRC to win pretty hard to believe. She was anything but tough on Russia as Secretary of State. Let's find out what really happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Now that this is out and has some credibility
we all need to know what happened. If it's true, we need to take action against Russia. Ditto if it's false, or if some intelligence people are trying to undermine the president-elect. If it's not investigated the political mischief and rumor-mongering will never end. This would be true no matter who had won the election.

All that said, I find the idea that Russia didn't want HRC to win pretty hard to believe. She was anything but tough on Russia as Secretary of State. Let's find out what really happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK crazy... go get those Ruskies and take action (like what?) because they might have leaked some information to wikileaks. Hillary kills people and you have less to say....hahahaha

[USS Utah]

Now that this is out and has some credibility
we all need to know what happened. If it's true, we need to take action against Russia. Ditto if it's false, or if some intelligence people are trying to undermine the president-elect. If it's not investigated the political mischief and rumor-mongering will never end. This would be true no matter who had won the election.

All that said, I find the idea that Russia didn't want HRC to win pretty hard to believe. She was anything but tough on Russia as Secretary of State. Let's find out what really happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, we need to know what happened. But let us all pump the brakes and wait for the facts. It is tempting to let our imaginations run wild with everything from autocracy to nuclear holocaust. Those of on oppositional bent made many predictions during the Bush II and Obama years, few of which ever even came close to happening -- some of the former are now being recycled, btw.

[chrisrenrut]

Damn gents... I was pissed when Obama got elected, twice... but my conspiracy theory never kicked in like you guys have going on. Damn fellas... get a grip. Legitimately, get a grip on reality. It's going to be OK. This election is not going to force the world to immediately result in nuclear war and genocide. Seriously lefties, find a safe space and breathe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvDCKd-OQjs

The parts of that video I was able sit through had nothing to do with Trump. It was grossly mislabeled, and a huge waste of time.

[chrisrenrut]

Yes, we need to know what happened. But let us all pump the brakes and wait for the facts. It is tempting to let our imaginations run wild with everything from autocracy to nuclear holocaust. Those of on oppositional bent made many predictions during the Bush II and Obama years, few of which ever even came close to happening -- some of the former are now being recycled, btw.

Yep. Hyperbole is grossly overused by both sides. It's getting to be ridiculous.

[Devildog]

The parts of that video I was able sit through had nothing to do with Trump. It was grossly mislabeled, and a huge waste of time.

I sincerely apologize to you for wasting your valuable time on the internet this weekend. I'm sorry that you thought that the crazy lefties in the video were directly attributable to Trump. If it makes you feel any better... I didn't watch it all either.

[Devildog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHG0ezLiVGc&feature=youtu.be

[chrisrenrut]

I sincerely apologize to you for wasting your valuable time on the internet this weekend. I'm sorry that you thought that the crazy lefties in the video were directly attributable to Trump. If it makes you feel any better... I didn't watch it all either.

Lesson learned. Don't watch videos that DD posts.

[Devildog]

Lesson learned. Don't watch videos that DD posts.

Oh Jesus Christ... Cry me a river. Could you possibly be a bigger bitch?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=assZ9bcucmQ

[chrisrenrut]

Oh Jesus Christ... Cry me a river. Could you possibly be a bigger bitch?

Lol. I'm just saying I'll do what you have already admitted to.


. . .I didn't watch it all either.

And to answer your question, yes, it certainly is possible. . .

[Devildog]

Could you possibly be a bigger bitch?




And to answer your question, yes, it certainly is possible. . .

Keep working brother... you got this. Onward and upward.

[Hayes6]

Interesting that so many conservative self-identified "patriots" don't seem concerned about the evidence of Russia's interference in the election in support of Trump. They are traitors.

[USS Utah]

Interesting that so many conservative self-identified "patriots" don't seem concerned about the evidence of Russia's interference in the election in support of Trump. They are traitors.

These are, supposedly, the same people who went nuts when Obama told Medvedev over a hot mike that he would have more flexibility after the 2012 election.

[pangloss]

... I find the idea that Russia didn't want HRC to win pretty hard to believe. She was anything but tough on Russia as Secretary of State. Let's find out what really happened.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not so random observations.

Former US Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, on Meet the Press said "Let's remember that Vladimir Putin thinks [Clinton] interfered in his election — the parliamentary election in December 2011 — and has said as much publicly, and I've heard him talk about it privately". So, presumably, Putin's motivation was revenge.

I'm glad Senators McCain and Lindsey are stepping up to call for Congressional investigations. If the Russians tried to influence the outcome of the election, we need to know.

One of the chilling aspects is the CIA disclosure that the Russians hacked Republican email too but chose to sit on it. On ABC when Priebus was asked about the intelligence community report (17 agencies contributed), Priebus adamantly denied their servers were hacked, saying "The RNC was not hacked. And so the report is basically trying to make the case that the RNC was hacked, the DNC was hacked, and the only e-mails that came out were DNC e-mails,..." Priebus protests too much. Because if it's true that the Russians hacked RNC data as well as the DNC data it means 1) the Russians were trying to help Trump, and 2) they're holding info that could potentially be used against Trump in future 'deals'.

And if it's proven to be true, or at least highly likely, that the Russians overtly acted against Clinton to help Trump, and that they possess data that could blackmail the president of the United States, I have no idea what needs to be done.

Trump's list of institutions with bias against him now includes the CIA (old entries NYTimes, WashPost, US elections, Lester Holt, Fox News, Google, Saturday Night Live, Boeing, etc.). He's dismissed the Presidential Daily Briefing as a recitation of the same stuff every day and that he doesn't need it because "he's a smart person" -- and besides Pence and his generals read the daily briefs. Oh, but he qualified it, "But, I do say, if something should change, let us know". So now we will have a president who doesn't trust the intelligence community professionals to know the difference between analysis and advocacy, and he knows more than they do anyway.

It's already affecting potential cabinet selections and their confirmation hearings. Tillerson's qualifications and experience aren't being covered, it's his past ties with Putin and whether his nomination is payback.

Forget the US politics, this is scary stuff.

[Devildog]

Trump is the racist? The liberal indoctrination in this country is unreal.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odB1wWPqSlE

[Devildog]

Oh and Colin Kaepernick can kiss my entire ass.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrl0w97ogHs

[Devildog]

Oh and Hahahahaha! The smugness here is incredible. I could not enjoy the smugness displayed here more... It is absolutely the stuff euphoria is made of.


http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/RuggedH2/jenius.jpg (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/RuggedH2/media/jenius.jpg.html)


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

[LA Ute]

Another point of view:

RUSSIAN “MEDDLING” IN ELECTION: MOST OVERBLOWN STORY EVER?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/russian-meddling-in-election-most-overblown-story-ever.php

I think we need to know more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Another point of view:

RUSSIAN “MEDDLING” IN ELECTION: MOST OVERBLOWN STORY EVER?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/russian-meddling-in-election-most-overblown-story-ever.php

I think we need to know more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Embrace your inner conspiracy nut. The nation never could have voted for Trump to win the election without Russian influence. :moron:

You may have been in California too long.

[Devildog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRx8A4Ne17w

[USS Utah]

Oh and Colin Kaepernick can kiss my entire ass.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrl0w97ogHs

My problem with Keapernick is not what he does during the national anthem, rather it is that he didn't even bother to vote.

[LA Ute]

Embrace your inner conspiracy nut. The nation never could have voted for Trump to win the election without Russian influence. :moron:

You may have been in California too long.

DD, did you read the article? It supports your point of view 100%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

Hearing Harry Reid accuse Comey of swaying the election for Clinton and the Dems in the senate is comical. He ranks up there with the most corrupt politicians of all time.

This is the guy who made up a story about Romney's taxes and is currently under suspicious of accepting bribes from convicted criminal Jeremy Johnson.

I'm of the opinion that Comey might be the only honest guy in Washington.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hayes6]

Hearing Harry Reid accuse Comey of swaying the election for Clinton and the Dems in the senate is comical. He ranks up there with the most corrupt politicians of all time.

This is the guy who made up a story about Romney's taxes and is currently under suspicious of accepting bribes from convicted criminal Jeremy Johnson.

I'm of the opinion that Comey might be the only honest guy in Washington.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reed may well be corrupt, but he's right about Comey's letter. It threw the election to Trump. Without that and Russian intervention via Wikileaks, it isn't even a close election.

[Rocker Ute]

Reed may well be corrupt, but he's right about Comey's letter. It threw the election to Trump. Without that and Russian intervention via Wikileaks, it isn't even a close election.

Comey couldn't win. He sits on it and Hillary wins he is in collusion with her. He announced it and cleared her at breakneck speed. I don't know what else he could do in his spot. I think he did the only right thing he could. The situation influenced the election, not Comey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

Comey couldn't win. He sits on it and Hillary wins he is in collusion with her. He announced it and cleared her at breakneck speed. I don't know what else he could do in his spot. I think he did the only right thing he could. The situation influenced the election, not Comey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagree. His mistake was announcing before he had any idea what was on laptop. The FBIsho uld have worked at breakneck speed (as you say) and then announced its findings one way or another (or said nothing if there was no additional finding). They had the laptop for several weeks before Comey's announcement, too. To announce beforehand 10 days before the election was irresponsible, because it fed what turned out to be unfounded speculation and innuendo and became election fodder.

Comey violated Justice Dept policy which is not to interfere with election close to election day.

[Rocker Ute]

Disagree. His mistake was announcing before he had any idea what was on laptop. The FBIshould have worked at breakneck speed (as you say) and then announced its findings one way or another. They had the laptop for several weeks before Comey's announcement, too. To announce beforehand 10 days before the election was irresponsible, because it fed what turned out to be unfounded speculation and innuendo and became election fodder.

They had the laptop but it wasn't in connection with anything related to Clinton's email scandal and it wasn't taken for that purpose. It was only when they discovered that there were more emails on the laptop that they did anything, and the discovery occurred because of that separate investigation into Anthony Weiner.

If Comey was politically motivated in this case it stands in stark contrast to how he stood up to the GWB administration when he was acting AG while Ashcroft was in the hospital. I'll bet most of America doesn't know that story.

[concerned]

They had the laptop but it wasn't in connection with anything related to Clinton's email scandal and it wasn't taken for that purpose. It was only when they discovered that there were more emails on the laptop that they did anything, and the discovery occurred because of that separate investigation into Anthony Weiner.

If Comey was politically motivated in this case it stands in stark contrast to how he stood up to the GWB administration when he was acting AG while Ashcroft was in the hospital. I'll bet most of America doesn't know that story.

The FBI agents knew the emails were on the laptop for several weeks before they told Comey. Everybody knows the Ashcroft story. Whether he was politically motivated or not, he panicked and handled it poorly.

[Two Utes]

The FBI agents knew the emails were on the laptop for several weeks before they told Comey. Everybody knows the Ashcroft story. Whether he was politically motivated or not, he panicked and handled it poorly.


The Comey timing is a bit troubling. But you dems need to stop blaming everybody else and start blaming the blue collar democrats in Ohio, Penn, Wisc, Mich, Pinellas county next to Tampa and even Minn (believe it or not Trump almost won this state). THEY elected Trump.

And you also need to ask yourself why federal and state police and investigation agency employees overwhelmingly supported Trump and not the democrats (this one's on Obama).

What a bungled campaign. Thanks a lot guys.

[concerned]

The Comey timing is a bit troubling. But you dems need to stop blaming everybody else and start blaming the blue collar democrats in Ohio, Penn, Wisc, Mich, Pinellas county next to Tampa and even Minn (believe it or not Trump almost won this state). THEY elected Trump.

And you also need to ask yourself why federal and state police and investigation agency employees overwhelmingly supported Trump and not the democrats (this one's on Obama).

What a bungled campaign. Thanks a lot guys.

I didn't blame anybody for anything. I said he mishandled it, which he did IMHO.

[concerned]

The Comey timing is a bit troubling. But you dems need to stop blaming everybody else and start blaming the blue collar democrats in Ohio, Penn, Wisc, Mich, Pinellas county next to Tampa and even Minn (believe it or not Trump almost won this state). THEY elected Trump.

And you also need to ask yourself why federal and state police and investigation agency employees overwhelmingly supported Trump and not the democrats (this one's on Obama).

What a bungled campaign. Thanks a lot guys.

Frankly, I blame Clinton for ignoring the Rust Belt. When you win the popular vote by 2.7 million, but lose three states you know you need by 80,000, you have made a huge tactical error. She should have spent more time in those states and less time chasing Georgia, Arizona, Texas, Utah, etc.

Nonetheless, she lost each of those states by less than 1% each. As Nate Silver pointed out yesterday, it seems pretty common sensical that Comey and Wikileaks tipped the balance in each.