The world is officially upside down.

[Cookietruck]

let's not forget HRC has the popular vote by over 1 million now...

and HRC i think took heavy hits with votes because of ties to wall street, but watch what happens with Trump and the banking regulations, Dodd Frank...
also, the Comey thing was ridiculous.

i'm anxious to see what happens.
Bankers celebrate dawn of Trump era - POLITICO

[fiveller]

HRC ran on fear & demonization....and lost. Fear of Trump, demonization of Trump. During the debates 80 million folks were focused on her every word, and she spent too many of her minutes demonizing trump over petty things rather than provide anything to be hopeful in.

I'd say trump was the opposite. Renegotiate trade deals, prioritizing US interests. Completely new immigration system, again with an emphasis on US interests. Reduce regulation to help open more businesses. Make the US business environment more attractive to business so they don't seek shelter in other countries. Inner City Economic Trade Zones with tax incentives to encourage business growth & employment. School choice so our country stops forcing good kids to attend failing, often dangerous schools. I'd call al that hope.

I'd say you weren't paying attention. I'd keep on addressing your points but you're conflating his rhetoric for any sort of thought out policy. You keep saying "U.S. interests" but I'm not sure that means what you think that means. You might want to review the history of Smoot Hawley and see how well that worked out for us. Trump spent the entire campaign trying to tackle complex issues in 140 characters or less. The world doesn't work that way no matter how much we want it to. He sold us unicorns and castles in the sky. When he brings all those coal jobs back, let me know. Meanwhile, his steak dinner friends will get their tax cuts and you'll be paying the bill.

[spopepro]

I don’t like what he’s saying. It’s doomed to fail in many ways and will do more harm than good. She was right to call him out on it.
BUT, again, he’s a Trump “supporter”, not a cabinet member. Is this plan true? Are the floating it out for a litmus test? Who knows?

Bad idea. Just like Bannon.

And I think the degree to which this is cause for alarm is where we disagree. You're right to observe all the "not my president" and "moving to Canada" stuff after the 2000 election. In 2008 there was a massive run on firearms and ammo and a desperate attempt to invalidate Obama's eligibility for the office. Neither of which were really thoughtful, mature, or as we can see with hindsight, correct.

But I, and many others here and around the country, see this election as different.

Salena Zito, who should be required reading for all sides for her excellent work this election season, said

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

which is right on the money, and somewhat consistent with what I hear you saying in the quote above (not saying you're a supporter--I know he's not really "your guy" from other statements in other places). But over and over again Trump himself, or his direct advisors and campaign surrogates, have made outlandish statements about walls, rapists and murderers, mocking arthrogryposis, internment camps, opening up libel laws, rejecting democratic process if it doesn't turn up the result he wants... All of those things are on record. And what some rational people are saying is "well, wait and see what really happens. He didn't *really* mean things like that". Seriously, but not literally. And with apologies to Goodwin, but this bit of history is precisely why it's important to pay close attention, and not wait to see what might end up actually happening. But just in case anyone is attempted to tl;dr, here's the relevant part:

But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was mearly using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch messes of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.

And when he says "drain the swamp" you might want to look up the bonifica integrale and the Pontine marshes. Even less obfuscated when a transition team member says that Reince Preibus is a good pick for chief of staff because he will "utilize his personal connections with the speaker [Rep. Paul Ryan] and others, to make the trains run on time." We can't wait around and make the same mistake Benedetto Croce did. Is the time to act now? Maybe not... but it is important to stay vigilant and not make excuses for abhorrent speech and behavior.

[Dallas Tex]

let's not forget HRC has the popular vote by over 1 million now...
]

Let's also not forget that the president isn't elected by popular vote. And if it were a contest for popular vote, strategies on either side would have been different and would not have necessarily produced a different result.

[Dallas Tex]

The world doesn't work that way no matter how much we want it to.

The floor is yours & this is the right place to discuss. Tell us how the world works. Post a link to our trade agreement with China or Germany. List off the names of the folks who create those agreements & their backgrounds. Is it the US negotiating alone or in conjunction with other countries? How often is it reviewed & renegotiated?

Now tell me how you are so confidently assured that they can't be improved for the betterment of our country.

[Saab2000]

The discussion of the popular vote vs the electoral vote is moot. The constitution set up the electoral college and that method for a reason. I think we'd be ill advised to attempt to modify it without a very strong discussion of the merits of both arguments.

I did not like the result of this election one bit but voices to change the electoral system are premature. We can discuss it but I'm not sure we should change it.

[Dallas Tex]

The discussion of the popular vote vs the electoral vote is moot. The constitution set up the electoral college and that method for a reason. I think we'd be ill advised to attempt to modify it without a very strong discussion of the merits of both arguments.

I did not like the result of this election one bit but voices to change the electoral system are premature. We can discuss it but I'm not sure we should change it.

Tyranny of the Majority. I can honestly say if HRC won I'd still support the electoral system.

[ericpmoss]

I never thought I'd agree with Daltex. I was right again. ;) Just kidding -- I love that joke.

IMO just about everything was wrong with this election, and he nailed it on some of the problems. Personal insults. Twitter wars -- seriously? "Epic take-downs" -- again, seriously? He said a bad word -- think of the children. She fainted -- must be dying.

When in the first Dem debate Bernie said he was sick and tired of hearing about her damned emails, the media played that part about 80 billion times, but steadfastly refused to re-air what he said in the minute after that -- . Watch it and consider the tone of the election we might have had.

I think Trump is a disaster in many ways, and I don't think he'll keep many promises that actually help the working class -- he has too many nasty insiders around him to give me any faith in that. But there was so much superficial identity politics coming from the (yes, I'm going there) Hillbot media, that people who just want back the job they were proud of can be forgiven for thinking, well screw you too.

[Cookietruck]

lol, the alt-right
illegal immigration isn't the mian problem, it's legal immigration, those are the ones here to stay.
only europeans...aka white people.

'We're Not Going Away': Alt-Right Leader On Voice In Trump Administration : NPR

[Cookietruck]

also, don't think i was pointing out the popular vote because i don't agree with it.

but, the majority of the US prefers HRC.

[Sbti]

“It will be so refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady back in the White House.”
“I’m tired of seeing a Ape in heels.”

Maybe a spread eagled **** shot for the christmas card would work well for the plagiarist illegal alien.

[Cookietruck]

lol, the alt-right
illegal immigration isn't the mian problem, it's legal immigration, those are the ones here to stay.
only europeans...aka white people.

'We're Not Going Away': Alt-Right Leader On Voice In Trump Administration : NPR

and with that said.
lets not forget there is hope...

The white flight of Derek Black - The Washington Post

[vertical_doug]

I see a lot of evidence that children have interpreted this election as the bully winning. Trump speaks their school yard language. Bullies are empowered to be bullies now, and the rest of the kids are scared. Their parents are anxious and kids sense that. It's Northampton, probably 75% of the parents are anxious, and anxious kids amplify their fear when they realize most of their friends are feeling the same way. In the end it doesn't matter if their fears are rational; if kids are afraid, you console them. It's pretty simple.

Call me old fashioned, but when I was a child, my parents told me: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"

Now it seems like the whole world of parenting over reacts to words.

[jclay]

Tyranny of the Majority. I can honestly say if HRC won I'd still support the electoral system.

Why (generally support the EC system)? You are probably more knowledgable about the EC than I. But having just reviewed, skimmed for pertenant parts really, a couple articles describing the thinking behind the EC at the various junctures in its evolution I don't see any reasons, if the goal is to most accurately represent the will of the people. The various reasons given generally revolved around tyranny of the majority, the largest state, favorite sons and some technical and administrative defects of the time (like not differentiating between prez or V-prez on the electoral ballots early on). At the conclusion of each reason supporting indirect election, i.e. some form of electing the Electors I asked myself: Is this rationale relevant to the current situation? Does the technical, administrative or political problem that the EC attempted to address exist in our current environment? The only issue that seemed possible (academically) related to the judgement that the Electors would be people with a greater understanding of the complex details attended to by the President, and therefore better able to select the more suitable person; I am, BTW, implying nothing WRT the suitability of recent choices. But exercising the latitude suggested by that notion in current day USA, like if the electors didn't express the result of their groups of voters, would be like pouring gasoline on the entire country. So I am left wondering why we retain the EC. I didn't see a single, foundational rationale that appeared relevant, or in the case just presented, culturally feasible, today. What am I missing?

That was a hell of a long way of saying: I scanned the history of why we have the EC and none of the reasons seemed relevant to, or politically feasible within, our current realities.

[vertical_doug]

Why (generally support the EC system)? You are probably more knowledgable about the EC than I. But having just reviewed, skimmed for pertenant parts really, a couple articles describing the thinking behind the EC at the various junctures in its evolution I don't see any reasons, if the goal is to most accurately represent the will of the people. The various reasons given generally revolved around tyranny of the majority, the largest state, favorite sons and some technical and administrative defects of the time (like not differentiating between prez or V-prez on the electoral ballots early on). At the conclusion of each reason supporting indirect election, i.e. some form of electing the Electors I asked myself: Is this rationale relevant to the current situation? Does the technical, administrative or political problem that the EC attempted to address exist in our current environment? The only issue that seemed possible (academically) related to the judgement that the Electors would be people with a greater understanding of the complex details attended to by the President, and therefore better able to select the more suitable person; I am, BTW, implying nothing WRT the suitability of recent choices. But exercising the latitude suggested by that notion in current day USA, like if the electors didn't express the result of their groups of voters, would be like pouring gasoline on the entire country. So I am left wondering why we retain the EC. I didn't see a single, foundational rationale that appeared relevant, or in the case just presented, culturally feasible, today. What am I missing?

That was a hell of a long way of saying: I scanned the history of why we have the EC and none of the reasons seemed relevant to, or politically feasible within, our current realities.

If you change from EC to popular vote, you will change the way the candidate's campaign. I do not think Trump even campaigned in California since he knew it was a lost cause. So in the national vote, Trump lost by 1m, in California, he lost by 3.2m , so if required to campaign in California, could Trump have garnered another 1m votes? You will probably get changes in voter turnout since a republican vote in a democratic state or democratic vote in a republican state would not be viewed as wasted.

I think the biggest drawback if you void the EC is loss of a quick outcome. Instead, of just having to recount Florida like the 2000 election, you are forced to recount all voting districts. In this case, I doubt we'd be finished in time for the inauguration.

So instead of repealing 200+ years of EC, it is probably better for the democrats to ask how they can appeal to rural and rust belt America as opposed to just the coasts. Even in California, northern and eastern California look republican, and the coasts dems.

The converse is true for republicans, how can they appeal to the coasts instead of just rural areas.

[nick k]

Call me old fashioned, but when I was a child, my parents told me: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" Now it seems like the whole world of parenting over reacts to words.

This is actually old-fashioned thinking about trauma and bullying, and racial or sexually motivated assaults on children by their peers. Sure there are unmotivated knocks and conflicts in schools, but victims of sustained or hate-motivated (even if perpetrators don't understand this) violence experience trauma differently. As I said in an earlier post, they commit suicide at higher rates, and the trauma remains even when the immediate threat is removed or handled by authorities.

My wife called me sobbing yesterday from her office. The events of the last week (hate speech, swastikas, violence against women, Muslims, gays and African Americans) that we have witnessed here in Philadelphia and in our neighborhood are not only terrifying to a brown-skinned Jewish woman, but also rekindled the trauma of words said to her 30-some years ago by peers and parents...in school. My wife is 42 years old, daughter of a psychologist, manager of a non-profit, former project manager for films and concerts and operas. She is hardly a fragile flower. She feels safe walking our streets with our 75lb. pit bull. Nothing about that is reasonable, or normal.

[vertical_doug]

This is actually old-fashioned thinking about trauma and bullying, and racial or sexually motivated assaults on children by their peers. Sure there are unmotivated knocks and conflicts in schools, but victims of sustained or hate-motivated (even if perpetrators don't understand this) violence experience trauma differently. As I said in an earlier post, they commit suicide at higher rates, and the trauma remains even when the immediate threat is removed or handled by authorities.

My wife called me sobbing yesterday from her office. The events of the last week (hate speech, swastikas, violence against women, Muslims, gays and African Americans) that we have witnessed here in Philadelphia and in our neighborhood are not only terrifying to a brown-skinned Jewish woman, but also rekindled the trauma of words said to her 30-some years ago by peers and parents...in school. My wife is 42 years old, daughter of a psychologist, manager of a non-profit, former project manager for films and concerts and operas. She is hardly a fragile flower. She feels safe walking our streets with our 75lb. pit bull. Nothing about that is reasonable, or normal.

You may miss the point about the Sunday School Idiom. It doesn't condone violence or verbal bullying, it simply is about not letting words bother you and not to retaliate. To rise above the bullying and turn the other cheek.

[nick k]

I'm sorry if maybe we don't understand each other. Ethnic, racial, homophobic and sexual violence in schools that leads to lifelong traumas and suicides - and also to actual physical injuries - is not to be met with Sunday School platitudes. Please reconsider your response.

[Corso]

I'm sorry if maybe we don't understand each other. Ethnic, racial, homophobic and sexual violence in schools that leads to lifelong traumas and suicides - and also to actual physical injuries - is not to be met with Sunday School platitudes. Please reconsider your response.

Nick, I’d love to hear your solution.

Vertical Doug had a point, it’s not the book on how to behave-but a simple guideline that has served several for decades.

Here’s another from my Sunday school days: “Treat people the way you want to be treated yourself”.

[colker]

There is something strange and sinister going on.. It feels as if the US would be, again, on the verge of a civil war. A political, ideological rupture within society. Maybe it's something for good in the long term, a way to solve issues and move w/ history. It's a traumatic moment though.