Re: Decision 2016
 

Sure, people have a right to protest. I'm not disputing that. Just because they have a right to protest doesn't mean the protest is justified. I don't think these protests are justified (yet). Give the man a chance, especially since he's already started walking back some of his crazier ideas. Shoot, on 60 minutes last night he told his supporters to quit picking on minorities. Sure, the man he appointed from Breitbart is not a good fella, but Trump himself seems to be mellowing.

I don't think protests should be the first course of action when things don't go the way we want. Sure, America was founded on protests, but they tried to negotiate and work with Britain first. They used protest as a last resort, not the first tool in the toolbag. These protesters seem to be using it as the first tool (to be fair, there's not much else they can do, but there are other options), and like Raider30 said, they seem to just be protesting that they lost. It's not a good look, and I would be saying the same thing if Trump had lost and his supporters were acting like this.

Re: Decision 2016
 

They aren't protesting because they lost. They are protesting because they are afraid. And if you don't see that, and if you don't see why, then you aren't looking very hard.

On the campaign trail he talked like a sexist, racist, xenophobe. Vote for him, don't vote for him, whatever; it's just how he talked. And that scares people. Scared now. You think they should wait to see if he's different from the man he appeared to be last month? Well, they disagree and I don't blame them.

Look. I love that we live in a country where people are free to protest. I often don't agree with one protest or another, but I honor that right, and I don't demean the right, or the people exercising it, by talking about them as if they were putting on a show for me to judge. That's the first point.

The second point is, people are justifiably afraid. This is where we are right now as a nation. You want to say that Trump isn't responsible for that? Well, his divisive rhetoric enabled those people, and the rest of us have to live with them. What if this was your church?

People are afraid and upset and are responding by demonstrating. Have some respect for your fellow Americans, instead of judging them like they were in a beauty pageant or something. "Not a good look"? There are lots of things that aren't good looks right now. The President of the United States being honored with parades by the KKK, that's not a good look. Neither is the mockery of people exercising the constitutional right to protest. Lots of not good looks.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Add to what DS said, Trump talked about repealing Obamacare (though now has softened somewhat). He talked about registering Muslims, deporting illegals, and supports stop and frisk. Pence has a history of being anti-LGBT.

The director of the FBI basically fed Trump's campaign huge ammunition against Clinton with the emails, and it ended up being about nothing. But by the time he backtracked, not only had a lot of people early voted, but his backtrack had little substance because Trump people spun it like Comey is afraid for his life or that he's spineless for backing down. So people have a right to protest that because it set a dangerous precedence for the future in having the FBI interfere with an election.

Re: Decision 2016
 

What if the candidate talked about mandatory military service and that all men and women between the ages of 18 and 25 had to register for for a chance to be chosen. Regardless of your social status, work status, education status, marriage status etc.

Are you going to wait until you are selected and pulled out of college, away friends and family etc to serve in the military for a few years, and then protest?

Re: Decision 2016
 

Can you imagine if someone ran on the platform that all firearms in private homes would be seized and melted down for scrap metal? There wouldn't just be protests before inauguration, there would be protests before the *election*.

Which I would completely understand, and decline to judge for the grace, or "look," of the protesters.

Re: Decision 2016
 

There's no reason to refrain from judging Trump on what he's doing right now. He says he wants to bring people together after a divisive campaign. Is he living up to that?

Oh, on 60 Minutes! Fantastic! Most of his supporters watch that show.

Man, if only he had some way to reach his supporters more directly. Some sort of... I don't know... social media account of some kind. Nah, that's just for criticizing the media and protesters.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I find it most scary how many people willingly give in to 'trust' this man just because he has won and is 'changing' views. That's exactly what he wants, for you to trust him regardless of whatever he does or has done. He changes stances on anything as long as that means he wins trust or hope in your eyes. That's what a manipulator of his magnitude does.

He doesn't care about what his promises were or the people that supported him, he cares that he won and is now in power. It's so obvious, and way too many on both 'sides' are falling for it. He doesn't give a sh** about what political faction he falls into or represents, as long as he attains power and he has done precisely so.

These are incredibly scary times.

Re: Decision 2016
 

He can say to stop picking on minorities all he wants, but until he and Pence actually clearly state that they have no intentions of trying to repeal my right to marriage, and as long as they both continue to state they will try to pass legislation for expanding religions freedoms that in reality is just enabling legal discrimination of LGBT groups....well maybe they should stop picking on minorities and trying to remove their rights.

There are real reasons for many to feel scared and marginalized. There is real reason to protest--maybe it will accomplish nothing. But Trump and Pence have said and supported many things that rightfully have many minorities concerned about their legal rights in this country. By protesting, many hope to have their voices heard better so that perhaps, just maybe, those in power will change their minds and reconsider.

Unfortunately for many, including myself, given Pence's large past of being staunchly against LGBT rights, I don't think we shall be seeing a softening of their stances. But it makes plenty of sense for minorities to be fighting right now when the stated positions of those in power will directly lessen their rights or status in society.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I don't see Trump rescinding some of his "crazier" ideas as a good thing. To me, it looks like he's just saying whatever will make him look good at the time. He doesn't really care what policies his administration implements. That puts the people he's surrounded himself with in charge of those things, and they are a lot worse.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Protesting is all about telling other people what you think. It is designed to gain the attention of those who haven't been paying attention. I will always support the right of peaceful protest which doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

I do wonder if it is helpful in this case. Not that it needs to be for it to be validated or justified. Just that for me, I always at least attempt to understand what my goals are and to act in ways that are consistent with those goals. And I wonder if these protests are consistent with the goals of the protesters.

Since President Obama took office, the Democrats have lost around 10 seats in the Senate, over 50 in the House and something like a dozen governorships. Some of that just happens as the country tends to move counter to the presidency at midterm elections. But it seems to me this is more than usual.

There is something about the Democrat message which is seriously out of sync with large chunks of the voting public. The party which has claimed the rust belt union voters for decades lost them this year. I'm okay with protests, I guess. I just wonder whether the party will continue to support the same platform that has overseen the past eight years of political losses or if this election means that there will be changes. If there are changes, THOSE are what I'm eager to hear about.

It seems to me that the protests aren't telling me anything I didn't already know. I want to see what is going to change.

~Aldin, waiting and seeing

Re: Decision 2016
 

Thanks for articulating this so well.

The reason the "Comey lost the election for Clinton" narrative bothers me is because it feels like a way for the Democratic elites to escape the consequences of defeat. It ignores the geographic trend of lost voters, it ignores that 1/3 of the counties that went Obama twice went for Trump.

This was not a vast outpouring of racist sentiment. This was a failure to connect with voters. They had bad strategy, a bad message, and a bad candidate. Slogans like "America is Already Great" turn tons of people off of your campaign. Trump may have completely insane solutions, but at least he said there was a problem.

The cynical part of me wants to say that the Democratic elites would rather maintain their institution of power than permanently fix the problems the institution exists to fix. I think that's almost definitely true for some of them. The Republicans don't have to deal with that since they don't actually have any real end goal. They just run against whatever Democrats run for. But that doesn't really matter, it's horrible that a concept like that shapes politics in our country.

I'm worried that the DNC will learn the wrong lesson from this and say "Oh, African-American turnout down a ton relative to Obama, let's run Cory Booker or Michelle Obama in 2020 to get them out to vote!". That's not the solution. More and more people are going to become disillusioned with the Democratic party over time, unless they make a change in their message and their policy. The people who ran the Clinton campaign should not be running things in 2020.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Oh, I understand that, Vegie. Anyone who says he is the reason, or even the principal reason, is wrong. IMHO. But why are you resisting that one of the reasons that Clinton lost was Comey's involvement?

Aldin, I sort of understand your point, but maybe the protests aren't *for* you, or meant to instruct you of anything. If there's anything for you to learn from the related causes - as ably expressed by Ranior, above - then then that's up to you. But there are demonstrations in DC all the time. It never occurred to me that they were tying to persuade me, personally of something, or that I should commend some of them for doing a better job than others of teaching me things. They're protesters, upset, and expressing themselves. God bless 'em, right?

Those of you so interested in evaluating the protests, will you also be evaluating the KKK's parades? What does that have to do with the election, while we're talking about political messaging in public gatherings?

Re: Decision 2016
 

Because it doesn't matter?

I mean, how crazy is it the candidate under investigation by the FBI would be investigated by the FBI? It was a known risk with Clinton and a symptom of her being a bad candidate in other ways. Of course the timing was unprofessional, and it certainly had an effect on the election. I'm still not convinced it swung things from a Clinton win to a Trump win. But the fact that you're arguing this with me, over everything else I said in my post, is what's frustrating. It doesn't matter what specific event caused Clinton to lose, it matters that she lost an easily winnable election. The controllable factors that caused her defeat are so much more relevant to actually improving the situation

Re: Decision 2016
 

It was the personal server.

She does not make that choice and she is President.

That was the only thing that stuck to her. The "basket of deplorables" statement was bad also but she could have shrugged that off. The email scandal was too much to overcome.

Any thoughts on his Chief of Staff or the other appointment?

Re: Decision 2016
 

I don't think they can blame Comey solely for the loss, but I think he was wrong and it may have contributed to the loss.

I think Hillary had too much baggage, which left doubts for many people. She didn't offer change for the people that felt things were not working for them. She had plenty of celebrity help, but she herself isn't inspiring or charismatic. When she called Trump supporters deplorables, that was a big mistake. A lot of people voting for him didn't even like him or some of the things he stood for during his campaign, but they chose to look past that and toward the other issues that are important to them. Hillary vilified a lot of people, where her side was the good and righteous and Trump's side were evil. That's going to **** a lot of people off and strengthen their resolve.

Then of course there are some Bernie supporters that felt he was screwed by Clinton. So some may have voted for Trump or stayed home, both hurting her.

So I think the Dems need to take a deep look at their plans for the future. They can't just pander to women, minorities and the LGBT community. I don't know that will work, as obviously they have important issues that need to be represented, but they need to appeal to a wider spectrum of people to get the Whitehouse back.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Don't be frustrated, Vegie. I read your whole post and thought it was interesting. I don't really want to have a conversation about what might or might not be learned, even though that's important, as you say.

Years and years ago, on a Yahoo group I followed closely (rec.games.diplomacy), one veteran poster got a fierce reaction to something he'd written sloppily. He lamented that when you take care to write something thoughtful, and people agree with you or don't have much to add, you'll get ignored. One bad moment, though, and everybody wants to pile on.

You didn't even have the bad moment. I just wanted to discuss the one little detail, even though the whole post was quality. :up:

On an almost-completely-unrelated note, on account of water under the bridge: As for the naturalness of the FBI talking about a pending investigation (the first time) or a non-investigation (the second time), both were absolutely outrageous and would be outrageous for anybody, under any circumstances. Law enforcement officials - prosecutors, police - just don't do that. It's anathema. You can't share part of what you've discovered, because it will inevitably be taken out of context, or maybe you don't have context, and misunderstood. Which is precisely what happened here.

I make this point for purely academic reasons, here. I've said the same thing about a Democratic elected prosecutor, recently enough, who did something similar.

It's like the parable of the blind men and the elephant: one touches the tail, and says the elephant is like a rope, another the leg, and says the elephant is a tree; the third one touches the side, and says it's a wall, and the last one, grabbing the point of the tusk, says it's a curved rod. When law enforcement puts information from a pending (or non-) investigation into the public, it's presenting the elephant to the blind men. It's a disservice to everybody. Wait until you can reveal the elephant, then do so. Not beforehand. People won't understand it, and in all likelihood you - Mrs. Prosecutor, Mr. Investigator - don't understand it yet, either.

Again, I'm making the point for purely academic reasons. What Comey did was reprehensible, but I'm not whining or trying to turn back the clock. It's just something that interests me, just like it interested me when a Democratic prosecutor did so and I said the same thing recently enough, so I'm commenting on it here.

Don't knock Booker, though. He has a lot going for him, regardless of skin color. And I, personally, doubt Michelle Obama would run. That family's given everything and more to this country. I don't think she would want to go through it all again.

The Future
 

Decisions are slow and situations are complicated. People like easy answers to solutions. The Dems certainly have what I feel are many good answers, but they are complicated and admittedly some of them could make people's lives worse in the short term for greater gains in the long term. It's very hard to get people to react to that though. I have seen automation come up every time there's any discussion about the minimum wage, but it's without the understanding that automation is the future. Thanks to machines, we'll likely produce more things with fewer people and I'm not sure how many industries can't be automated. It's something we need to prepare for now, but preparations we make to prepare for that could end up making people worse off now. Personally, I think Dems are best served by cooperating with the Republicans on things which should help people, doing their best to stop the stuff that won't (there already seems to be some lashback about a straight repeal of Obamacare and going after things like marriage equality so that's a positive sign), and engaging with people on an individual level. I'm still formulating as to what I think is ideal strategy, but that's where I'm at right now.

~Dysole, who as much as she would like to skip ahead to post Trump presidency knows that's not the way we need to do things

Re: Decision 2016
 

Unlike the current batch of anti-Trump protesters who I think have valid grievances and about whom I care, I don't take the KKK seriously.

~Aldin, also still not taking Westboro Baptist seriously

Re: Decision 2016
 

I have no problem with Cory Booker as a person, I would just have a problem if he was selected and ran with a similar message that Clinton did. We need a real change, not an artificial one calculated by demographic appeal.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I think someone more charismatic than Clinton - who was wonky and never really looked that comfortable at a lectern - would have won, running away with it. Booker seems to me to be effective at delivering simple messages simply and could have a broad, populist appeal.

But that's a long way away, which is why I don't really want to jump into that conversation. I love my Baltimore Ravens, but unlike some football fans, I can't get really excited about the draft. I know it's important but I'm content to wait until further downstream for my own emotional investment. :up:

Re: Decision 2016
 

Except that it kind of does, right? The point is that this fairly wooden candidate, who represented the establishment in every meaningful way, and who has endured literally a quarter century of negative attacks that have cemented her as unpalatable in the minds of vast swaths of voters, still could have and probably should have won.

What that means is that we should temper our critiques about how the Democratic establishment has no chance to win without changing their approach wholesale. I fully understand your frustration with that, because you want the lesson the DNC learns from the election to be something far more meaningful than "We ran an uninspiring candidate, and got some bad luck at the end." And you're in luck, because as I have repeatedly said, all of these many things can be simultaneously true. Hillary very probably wins if not for the Comey letter, and yet there are many other ways they could have improved their chances.

That's true (although it's also important to think about what makes our institutions more resistant to these sorts of process attacks in the future). What's less clear is which of those factors/lessons will be taken into account. As you sort-of acknowledge, many of these lessons could be learned by swapping in Corey Booker or Deval Patrick or Julian Castro. I don't even think, from a purely electoral perspective, this is necessarily the wrong lesson to learn: just nominate someone who doesn't have the built-in negatives and who is more inspiring to your base voters. Maybe the next Democrat loses all the rust belt Trump pickups but flips back North Carolina and Florida and wins that way. That map adds up just fine.

Curiously, what would the "real change" be, anyway? Just nominating someone who doesn't have clear ties to the establishment is, in the end, window dressing, too. What matters is policy changes, right?

Re: Decision 2016
 

I had rather the same question.

I mean I feel like this election helped to highlight the idea that policy doesn't matter so much as personality and style and favorability during elections. The candidate who has better favorability ratings typically wins. Choosing someone charismatic and likeable who can clearly communicate ideas and represent policies seems like a good move. If Booker or someone else fits those criteria, then why not run them?

I mean I guess I agree--what would you like to see the Democrats do? I feel like the lessons from this election, and from much of the discussion thus far is that the Democrats could have one if not for this or that or that. There seem to be almost a dozen different things that could have happened between Clinton being more likeable to getting a bit better Democratic turnout in a few states to the Comey stuff not happening to Clinton using slightly different strategies that all should have let her win. That seems like the Democrats certainly have a few things to do differently, but also that they lost only because of a near perfect confluence of factors.

With all that being said, I absolutely hope the Democrats do more to become more inspiring and attractive to voters. I obviously support a vast majority of the Democrat's policy positions and would like to see them have more power and figure out ways to get more voters on their side. I just think it doesn't involve all that much massive change to their policies or ideas, but just involves ways to communicate it better. And that likely comes with finding some good young politicians who are charismatic and likeable.

I will admit that while it is looking ahead far more than is necessary, I do somewhat worry about who the Democrats will find to run in future years. With so many state governors, senators, and representatives being Republican, it would seem the Democrats have a smaller pool to pull from to run good candidates in national elections. Perhaps that doesn't matter much, but right now I can think of far more younger Republicans who are likely nationally known than I can think of younger Democrats.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Well, your assumption that Booker could win in 2020 is problematic because there's no guarantee the Democrats can maintain their electorate if they don't change. Booker certainly would have won this year, but people aren't going to get more supportive of the party if they continue to be out of touch. Maybe you can argue that all of the people they Democrats could possibly lose have already been lost, but I don't think that's the case. I didn't vote Trump, but if he proves himself a reasonable president and the Democrats run someone as uninspiring as Hillary in 2020, I might then, and I suspect other people feel the same way.

Of course policy is important, and that's really what was lacking from Hillary. She made no acknowledgement of the problems of the Obama administration, and therefore no promise to fix any of them. I'd like someone from outside their establishment because it would mean policy changes.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Heh. You realize the Republican candidate just won, right? You know, those guys that nominated Romney in 2012?

There's one extremely powerful reason that the Democrats are basically guaranteed to be more popular, as a brand, in 2020. That's that whatever is wrong in the world can't easily be laid at their feet. There's a reason that GHWB is the only candidate to win a third consecutive term for the same party in the last 68 years. At some point people just blame the president's part for what is wrong in the world.

(Also, thinking someone "could win" is not exactly much of an assumption)

Oh no, definitely not. They lost a lot of voters who they could have won in other circumstances or with a different candidate.

One other lesson, with the benefit of hindsight, is that Trump actually probably wasn't a very weak general election candidate. In the end the Republican voters pretty much all came home, despite many of them not liking him. So it was really a trade of worse numbers among some independents in return for better returns among a specific demographic set.

These are still generalities. I'm pretty lost on what you see as the problems of the Obama administration and why you think a Democratic outsider would/could solve them.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The last three presidents have all had second terms, so I'm not quick to concede that the party of the president will be worse off in four years. If things go badly, definitely. But a lot of the arguments used against Trump this time (unfit to be president, no experience) won't work once he's actually the president.

No. Not at all. Just last week Trump was considered an extreme long shot to win, and now he was a fine candidate? This is revisionist history. Trump had average turnout for a Republican candidate, but there was his unpredictability. The advantage that should have been Clinton's (drawing out moderates to vote against Trump for stability purposes) was thrown away.

Increasing military involvement in foreign countries. Politician connection with banks and media. Loss of jobs in US. Those are three issues that the Democrats addressed extremely poorly this election, and I think someone outside of their establishment would pretty clearly be able to do better. Then there's also issues like income and racial equality where you can argue that the Democrats tried, but I don't think they did a very good job. What do you think the Democrats did a good job on their messaging on in this election? I'm honestly curious.

IMO, there's no way someone from outside would do worse. So I don't understand your willingness to give them another chance.

Re: Decision 2016
 

You did note that I said the third term for a party is the rare one, not the second, right?

Sure, Trump will seem less absurd as president once he's actually been president. His success will depend on his actual performance at that point.

(Aside - I'm not betting the farm he runs for his second term. Not saying he won't, just that I wouldn't be floored if he didn't.)

First, a 30% chance to win is not an extreme long shot. It's more often than I lose in Heroscape, and people aren't that surprised when they beat me.

Heck, even a 12% chance (I believe this was the absolute lowest Trump's chances ever fell at fivethirtyeight) is still not really a crazy long shot. 12% is still a better chance than the final estimates they had for Romney (who many pundits were loudly claiming had a good chance in the final weeks), and far far better than the chances they gave McCain.

Secondly, I didn't say he was a "fine candidate" I said he "probably wasn't a very weak general election candidate". That's kind of damning by faint praise, you see? I'm saying that, given how hyperpartisan the environment is an how many Republicans kind of glumly fell in line and voted for him despite not liking him, he wasn't dramatically worse than other candidates. I don't think most of the other Republican primary candidates would have done dramatically better, because they wouldn't have gotten Trump's unique appeal to the white rural/blue collar demographics. And as it turns out, losing a bunch of moderate voters (fairly evenly distributed around the country) in exchange for some white rural/blue collar voters (higher concentration in certain states) may have been a winning electoral strategy, at least this time around.

And it's kind of pointless to call a statement I explicitly said was "with the benefit of hindsight" a revisionist statement. That's the point of hindsight. I didn't really expect that he would be as efficient in bringing republican leaners back into the fold, but clearly he was. Part of that is definitely Clinton's relative weakness, but part of it is also just how strong partisanship is these days. I remember watching a quote from a voter who said (this is from memory but it's close) "I am voting for the conservative party, and if that clown is the one at the head of that mule train, then I am voting for him."

Well... they both had pretty average turnouts, if you want to get technical about it. (Clinton won the popular vote, remember?)

I'm (again, and again, and again) not arguing that Clinton was a great or popular candidate or that someone else wouldn't have done better. All I said above was that Trump probably wasn't an especially bad candidate from a Republican electoral perspective.

I don't think they did measurably worse on jobs than they did on the latter two issues you mention. But really, the campaign wasn't very issue-driven. Then again, was Obama's 2012 campaign issue-driven? What was Obama's big policy push? This is part of why it's so hard to win a third term for the same party. You lack the advantage of being the sitting president but you also have to kind of defend the status quo. It's a tough spot to be in.

I definitely agree some outsider would have had a better ability to run on a rejection of, say, current foreign military involvement. But unless that Democratic outsider was going to run against the sitting U.S. president, they would be kind of in a quandry. And I don't think running against Obama was the winning strategy this time around. So, really, the best move strategically would have been to run mostly defending the status quo, but picking someone with less baggage and more charisma to do it.

I'm also quite open to an outside, fresh face in 2020. But my general opinion is that insider/outsider is not a big deal. In the end a president has to work within institutions to make changes. All presidents become insiders. What matters is what policies they pursue and how effective they are in that pursuit.

For example, say reigning in Wall Street is your big issue (not saying it is, just saying it by way of example). Elizabeth Warren is an insider by any reasonable definition, but she would seem like a very strong candidate to support if that was your lean.

Re: Decision 2016
 

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/what...ty-groups.html

Re: Decision 2016
 

I thought that protests were a call for change. An anti-war protest is designed to change public opinion and politicians' opinions on a war. The protests against the Iran nuclear deal were designed to change public opinion and get politicians to vote against the deal. Protests by Black Lives Matter were designed to inform people about police behaviors and to change those behaviors.

I just don't get a protest about being angry or afraid about the outcome of an election. Trump lost the popular vote; I don't think that anyone is confused that this was a very close election. Unless their protests are designed to get faithless electors to change their vote or to convince Trump to not take the presidency (both of which seem very unlikely), I still don't get it. If you want to take action, vote. If you want to take more action, volunteer for the candidate of your choice. I really don't see protesting as being meaningful in any way.

Shrug
 

After the initial election, a protest seemed like an okay thing to do. I wasn't going to do it but I empathized. At this point, it just seems like something someone is doing to make themselves feel good. I've already started directing my efforts towards affecting positive change that I believe in (e.g. submitting a volunteer application with Trans Lifeline) and I think that's the optimal route for people unhappy with the election result to take. Protests have been heard and I feel we've reached a point of diminishing returns. Someone can certainly continue as it's their right, but I'm going to wonder why they're not taking their time and directing it towards helping the things they wish to preserve.

~Dysole, maybe a little grumpy

Re: Decision 2016
 

I can't speak for why people are protesting still. If it's because they are sore losers, then they need to get past it. I haven't been getting into the details of the why's, as I'm sure there are many. But there are still people that may be afraid, and people that care about those people. When it is being talked about how Muslim registration is being put together, and citing Japanese internment camps during WWII as precedence, then some people may object to that.

http://www.motherjones.com/media/201...uslim-registry

Re: Decision 2016
 

Bernie Sanders once said, on a radio interview, that if people wanted free tuition for college it would be easy. "Get 100,000 people to march on the Mall, and you will have free tuition for college." It was an exaggeration, but his point was that politicians respond to action by voters. Protest is visible action.

If your constituents are fighting, and you are their representative, then you are more likely to be more energetic on their behalf. And if you are their President, you might - just might - hesitate to cross them, if you care about "the look" of having people protesting in the street.

Dysole, I think your approach to making a positive change in the world is more practical. When Colin Kaepernick first sat down during the National Anthem, I was sympathetic to his cause. To his cause. I didn't think that his protest, however, was practical, in the sense that (1) it lacked a measurable goal/win condition, which meant that (2) there was, therefore, no way for it to have a neat ending, as far as I could tell.

All of which was fine. If he wants to sit - and he did sit, and not kneel, at the beginning - that's fine with me. God bless him and his protest, even if it's not clear what *practical* things people might do differently, if they wanted to honor it. Some police officer in Lawrence, Kansas, will (rightly or wrongly) weigh Kap's decision to sit before pulling a trigger? Not likely. So that was a concern I had, though I didn't really discuss it, because I didn't care if he sat, kneeled, or stood. It's his personal decision.

At least with these protesters, we might say they want their voices heard while it matters by people making relevant decisions. I saw a report that Jeff Sessions is being considered for a top position, maybe AG. Well, this is a guy who has mocked civil rights organizations and accused a white civil rights lawyer of being a "disgrace to his race," and if he was AG then he would be responsible for the federal prosecution of civil rights violations. The protests may ultimately be ineffective, but ideally, some of the powers that be may consider that there is furious opposition to the divisiveness perceived in the campaign, and that maybe such a controversial figure would be a poor choice for AG.

Now, I don't think it's likely to be effective. Considering other people tapped for the transition team & the new administration, Sessions - though a terrible choice, given his history of racially-charged rhetoric - is not as crazy as Frank Gaffney, a loony birther conspiracy theorist on the transition team. Thankfully, at least former ill-equipped candidate Dr. Ben Carson had the self-awareness to know that it takes more than celebrity status to run a government agency.

What are the protesters trying to accomplish? There are important decisions being made right now, during the transition. What the protesters can accomplish - they may be unsuccessful, but I would never criticize them for trying - is to remind the people constituting the incoming administration that some members of the public are dissatisfied with what they've seen so far. And what's happened so far, even before inauguration, matters, and what's happening today matters, and what happens tomorrow matters, too. So they want their voices heard.

Remember, even though they didn't vote for Trump, he will be their President, too. He represents them, just as he represents me and he represents most of you. Regardless of who I supported, he will be my President, which carries with it a responsibility from me to him, and a responsibility from him to me.

Re: Decision 2016
 

For sure, protests do pose as a reminder to politicians that there are people paying attention to certain issues and how they are addressed.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I still don't like the guy, but here's a rather large compilation of anecdotal evidence from a bunch of people on his personal temperament prior to the campaign:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/c...t_with_donald/

This stuff actually makes me think we're going to be okay.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I have no doubt that he can be charming and has some good qualities, but we've seen during the campaign that he has other qualities as well. Other people that have had interactions with him either though business or Miss Universe can probably attest to some other anecdotes that are less than pleasant.

When Trump met with Obama after the election, he seemed pleasant enough, but then he gets on Twitter and rips people or NY Times. Just like during the debates, where he would look good for awhile and then degenerate into the "other guy".

So people may still be apprehensive because he has shown multiple sides.

There may also be some questions as to his appointments, so it may not only be Trump that people have concerns about.

Ultimately, we'll see over time. Despite my dislike for him, I (grudgingly) still want him to succeed because it will be better for the country.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'm sure he's nice. He appears very similar to a malignant narcissist I've known, and that guy was normally nice, too. Both men have a natural charisma that explains, at least partly, their success in life.

I want Trump to succeed. I hope he does. So far, his appointments and his rhetoric are troubling.

Consider that it has now been widely reported that he's spoken with a number of world leaders now without speaking to anyone from the State Department first. So, you know, that's a little scary. To me, anyway. And it's consistent with the concern, leveled by many during the campaign, that he was not interested in finding out what he didn't already know. Also scary, to me. But fingers crossed, hopefully we will be ok.

edit: And let's not forget the "anecdotal evidence" of over a dozen women who came forward and said he sexually assaulted them, including one who said that he had assaulted her when she was a child, and her sworn affidavit was corroborated by the sworn affidavit of an eyewitness.

I hope he does a great job and I hope he's a good guy. I'm nervous, though. His behavior during the campaign, and before the campaign, and his official actions (and inactions) during the transition, is all causing me to be nervous.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I remember Obama's first 100 days. With a Democrat House and Senate, he passed a stimulus package, children's health insurance, healthcare reform, equal pay for women, stem cell research, etc. Republicans were outraged, but that's what Obama ran on. What did they expect?

Trump will be president with a Republican House and Senate. He ran on immigration, health reform, and "big league jobs". That's what you have to expect that he will take action on. There will likely be a stimulus package, maybe they could build a wall. I would also expect lower tax rates and conservative Supreme Court justices. Hopefully, he doesn't make some hyuge mistake in foreign policy.

I'm sure that the USA will succeed, regardless of who our president is.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'm not nervous about what he intends to do with regard to policy. That's all out there. I am concerned because of other things, which I've written about at length here.

Science does not know a political party. Putin would *much* rather have an American President who can't be bothered to talk to the State Department before talking to him. People - and I mean conservatives - who have tried to help him have been rebuffed. I am worried about what people conducting a transition like this are capable of. Those of us following the news, let's not pretend this is normal.

The power of Trump's charisma will not be enough to address natural or international or whatever disasters and conflicts. What matters then is *competence*, and so far he doesn't seem to be seeking out that quality.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I honestly don't understand where all the hate for Bannon comes from. I see a lot of people saying that he is racist and anti-semitic, but I can't find any real, convincing evidence of it being true. Yes I read the links provided earlier. No proof there. As for other troubling appointments, I haven't heard of any. I do get the feeling that whomever Trump chooses for any and all appointments, is going to get scrutinized way beyond what is normal or proper.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Steve Bannon took over the reins of Breitbart from Andrew Breitbart, after the founder's death. Since he took over, Breitbart has emerged as the platform of the alt-right. Don't take my word for it, take his.

I have no idea what would happen if you gave Steve Bannon the truth serum like Robert DeNiro used in Meet the Parents. I don't know what's in his heart and I don't know what's in Trump's. But I know that Bannon has turned Breitbart into a platform for dangerous fear- and hatemongers like Milo Yiannopoulos and others. It may all be a charade, but if so, he is *deliberately stoking hate*, and we know this from a reliable source: himself. “Let the grassroots turn on the hate," he's said privately, "because that’s the ONLY thing that will make them do their duty.” Is Bannon racist? It's possible he's not. His former editor-in-chief at Breitbart said as much, but added that "Bannon has nonetheless courted the alt-right and the anti-Semitism and racism that go along with it, and he will do so as long as it serves his purposes."

For you, perhaps, there's a significant difference between being a white supremacist and being the chief executive of a platform serving white supremacists. For me, the distinction is not very important. (Side note: I am not saying that all who read Breitbart are white supremacists. I didn't say it and don't believe it.) Anyway, don't tell these guys that there's an important difference, because clearly they think this bodes well.

You suggest that I'm blindly criticizing - "way beyond what is normal or proper" - anyone selected by Trump to work on his transition or in his cabinet. I've already distinguished between different names associated with Trump's transition. Reince Preibus is an establishment Republican and a reasonable choice as chief of staff. Indeed, the only reasonable choice I've seen so far. Others, not so much.

I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing between conservative appointees, keglo. Spare me your accusation of blindness, please. I understand I won't be able to persuade you, and I don't intend to try, but there is no need to offer the meritless argument that I am being wilfully dishonest. Preibus, sure, Gaffney, hell no.

edit: This is not normal. I mean, we know he billed the Secret Service $1.6 million for flying on his plane during the campaign; we know Ivanka will be running his business interests after he's sworn in. And here she is, meeting the Prime Minister of Japan, and the press has been walled off.

This is not how it's supposed to work, and it's not how it's worked in the past, under anybody. I know some of you voted for him, and of those who voted for him I believe some of you voted for him reluctantly. That's fine; we are where we are. Do not relax your vigilance now, just as you did not relax your vigilance in the eight years gone by. It's healthy to be skeptical. :up:

Re: Decision 2016
 

. . . and for those curious about what the "alt right" actually is, here is the transcript of an interview with Richard Spencer, the influential guy who coined the term.

So when Bannon said that Breitbart was the platform for the alt-right, that's what he was talking about.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Seems like Spencer is going for the slow play to change opinions over time, perhaps to get immigration laws changed as such to gain a higher percentage of European immigrants here.

I know Chicago has a huge population of Polish immigrants. I know a bunch of Serbs and Macedonian immigrants at the hospital I work at in Northwest Indiana. It's pretty diverse anyway blacks, whites, Hispanics, Indian, Middle Easterers, Filipinos etc. But of the white immigrants, they seem to be Serbian, Macedonian, with some Croatian, Romanian and Russian here and there.

I suppose if our southern border is tightened up, and Muslim immigrants restricted, Russia could perhaps move into different parts of eastern Europe and create more European immigrants to flee here. I can see it as a subtle means to achieve Spencer's goal.

Edit: for the record, we have a lot of diversity at the hospital that I work at, and I really enjoy it. People from all walks of life working together and laughing together. Sure there are people that don't get along, just like anywhere, but I for one can say that it's neat.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Thank you for the link. I had literally never even heard of the alt-right until this election. And while I'm still not sure whether or not Bannon himself is racist and anti-Semitic, I do concede that Bannon was not a good or wise choice for Trump. I was starting to worry that Trump was just going to appoint a bunch of yes-men, but the rumors of possible appointments for Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz make me feel a little better about that.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Not sure Romney is going to get the Secretary of State appointment, it may still be Gullioni.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Keglo, I am very pleased you read the link. Here is one of the lead passages from it, for those who did not click:
That's scary stuff, right? And not the way we conceive of America, right? Very frightening. And when Bannon inherited Breitbart, it was not associated with this extreme ideology. I was no fan of Breitbart himself, but at least he abhorred racism.
Breitbart only became a platform for racism and the alt-right since Bannon took over. It's his messaging. What he has in his heart, I don't know. But I know what he's been communicating through his platform for years, and it's bad news. "Not your father's Republican Party," to paraphrase a commercial.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I will say that Michael Shannon is giving the right plenty of ammunition about the liberals not being as tolerant as they pretend to be.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Oh, who is that man. I refuse to accept that relatively isolated incidents like that justify or mitigate the nastiness of the recent spike in hate crimes, often invoking the President Elect by name.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Of course not, I never said that it did. Though people generalizing that all those who voted for Trump are racist isn't any better than other generations that some people make that aren't appreciated.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Oh, I know you didn't say anything like that. But there are people out there talking that way. It's sad.