OK...What's Next?

[possibilities]

RE the spread of lies vs actual information, I liked this, for its practical approach:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503129818/study-finds-students-have-dismaying-inability-to-tell-fake-news-from-real

At the same time, this was incredibly depressing:

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

[galaxygirl76]

7 hours ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

Just saw this on Tumblr, via billoreilly's site. I don't support him, but it's still an interesting quiz. Just took it and got 22/25. Not too bad for being out of school for so long. It's good to see that I still remember what I learned.

23 out of 25, but to be honest I took the citizenship test back in April so it's a little fresher in my mind :) 

[Lantern7]

Watched Trevor Noah skewer Mitt Romney tonight. Okay . . . I am a registered Democrat, but I know there's probably not much difference between the parties. Rooting for sports teams makes more sense these days, even as free agency makes us take sides based on laundry (thanks, Jerry Seinfeld!) I know Democrats can be bad and Republicans can be good. It's just . . . why the fuck are all these people jumping on board the president-elect's train, after they talked epic smack about him months ago? Ted Cruz tried to take a stand at the convention, and he wound up campaigning for him. Mitt Romney questioned the bastard's integrity, and that guy suggested that Mitt would get down on his knees to get the endorsement, and prayer wasn't implied. Former reality "star" Congressman Sean Duffy spoke at the convention with his wife (best known as "the Puck Kisser"), then I saw a clip on him on Last Week Tonight after the hidden tape had been broken out, remembering he had five daughters . . . and I expect him to switch stances to get a better position in Washington. How did all these people lose their balls? It would be like watching Bernie kiss the rings of Wall Street bigshots had Hillary won. Am I out of line for thinking the worst of a party that would hitch their wagons to a deranged horse merely to stick it to their adversaries?

Sorry. Had to get that off my chest. I can understand people like Newt and Ghouliani getting power positions because they don't really have images to maintain. But I'm not seeing many on the right keeping their sanity. There's John McCain, but he's probably got a secret house in the Caymans to wait out the fallout.

[Padma]

Hasn't McCain been as cowardly as the rest of them? The only one I have any respect for that I can think of is Lindsay Graham. Maybe Ben Sasse, too.

Then again, I don't understand Democrats either. They're giving Jill Stein zero support, generally, and the media is more or less making her look self-serving and crazy.  If Tubby had lost, we know there would have been uproar over the "Electoral college STEALING the election from the popular choice!"  They would be counting votes, Tubby would be tweeting out every new development, and the media would be breathlessly covering it.

Democrats? Eh, nothing to see here.

Oh, and I don't even understand McAuliffe saying Hillary is "through with politics". Yes, I'm sure she's burned out. She surely needs a break. But when you're a leader and have a public voice and your country is faced with a threat like Trump, why--after sounding the alarm for months--do you just go back to Chautauqua, curl up with a cup of tea and a good book and figure, "I'm done"?  Fight the good fight, Hillary! You still have a voice like no one else!

[Lantern7]

I forgot that McCain was a good team player in 2004 for Dubya, after Team Dubya dragged his name through the mud four years earlier. If somebody's people suggested that I had a mixed-race out-of-wedlock child to people who wouldn't cotton to such a revelation? I would shake that man's hand. Hard. "Nice to see ya, Johnny. Heckuva grip ya got- . . ..  AHHHHHHH!!!! MOMMY!!!!!" DICCCCCCCKK!!!!!" I'd link the "Fun With Real Audio" skit from SNL, but it's not available where I am on YouTube.

[WendyCR72]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

Then again, I don't understand Democrats either. They're giving Jill Stein zero support, generally, and the media is more or less making her look self-serving and crazy.

I don't mean this to sound defeatist (although it does), but I don't think Democrats are supporting Jill Stein because...I doubt this recount changes anything, and I think perhaps Democrats feel the same and are now just focusing their efforts on fixing from within (ha! I'm funny) and waiting for 2018 and putting their collective energy to something that can be changed.

For better or worse (worse!), I think we just have to hunker down for 4 years (I refuse to think it'll be more than one term. REFUSE!) and hope the Democrats streamline their strategy for the rust-belt going forward.

[Ceindreadh]

7 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

25/25.  I'd tell my mom (AP US History teacher) except it was BillO's site and she'd be disappointed.

22/25 

not bad considering most of what I know about the American political system comes from TV!

[Hanahope]

Again, I feel like the Dems are trying to play "the good guy" ready to concede the election and not contesting votes because of the "integrity of the system" with the hope that if it happens the opposite way at some point in the future, they can take the high road when the Republicans scream voter fraud, hacking, etc.  The problem is, the Reps will do that regardless, and they dgaf.  Just like now when they're constantly saying we have to accept Trump, even though they refused to accept Obama for 8 years.  They don't care about consistency or quid por quo.  They do whatever they want and dgaf.

But I agree that its pretty disgusting to see some Reps that I thought I might give some respect to, sucking on the Trump dick now that he won.  Talk about going where ever the wind blows, just like they accused of Hillary.

[aradia22]

Quote

RE the spread of lies vs actual information, I liked this, for its practical approach:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503129818/study-finds-students-have-dismaying-inability-to-tell-fake-news-from-real

At the same time, this was incredibly depressing:

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

How do we turn that into an action checklist to verify for ourselves whether something (something fact-based of course, not just an opinion piece) is trustworthy? Personally, I am a big skeptic. I'm not anti-vaccine or anything like that but if you tell me your study proved oranges cure cancer I'm definitely side-eyeing you. There are a bunch of issues with research, or at least research as funneled through pop science and news headlines nowadays. But I am somewhat trusting of certain sources and of course of things that are comforting because they align with my worldviews because living in a state of constant questioning and anxiety would make you crazy. 

[random chance]

9 hours ago, Padma said:

Oh, and I don't even understand McAuliffe saying Hillary is "through with politics". Yes, I'm sure she's burned out. She surely needs a break. But when you're a leader and have a public voice and your country is faced with a threat like Trump, why--after sounding the alarm for months--do you just go back to Chautauqua, curl up with a cup of tea and a good book and figure, "I'm done"?  Fight the good fight, Hillary! You still have a voice like no one else!

Nope I don't blame her at all in any way whatsoever. People couldn't be persuaded to choose her over a sociopath; that's on them not her. She doesn't owe anyone anything. It's someone else's fight now.

[fastiller]

@ebk57 - your Dad sounds like a great guy.  My husband passed away in 2013 and a cousin of his with whom he was very close passed away in 2014, since this craaazeee election cycle started his family and I (particularly the cousin's sisters) have commented frequently on how they must be talking about how craaazeee it's been.

[EyewatchTV211]

Well, this is one thing I've wanted to hear. I hope other Dems listen and follow suit: https://www.thenation.com/article/elizabeth-warren-proposes-to-strengthen-democratic-spines-with-a-powerful-new-tool-math/

[Hanahope]

I could easily see Hillary being "I'mma done with them, they rejected me twice.  I'll spend my life just being a grandmom and giving more highly paid speeches."

[ari333]

48 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

I could easily see Hillary being "I'mma done with them, they rejected me twice.  I'll spend my life just being a grandmom and giving more highly paid speeches."

But the people didn't reject her; the EC did... unless there is some turn on Dec 19 (?)

[Hanahope]

16 minutes ago, ari333 said:

But the people didn't reject her; the EC did... unless there is some turn on Dec 19 (?)

Well, it depends on which states, doesn't it.  Enough people in Florida, Ohio, PA, Wisc, etc rejected her, which is why she lost those states' EC votes (barring any changes with recounts).  She got fewer votes than both of Obama's elections.

[ari333]

35 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

Well, it depends on which states, doesn't it.  Enough people in Florida, Ohio, PA, Wisc, etc rejected her, which is why she lost those states' EC votes (barring any changes with recounts).  She got fewer votes than both of Obama's elections.

Maybe I'm just ill-informed. I was thinking as a whole for everyone who voted, that she got more votes. (Not by the state, just as a country as a whole) I guess I'm having trouble making my point. I mean that... why does it matter (if there were no EC and if we are talking about the popular vote)  why does it matter who wins a particular state? (as it pertains to the popular vote and her having been rejected - or not- by the masses.)  Just count all the votes in all the states together and that's the popular vote winner. Why should the popular vote be broken down into states? Maybe I didnt' say that well

Edited December 1, 2016 by ari333

[EyewatchTV211]

I thought I read that they were expecting Hillary's final vote total to be similar to Obama's 2012 election results.

[Hanahope]

Currently, Hillary is still 4 million behind Obama's popular votes.

As a whole, the popular vote isn't broken down by states, but the states is how the EC works.  So obviously, because Hillary did not win the EC votes for some states, she was rejected by the majority of voters in those states, states that had previously voted for Obama.

For example, in my state, PA, in 2012, Obama got 2,990,274 votes.  In 2016, Hillary got 2,863,945 votes.  So she got over 100,000 fewer votes than Obama did.  Had she gotten all those Obama votes, she would have won PA.  Other "swing states" may have been the same.

[SuspiciousMind]

18 hours ago, VMepicgrl said:

Are there any phone calls we should still be making? If so, to whom and about what? I've been avoiding twitter for a bit again, as it was getting to be too much. But I still want to take whatever action I can.

I've been scanning tellallyourfriends.org and change.org daily for ideas, petitions, links, boycotts, etc.   I've been jotting action items I've completed on my desk calendar and it has given me a sense of satisfaction to do at least one thing per day.  Some days it's only signing a petition, but still ...

[ari333]

14 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

Currently, Hillary is still 4 million behind Obama's popular votes.

As a whole, the popular vote isn't broken down by states, but the states is how the EC works.  So obviously, because Hillary did not win the EC votes for some states, she was rejected by the majority of voters in those states, states that had previously voted for Obama.

For example, in my state, PA, in 2012, Obama got 2,990,274 votes.  In 2016, Hillary got 2,863,945 votes.  So she got over 100,000 fewer votes than Obama did.  Had she gotten all those Obama votes, she would have won PA.  Other "swing states" may have been the same.

I see what you're saying about the EC. I was responding to the comment that she was rejected (by the people .... popular vote in the country as a whole). If 2 million  more people voted for her than rump, to me she was not rejected by the people.

And I fail to see why it matters if she did or did not get more votes than Obama. She was not running against him. If more folks love Obama than HRC. Fine. My point was addressing HRC vs rump. She got more votes, yet she lost. And yes, I know why... the effing EC. That makes me ..... stabby. But I see your points.

Edited December 1, 2016 by ari333

[izabella]

1 hour ago, ari333 said:

But the people didn't reject her; the EC did... unless there is some turn on Dec 19 (?)

Yes, she won the popular vote, but she lost the EC so she won't be President.  What do you want her to be doing instead of retiring? 

She has no job at this point - no longer Senator of NY, no longer Secretary of State.  She's 67? I think.  If I were her, I'd call it a day and enjoy myself, too, with the occasional speech to whoever wants her to speak at their function.  Sounds relaxing after the political frenzy she's been living in for decades.

[Padma]

5 hours ago, random chance said:

Nope I don't blame her at all in any way whatsoever. People couldn't be persuaded to choose her over a sociopath; that's on them not her. She doesn't owe anyone anything. It's someone else's fight now.

True, I don't think she's "owes" anyone anything either.  But my point was that if you are -genuinely- campaigning against an injustice and a man who is truly a threat to all that you believe in and support--AND you have a platform to reach people on issues--it seems it would be an innate commitment, esp. after all these years of public service not to give up the fight now, when our country faces our biggest challenge--most dangerous leadership team--ever.

I just don't understand how someone who supposedly cared so much (per campaign) would, in defeat, just retire with a cup of tea and a book.  (Of course, that's McAuliffe's analysis so, really, who knows?)

What would I like to see her doing? At a minimum, writing a weekly column for the NYT or WasPost.  There's a lot that she could draw attention to with the combo of that and social media.  And it would still leave plenty of time for R&R. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Padma

[Chicken Wing]

I don't think Clinton will be looking to take up any official positions again, but I would like to think she will still maintain a public presence and use her platform to connect with people and support the party. I don't think she'll disappear into the retirement ether altogether.

Trump, on the other hand, had said that if he were to lose it would have been the biggest waste of his time and money, but whatever, he'd just go back to his cushy life. So I don't think we're to assume that if he'd lost he'd even try to pretend to give a shit about any of the things he was brainwashing people with during the campaign. He would have Bye Felicia'd so fast their heads would spin.

[Padma]

13 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

I don't mean this to sound defeatist (although it does), but I don't think Democrats are supporting Jill Stein because...I doubt this recount changes anything, and I think perhaps Democrats feel the same and are now just focusing their efforts on fixing from within (ha! I'm funny) and waiting for 2018 and putting their collective energy to something that can be changed.

For better or worse (worse!), I think we just have to hunker down for 4 years (I refuse to think it'll be more than one term. REFUSE!) and hope the Democrats streamline their strategy for the rust-belt going forward.

Yes, it does! :) And that's how Democrats always sound. It's maddening!  If the situation were reversed, Reps would be using the recount as a great opportunity to attack Dems, remind voters of Russian interference early on, portray themselves as the champions of open and fair elections (not voter suppression--then give examples) and on and on.

Republicans are so fiery!  Oh, what can I say? I miss Ted Kennedy, who surely would have brought some passion to the fight against Tubby and all that he stands for--not in six months, but now!  (Warren and Sanders do get an honorable mention here, but they pick their battles and it's hit or miss for me.)

[Ocean Chick]

6 minutes ago, Padma said:

What would I like to see her doing? At a minimum, writing a weekly column for the NYT or WasPost.  There's a lot that she could draw attention to with the combo of that and social media.  And it would still leave plenty of time for R&R. 

But there's plenty of other competent people already writing/posting about the issues she'd be covering as well.  it would only be redundant.  And the people who really need to read and understand that stuff are not going to be reading her columns anyway - they already have their minds made up.  She can only wait for this presidency to implode and hope to patch up the biggest holes once the deplorables understand what a mess they've gotten themselves (AND US) into.  I'm sure she'll wade into the frey at some point.  I can only hope there's enough social structure left to reconstruct once the Dems decide they really need to pull their act together.

[Bastet]

Quote

I don't think Clinton will be looking to take up any official positions again, but I would like to think she will still maintain a public presence and use her platform to connect with people and support the party. I don't think she'll disappear into the retirement ether altogether.

That's my guess, too.  Hell, I gave myself time to pull the covers up over my head and mutter "This is not happening" over and over before I got back in the trenches, and I'm not the one who, after decades of public service, endured a brutal campaign and lost to a man with zero qualifications whose platform consisted of a steady stream of hate.  HRC can hang out with her dog and some soothing (or spiked) tea a while longer.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Bastet

[WendyCR72]

5 minutes ago, Padma said:

Yes, it does! :) And that's how Democrats always sound. It's maddening!  If the situation were reversed, Reps would be using the recount as a great opportunity to attack Dems, remind voters of Russian interference early on, portray themselves as the champions of open and fair elections (not voter suppression--then give examples) and on and on.

Republicans are so fiery!  Oh, what can I say? I miss Ted Kennedy, who surely would have brought some passion to the fight against Tubby and all that he stands for--not in six months, but now!  (Warren and Sanders do get an honorable mention here, but they pick their battles and it's hit or miss for me.)

But is what you describe Reps possibly doing any better? That, to me, is a lot of "sound and fury signifying nothing". Are Dems weak? I don't know. But maybe Dems just know this is a battle they cannot win, so time to arm for the next war, where it will count.

[random chance]

24 minutes ago, Padma said:

True, I don't think she's "owes" anyone anything either.  But my point was that if you are -genuinely- campaigning against an injustice and a man who is truly a threat to all that you believe in and support--AND you have a platform to reach people on issues--it seems it would be an innate commitment, esp. after all these years of public service not to give up the fight now, when our country faces our biggest challenge--most dangerous leadership team--ever.nty of time for R&R. 

I hear you but really, what more could she say? The people who support him aren't listening to her or anyone else on the left, or even people on the right if they're anti-Trump. (Which I think is about three people now, but I haven't looked at the headlines this afternoon- maybe they all caved too.) I don't know what ought to be done but it seems to me, it has to be something other than the thing that already didn't work.

Edited December 1, 2016 by random chance
typo

[Duke Silver]

https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/804420777755820032

[Padma]

2 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/804420777755820032

Ouch.

[stillshimpy]

I hear you but really, what more could she say? The people who support him aren't listening to her or anyone else on the left, or even people on the right if they're anti-Trump. (Which I think is about three people now, but I haven't looked at the headlines this afternoon- maybe they all caved too.) I don't know what ought to be done but it seems to me, it has to be something other than the thing that already didn't work.

Plus, the people who really need to hear her, have decided that for some peculiar reason they won't believe anything she says.  By the time they are so disillusioned and freaked out that, "Waaaaaaiiiiiiiiit!! What horrible thing is now happening to me and mine?" that they'll believe essentially anyone telling them a different bedtime story, in which they get the kingdom, of course, so the stage will be set for them to believe the next snake oil salesman.  

The lady has earned as much respite as she wants, even if that is permanent.  She doesn't owe us a thing.  All she did was try and try and try some more.  Only to be told ludicrous things like "You're not likable enough" "People can't relate to you!"  "be more approachable"  and every other "they only tell women that, ever notice that?" thing.   

I doubt she will because this has been the defining, animating force in her entire life and she's a lot of things, but she doesn't give up easily.   However, if she did, she can't be blamed for that.  Even someone who is steel-plated will eventually take, "Go away" as answer to "I really just want to help you!" 

[fastiller]

21 minutes ago, Chicken Wing said:

I don't think Clinton will be looking to take up any official positions again, but I would like to think she will still maintain a public presence and use her platform to connect with people and support the party. I don't think she'll disappear into the retirement ether altogether.

Trump, on the other hand, had said that if he were to lose it would have been the biggest waste of his time and money, but whatever, he'd just go back to his cushy life. So I don't think we're to assume that if he'd lost he'd even try to pretend to give a shit about any of the things he was brainwashing people with during the campaign. He would have Bye Felicia'd so fast their heads would spin.

I really hope she does stay in the public eye just to be a thorn in the side of every Republican.  Not sure in what fashion.

Also, in re @Duke Silver's post: Fuck you Protest Voters!!!

[stillshimpy]

Hold up: Let's clear this the fuck up and fast:  Protest votes did NOT land Trump in the White House.  

The eligible voters who didn't even bother to show the fuck up did that.  People have a RIGHT to vote their conscience.  Any mass scoldings of people who tried to participate is not accurate.  I mean sure, by the numbers, but by the percentages?  By the number of people who should have given a good god damn about the world in which they live, breathe and participate and stayed home are the people who did this more than people who tried to vote for a candidate they actually wanted.  

Edited December 1, 2016 by stillshimpy

[fastiller]

Okay - I'll hold back.  (But only 'cause it's you @stillshimpy!)  You are right, but I still feel like I need to vent my spleen against someone.  Against someone who deserves it.  

It's also entirely possible that the non-voters would've actually given Petulant-Elect Trumplethinskin a larger popular vote than he got.

[stillshimpy]

2 hours ago, fastiller said:

Okay - I'll hold back.  (But only 'cause it's you @stillshimpy!)  You are right, but I still feel like I need to vent my spleen against someone.  Against someone who deserves it.  

 

 

 

 

Well thanks, fastiller, I owe you a beer and backup :-)  Seriously,  though, as tempting as it is they were at least trying....and they will never be more at fault than the people who actually voted for him.  

Edited, because for once in my life, I recognized the strangest sensation:  "Oh wow, I think I said enough already."   

Not that I actually get wanting to vote for a conspiracy theory coddling lunatic, but it's their right.  

Okay, that just slipped out. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by stillshimpy

[ruby24]

Been reading a lot of anxiety and hemming and hawing about healthcare related stuff from Republicans now. Not a lot of enthusiasm for privatizing Medicare from anyone except Paul Ryan (who really is a RADICAL right-wing conservative by the way, in terms of policy), and even waffling on the ACA now.

Polls say only 1 in 4 Americans actually want Obamacare repealed. Here's the thing- now that Obama won't be president anymore, is there a chance Republicans (especially in the Senate) will now remember the fact that the ACA was a REPUBLICAN IDEA? I mean come on, it was Bob Dole's old compromise plan from the 90's! It profits the insurance companies by giving them new customers and a mandate.

Throwing 22 million people off healthcare would be a humanitarian disaster. I wonder if there's a chance to get the fixes through that Obama wanted in the first place, and manage to save most of the law by letting them say they changed it, fixed it, whatever, when they really leave most of it in place. Republican governors in red states who expanded Medicaid do NOT want that taken away and some are already saying so.

It would suck to have to let them say they fixed it or whatever, and I think voters are foolish when they vote for someone who says they'll do something, because they believe they won't REALLY do it (so many people think this about healthcare, it's crazy- oh, they won't REALLY take my healthcare away). But I would rather people stay insured.

The problem is the one thing I do know the GOP wants to always do is cut taxes for rich people, and most of the ACA is funded by taxes on the wealthy, isn't it? So repealing it would be a huge tax cut for the rich, and they always want that.

Edited December 1, 2016 by ruby24

[izabella]

2 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Throwing 22 million people off healthcare would be a humanitarian disaster

They were all without health care before the ACA, and well, few were concerned about the humanitarian disaster it always was for those uninsured people.  If Obama had not rammed it through Congress when he had the chance, those people would be uninsured to this day and nothing would be done.  At least, not until the Republicans had the ability to push through their version of ACA, which would benefit insurance companies more than anyone else.

5 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

The problem is the one thing I do know the GOP wants to always do is cut taxes for rich people, and most of the ACA is funded by taxes on the wealthy, isn't it? So repealing it would be a huge tax cut for the rich, and they always want that.

ACA is insurance that people buy themselves, and get tax credits afterward that pay for a big part of it.  Those taxes that help subsidize it are not on just the wealthy - they are on all of us.

[Padma]

The "big part of it" is a particular windfall for the insurance companies. The premiums are high, deductibles continue to increase and, increasingly, its difficult to find doctors who accept it. "We take Blue Shield. Not Blue Shield-Obamacare." That's in California.   That said, no question that its an improvement for self-employed people from carrying their own insurance before. It's just not the "group rate" that you would expect the government to have been able to negotiate for a group that includes millions of people.

[Duke Silver]

[stillshimpy]

So, after reading that, I went and worked out because I need the endorphins.  

It is still just blowing my damned mind that apparently, I care more about what happens to those people than they do. 

I don't know what to do with a feeling like that.   The obvious answer is, "Oh, well the path to emotional freedom would lie in ceasing to care then!"  It just seems like that's a really bad answer, so I'm trying so hard to reject it.    

[windsprints]

I found this an interesting read. It also highlights (IMO) the narrow mindedness of some Trump supporters, which clearly serves Trump well as every corrupt issue surrounding him is just ignored.

 

[windsprints]

The forum won't allow me to post the screenshot of the last part of the thread.  You can go to his twitter feed to read the rest.

As for HRC, I hope she does whatever makes her happy.  She's been treated like crap and trashed non-stop for the past year.  Enjoy life, Hillary!

[Lantern7]

Still thinking . . . I'm reminded of the trailer for Spaceballs, where "SPACE" fills the screen. Enter Mel Brooks. "WHERE ARE THE BALLS?!?" And that's what I'm feeling about the Republicans.

As much as I don't want to scapegoat people, I am fully prepared to send Jill Stein to the Phantom Zone. Ralph Nader could use the company.

[random chance]

7 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

It is still just blowing my damned mind that apparently, I care more about what happens to those people than they do.

I still can't wrap my head around women voting for a sexual predator. I would have thought that would be the end of it right there, but no.

[Shannon L.]

3 minutes ago, random chance said:

I still can't wrap my head around women voting for a sexual predator. I would have thought that would be the end of it right there, but no.

I have to have a Christmas Eve meal with a woman who has a gay son, whom she adores, who voted for Trump.  I swear to God no one had better say one word about politics that night.

[callmebetty]

17 minutes ago, windsprints said:

The forum won't allow me to post the screenshot of the last part of the thread.  You can go to his twitter feed to read the rest.

As for HRC, I hope she does whatever makes her happy.  She's been treated like crap and trashed non-stop for the past year.  Enjoy life, Hillary!

https://mobile.twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/804429917677060096/photo/1

Did you see his retweet of somebody? 

Apparently Bannon asked who are all these photographers and why are they here ?

Hicks responded: They're the Press Pool.

Edited December 1, 2016 by callmebetty
Hope this doesn't mess up

[Lantern7]

I see Hillary as Steve Martin's character in the episode of The Simpsons where Homer gets elected chief of the sanitation department and screws it up royally. Steve comes on stage to the Sanford & Son theme, tells the city they're fucked, and walks out.

Apologies for not adding much to the discussion. That . . . person and what he represents brings out the worst in me. After spending a season watching The Challenge and waiting for anvils to fall on "Johnny Bananas" that never came, recent events have been an eye-opener. The dirtbag would win an unprecedented seventh time in the upcoming season (he never goes away), and I wouldn't get the agita I felt three weeks ago, even if he scumbags it up from start to finish.

[stillshimpy]

22 minutes ago, random chance said:

I still can't wrap my head around women voting for a sexual predator. I would have thought that would be the end of it right there, but no.

So, in strange way, this ended up making sense to me, when a friend on Facebook was just flabbergasted that one of the women Trump assaulted on an airplane by kissing and groping her said, "It was the eighties, we were just expected to deal with it" and he posted "It wasn't the Mad Man era!"  

And I had tell him honestly, I have no idea how many times I've been grabbed, groped, forcibly kissed and touched without any kind of consent*.  On two different occasions by two different people both of whom were my boss.  I swear, I think we're just so damned used to being abused in this country, half the women around don't even understand that it is an outrage.  Hell, when my son was a toddler, I waited tables at banquets on the weekend because we needed money.  Want to really have fun?  Drunken wedding guests.  

The women who primarily voted him in are older than I am.  It was always considered rude, but it wasn't considered actionable and I can't even tell you the number of times I was told that it was a compliment.  Like, if you couldn't handle it, that was on you.  That was twenty years ago and apparently that mindset still runs strong.  It's horrifying and it makes me despair that in the same election with a female candidate, where they talked about not liking Hillary, the only thing I can use to explain that is....they never learned any better.  God help their daughters...and sons. 

 

* I waited tables and cocktail waited during college too and we were just expected to deal with it.  The only thing that would have happened if I'd objected would have been being removed from the schedule. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Duke Silver]

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/trump-campaign-files-objection-to-jill-steins-lawless-insulting-michigan-recount/

LOL.  Seriously.

[Keepitmoving]

Quote

I still can't wrap my head around women voting for a sexual predator. I would have thought that would be the end of it right there, but no.

I don't know if you've ever watched any daytime soaps, but one of the most famous daytime couples, Luke and Laura, was a love story between a girl and her rapist, whom she married.  She literally dumped the decent guy to have a "happily ever after" with her rapist. So hey, and that I believe went down in the late 70's or I think it was in the early 80's. That wedding was covered I even think on local news, I am not even kidding.

So there's your answer on how women, who are the main audience for these soaps, can vote for a sexual predator. They were swooning over the character Laura falling in love with her rapist. Clearly, nothings changed and we are in the age of reality tv so...

Edited December 1, 2016 by Keepitmoving