OK...What's Next?

[Padma]

52 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

Wow...TeenVogue is OWNING the free press these days.  Where the fuck is the rest of the MSM?  Seriously...props to Teen Vogue.

One of the few things I'm hopeful about is millennials.  Tucker tried all the usual FOX debate tricks (belittling, interrupting, misrepresenting what she said) and still lost the exchange, badly.

[aradia22]

Quote

Wow...TeenVogue is OWNING the free press these days.  Where the fuck is the rest of the MSM?  Seriously...props to Teen Vogue.

Tucker was the grossest. Just pathetic. He wrapped himself up in his childish bullying rhetoric... "what does that mean?" (a favorite Fox News tactic of playing dumb) and going so far as to belittle her for writing about more casual/trivial topics. And every time she was smart and rational and had an answer for him. That was incredible. It's one thing to stay polite and wave off the abuse but she actually called him on his bullshit every time it happened instead of letting it slide. And he wrapped himself up in his superiority but I have to believe that in the tiny part of his brain still capable of self-awareness and rational thinking and shame, he realized he was getting schooled. That was all bluster and he was scrambling or he would have had better counter arguments instead of just petty insults. 

[sistermagpie]

Wow, I’ve only been exposed to whole interviews of Tucker Carlson in this thread and he’s so much worse than I could have imagined. Basically telling her that everything out of her mouth was dumb, even when it was perfectly logical and reasonable—I mean, if he didn’t agree with it and wanted to discuss it that’s one thing, but just acting like she’s crazy without even getting into the substance of what she was saying. And anytime she got close to explaining the substance he’d start his cackle and repeat her in a sarcastic voice and say, “What does that mean?” so that she was barely able to say what she meant.

It’s pretty obvious what the agenda here was. This woman was invited to talk about an article that went viral because it spoke important truths so he was assigned to bring her on and ridicule her for writing it. You’d think, on the surface, that if someone is invited onto a show to talk about an article they wrote or something else they wrote they’d actually be talking about the thing. But no, it was just about making the points that

a) she thought Ivanka should be yelled at on planes for being Trump’s daughter and

b) anybody who writes or reads Teen Vogue is an airhead incapable of talking about politics.

 

Meanwhile, hey, our new president (ick) ran beauty pageants and had a reality show. But apparently there’s conflict there when it’s a man doing it. The actual serious things she managed to bring up before he turned up the mocking was

a) the fact that Ivanka Trump uses things about herself that read as feminist (that she runs a company and is poised and confident) in order to push blatantly anti-women and anti-feminist policies

b) The fact that our new president has championed banning immigrants based on religion and this is actually a serious conflict with the country’s values

c) That our future president continually denies objective facts in order to make himself the sole arbiter of reality

 

So basically I guess this is just the Fox equivalent of putting up a picture of whatever liberal dared to get respect recently so they can throw darts at it to reassure their viewers that they’re still the smartest. I almost wanted her to say, when he was doing is exaggerated laugh about how she writes for Teen Girls who also listen to music and like fashion, that yes, she agreed it was pretty hilarious that there are millions of teenaged girls who are more interested and aware of very serious political issues than Tucker Carlson.

Also, for all his laughing at Teen Girls he really comes across like the sidekick bully in an 80s movies. Not the main bully, but one of his snickering sidekicks.

It’s really a great example of the dumbing down of discourse on the right. One one hand we’ve got Kellyanne and her constant filibustering, filling in her speaking time with vague lectures and platitudes to avoid an actual discussion of the issues at hand. On the other hand we’ve got Tucker cackling, eye-rolling, playing dumb and negging to prevent an actual discussion of the issues at hand. I feel like I should now go on YouTube and look up old clips of the Dick Cavett show to blow my mind at how people used to actually want to see reality discussed on talk shows!

[aradia22]

This is an action plan I can get behind for the moment. I will try to take the big steps after the holidays. 

[aradia22]

Quote

So basically I guess this is just the Fox equivalent of putting up a picture of whatever liberal dared to get respect recently so they can throw darts at it to reassure their viewers that they’re still the smartest. I almost wanted her to say, when he was doing is exaggerated laugh about how she writes for Teen Girls who also listen to music and like fashion, that yes, she agreed it was pretty hilarious that there are millions of teenaged girls who are more interested and aware of very serious political issues than Tucker Carlson.

It is like this ALL THE TIME. Well, at least it was before... definitely in the Bush era and early in President Obama's first term. Now they rarely bring on liberals (I think because they're scared people might hear some sense/their pundits actually aren't smart enough to argue without resorting to bullying tactics and rhetoric that deflect from the actual issues). They will bring on liberal commentators (usually on bigger panel shows, and sometimes they're the people that used to be... and probably still are... conservatives that are willing to serve as mouthpieces for a soft liberal viewpoint. I'm rambling but basically Juan Williams will say whatever they need him to say. If you've watched Fox News for long enough it's difficult to take him seriously) but often just to poke at them lightly. Things changed when they got rid of Hannity & Colmes and started to phase the real liberals out.

Kirsten Powers is a good example of what it's like now. She responds sensibly but doesn't fight O'Reilly so much as continue to argue her points as you would with a bigoted uncle who refuses to actually acknowledge what you're saying. It's a more muted version of what happened in the Tucker/LaDuca interaction. But I think Lauren knew this was her one chance (she's not a regular commentator) and Tucker was really going after her with no subtlety and it was beautiful how she would not stand for it. I am sure (I refuse to go into the comments) that conservatives and Republicans who are blinded to reason will think that Tucker put her in her place with his shouting and reprimands or that she was shrill and unladylike. But I like to think that the wheels are turning in someone's head who is starting to see the Fox News arguments as hollow.

I do still believe that there is some value to Republican positions and having another party to balance out policy decisions. But the current Republican party in government and Trump supporters? Hot garbage. It is up to you to prove yourselves to me. I'm done with your rationalizing and excuses. If you want my respect, you have to win it back. Make an effort. 

[Lantern7]

Good words from Keith. We're going to miss him when he goes, aren't we? For my part, I'm not typing the name, because I am a petulant child. Much like that man, sad to say. And I support hanging his portrait upside-down, mainly because I can't light anything on fire. I don't smoke and I don't go camping. Nothing say "sad" like me putting candles in my mother's birthday cake, then having her light those because I can't work a lighter.

[NinjaPenguins]

I see Tucker Carlson has learned absolutely nothing from getting spanked by Jon Stewart lo these many years ago. It is nice to see he can finally sit down though. And it was very generous of him to let that sharp young woman drink his milkshake.

[Duke Silver]

[AntiBeeSpray]

Just now, Duke Silver said:

Definitely. Go get him, Mr. Kasparov!

[stillshimpy]

I see that last night's "Huh, wonder what the hell I ingested at dinner?" thing did actually turn out to be a fever dream which is all for the best.  

Quote

Wow, I’ve only been exposed to whole interviews of Tucker Carlson in this thread and he’s so much worse than I could have imagined. Basically telling her that everything out of her mouth was dumb, even when it was perfectly logical and reasonable—I mean, if he didn’t agree with it and wanted to discuss it that’s one thing, but just acting like she’s crazy without even getting into the substance of what she was saying. And anytime she got close to explaining the substance he’d start his cackle and repeat her in a sarcastic voice and say, “What does that mean?” so that she was barely able to say what she meant.

 

 

 

Yeah, my favorite part was when he was attempting to gaslight her, as she tried to explain what gaslighting was as he continued to say, "How does that threaten the sovereignty of a religion, that's ridiculous!" and replying, "What does that even mean?" over and over as she very clearly, concisely, and in the face of almost stunning levels of sexist condescension, would not be deterred from her point by his idiocy. 

Another favorite part was "She looks like she smells like Vanilla?  Now who's objectifying women?!?"  Tucker Carlson: an entire career built on pretending that a debate technique is willfully misunderstanding someone's meaning over and over, and then he went on to mock her for a piece about a singer's boots, like that in any way negated the point of a political piece.  "You talked about fashion!! In a magazine conceived of partly to do just that!! I've never heard of a woman being able to do more than one thing, therefore I'll pretend that cancels out any other pieces you've ever done....because you said something about shoes!  This is my idea of an intellectual counterpoint! I'm still employed, isn't just fucking amazing?" 

He knows bloody well that freedom from religious persecution is one of the founding principles of our country, so feigning disbelief in that "How does that challenge the sovereignty of...." was yet another layer of slime on all of that.  Although attempting to gaslight her in the middle of the "what does it mean.....no it doesn't mean that...." might go down in history as some kind of captured object lesson.  

As a friend of mine on facebook relayed about a conversation he had on with someone (and it was political) he ended it with, "Keep piecing of shitting, my man" and boy does it ever apply to Tucker Carlson.  

Edited December 24, 2016 by stillshimpy

[possibilities]

I'm really hung up on Newt Gingrich saying that the president can use his pardon to get around any illegal behavior by his cabinet or other allies. It's basically handwaving all the illegalities, from conflict of interest for financial gain to flagrant treason (not to mention the rape and fraud charges Trump himself is facing, and the violation of campaign finance rules his supporters are involved with), and saying that law and constitution are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT and the president is LEGITIMATELY a dictator WITHIN THE SYSTEM.

I can't think of any single thing more tautological and threatening to any possible actions anyone could ever take to maintain democracy even in diluted form. The only way to handle a situation where this is openly, consciously the approach is to stop it from ever being installed in the first place, and we've already seen that's not going to happen.

There is no reasoning relevant to the situation, the people advancing this administration are not interested in principle or logic of any kind. It's all ego and emotion, and the only thing that works with that kind of mentality is to ignore it and get around it. It's like they're dead inside, except for the imperative to crush all opposition and win for their own personal glory. It seems like he would actually not mind nuclear warfare, because "I showed them I wasn't kidding" and a display of power is all he cares about. Take a toddler and give it the nuclear codes. You don't reason with that entity, you just remove the button from reach.

The attempt to understand what they are doing, or figure out when a tweet is serious and when it's a distraction, is useless. These people will turn on a dime, not for any serious reason, but just on momentary whim. There is no accountability-- Trump himself admits in public in front of stadiums of people that he lies and will say whatever people want to hear, whatever gets him what he wants, and has shown that he will change his plans and ignore his promises, and that he doesn't feel ANY obligation to reality or others.

I am honestly awed by the degree to which millions of people are taken in by this display of not even trying to cover it up corruption, and can only think it is because they are incapable of experiencing cognitive dissonance, so will block out anything that challenges them on any level.

I no longer have any guess about how any of this will play out. I thought for a while that T was acting out in hope that someone would stop him from having to be president, that he thought that if he could just escalate the crazy far enough, people wouldn't vote for him or the EC or Congress would remove him so he could go back to the golf course and The Apprentice, and not have to deal with all this real responsibility. Now, I just don't know. I think he may be enjoying the expanded playpen for power, where he can do whatever he wants and be surrounded by praise and protection and entirely let go of any brakes.

Does anyone think there is ANY line that, if crossed, would finally result in him being abandoned by his supporters? I honestly don't know if there is.

[Pixel]

7 hours ago, NinjaPenguins said:

I see Tucker Carlson has learned absolutely nothing from getting spanked by Jon Stewart lo these many years ago. It is nice to see he can finally sit down though. And it was very generous of him to let that sharp young woman drink his milkshake.

I just watched the video. He got his ass handed to him, and just sat there giggling like an idiot. 

[possibilities]

Robert Reich: Like a Tyrant, Trump Is Deploying Seven Techniques to Control the Media

part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjqmxzOGQ-Q

part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjS09xI_x1Y

Reich does a good job of detailing what Trump is doing and why it's dangerous, specifically. But he also seems to think that if Trump refuses to hold press conferences or grant access to the press, that it somehow stops information from flowing, and I don't get that. Can't the media ACTUALLY DO REPORTING, instead of just repeating whatever the Liar in Chief says? Investigative journalism needs to come back. We need to see them talking about things WITHOUT going through "official channels" for approval.

Yes, it's best when the people doing things are transparent about it. But doesn't anyone remember Watergate? Or any number of other events that were covered not because of official channels but because someone actually dug around for information and reported on WHAT HAPPENED rather than whatever the whoever wanted them to think?

[AntiBeeSpray]

^ Word. Thanks for sharing the videos! I'll try to catch them later on tomorrow if I can.

[shok]

17 hours ago, NinjaPenguins said:

I see Tucker Carlson has learned absolutely nothing from getting spanked by Jon Stewart lo these many years ago. It is nice to see he can finally sit down though. And it was very generous of him to let that sharp young woman drink his milkshake.

Does Tucker still wear his twee little bowties? I haven't watched him on tv (or video) since back in the days before Rachel Maddow got her own show and she often appeared on various panel shows with him and drove him crazy with her pwnage of him all. the. time.

[sistermagpie]

11 hours ago, possibilities said:

Reich does a good job of detailing what Trump is doing and why it's dangerous, specifically. But he also seems to think that if Trump refuses to hold press conferences or grant access to the press, that it somehow stops information from flowing, and I don't get that. Can't the media ACTUALLY DO REPORTING, instead of just repeating whatever the Liar in Chief says? Investigative journalism needs to come back. We need to see them talking about things WITHOUT going through "official channels" for approval.

Yeah, I wondered the same thing. Trump just lies anyway. I know press conferences are good because at least the press can ask for clarification--that's why Trump doesn't like them. He claims just pronouncing things on Twitter is cutting out the middle man but it's really keeping him protected from questions from people who know the right questions to ask. But still, that just means they need to investigate everything and make sure they also keep it a story that the president is hiding things.

[backgroundnoise]

23 hours ago, possibilities said:

The attempt to understand what they are doing, or figure out when a tweet is serious and when it's a distraction, is useless. These people will turn on a dime, not for any serious reason, but just on momentary whim.

Can't Homeland Security consider Trump's tweets a clear and present danger to national security?  And stop them?

[Lantern7]

This just in . . . 2016? Still ain't done with us. George Michael recently passed away. I wouldn't call myself a fan (and I'm not trying to prove anything by that), but I saw two movies this past year -- Deadpool and Keanu -- with his music. Had a good laugh at Keenan-Michael Key trying to pass the guy off as a gangsta.

[Duke Silver]

https://twitter.com/paleofuture/status/813254620466188288

[fastiller]

So the PEOTUS tweets his Christmas wishes (along with four (4) "very"s: "very, very, very, very" Happy New Year") - all with zero mention of Channukah. Totally tone deaf.

[Duke Silver]

[Lantern7]

Penny Arcade sums up 2016 in three panels.

As for that tweet? There have been so many deaths this year. If You-Know-Who mentions any other holidays besides Christmas and New Year's, people's heads would've exploded, Scanners-style.

[Padma]

I wish the media would make a resolution to be more skeptical of his b.s.  When he says he's shuttering his foundation "to avoid conflict of interest" they should always disregard the reasons he gives, until verified. (For example, the AG is still investigating its self-dealing and other possible illegalities and says they can't close it while the investigation is "ongoing". )

Since Trump does nothing that isn't first and foremost best for himself, it's sad to see him get days of headlines as if he's really concerned about conflict of interest rather than (as, ironically, he liked to accuse Hillary of) hiding his crimes.

[Pixel]

2 hours ago, fastiller said:

So the PEOTUS tweets his Christmas wishes (along with four (4) "very"s: "very, very, very, very" Happy New Year") - all with zero mention of Channukah. Totally tone deaf.

I wouldn't call it tone deaf. I'm certain it's very deliberate. You don't do rallies with a big "Merry Christmas" sign and talk about winning the (non-existent) war on Christmas without being deliberate about the greeting you choose to express.

[fishcakes]

He did send out a Happy Hannukah tweet a couple of days ago and his supporters were, unsurprisingly, not okay with that.

[Rae Spellman]

Donald tweeted Happy Hannukah on 12/24. That tweet is from him and Melania!

Edited December 26, 2016 by RaeSpellman

[Duke Silver]

Welp...this is what brainwashing looks like.  Of course, try to engage Trump supporters about this & all you get in return is "quit whining, we won."

Edited December 26, 2016 by Duke Silver

[NinjaPenguins]

Very interesting, Duke. I wonder what accounts for the difference in approval ratings... hmmm. Is there some trait that Obama possesses that Putin does not? What could it be? 'Tis a mystery...

[Padma]

1 hour ago, Duke Silver said:

Welp...this is what brainwashing looks like.  Of course, try to engage Trump supporters about this & all you get in return is "quit whining, we won."

Remember when Obama was not just a Muslim but a socialist?  I wish some pollster would ask, in person, for these Obama/Putin ratings.  And before that, ask if they "approve/disapprove of socialism". Then how many "think Obama is a socialist" compared with how many think Putin is".

These people are so confused.

[possibilities]

I don't know how people feel about Bernie Sanders, but I found this interview with him to be surprisingly calming, for some reason. It's a fairly long interview (almost an hour) and he talks about historical perspective, current/future tactics, the media, and his view of Trump and his supporters, among other things.

I don't usually watch Democracy Now, because (and I realize this is not much of a political argument one way or the other) I actually find that listening to Amy Goodman makes my jaw hurt. It's purely a muscle mirroring thing; I would be shocked if she doesn't have severe TMJ, and I always find my entire face tensing up whenever she speaks (whether or not I agree with whatever she happens to be saying at the time). But Bernie does most of the talking and she only briefly interjects with questions, so for this interview it's bearable. He's sitting down and taking questions, not giving a speech, so if you don't like his campaign style, that might not bother you so much in this particular interview either.

The interview is from November, but the DN page is featuring it for December 26's story. Audio and video options are here: https://democracynow.org/

[AntiBeeSpray]

I'm fine with him. At least he brings up good points like Robert Reich does in regards to what people can do.

[NewDigs]

4 hours ago, Padma said:

These people are so confused.

You are too kind.

[possibilities]

I'm confused by the poll numbers above. I thought I heard just last week that Obama has an approval rating of 60% right now (shockingly high). Is the YouGov poll one of those "unscientific" ones where watchers of Morning Joe just call in to register their opinion, or does it come from a broader sample? Even if you adjust for Trump supporters vs the general population, the 9 vs 60 discrepancy seems really big.

[Pixel]

9 minutes ago, possibilities said:

I'm confused by the poll numbers above. I thought I heard just last week that Obama has an approval rating of 60% right now (shockingly high). Is the YouGov poll one of those "unscientific" ones where watchers of Morning Joe just call in to register their opinion, or does it come from a broader sample? Even if you adjust for Trump supporters vs the general population, the 9 vs 60 discrepancy seems really big.

That poll is only among Trump voters.  Plus, you might find when you dig into the methods, they've twisted them. If I didn't learn anything else in my biostatistics class, I learned how easy it is to manipulate numbers to make them say what you want them to.

A couple of years ago I saw a poll with a headline that said something like "90% of people who voted for Obama would not vote for him again".  When I actually read the article that did explain the methodology, it became clear that the headline was deliberately misleading. The 90% came from people who were first asked if they voted for Obama for a second term. Of those, the ones who said yes were asked the question, "Do you regret voting for Obama for a second term".  Of that now narrowed down group that said yes to that question, they were then asked, "Would you vote for him again?".  So, the real headline should have been, "90% of people who regret voting for Obama a second time would not vote for him a third time".  The numbers were real, but the sample pool was not just people who had voted for Obama in general. It was those who regretting having voted for him a second time.  We don't even know how many in the original pool said they did not regret voting for him that second time.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Pixel
To describe a poll I once saw

[backformore]

3 hours ago, possibilities said:

I'm confused by the poll numbers above. I thought I heard just last week that Obama has an approval rating of 60% right now (shockingly high). Is the YouGov poll one of those "unscientific" ones where watchers of Morning Joe just call in to register their opinion, or does it come from a broader sample? Even if you adjust for Trump supporters vs the general population, the 9 vs 60 discrepancy seems really big.

Yes - Unless you know exactly how a poll was conducted, you have to be cautious about interpreting the results.  The way a question is worded can greatly influence the answers.

[possibilities]

Fwiw, here's the Gallop Presidential approval ratings numbers: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/Barack-Obama-Presidential-Job-Approval.aspx

This is what they say about Trump: http://www.gallup.com/poll/197576/trump-favorability-trails-presidents-elect.aspx

My theory about US presidential elections is that the "sunnier" candidate always wins:

H.Clinton vs Trump
Obama vs Romney
Obama vs McCain
Kerry vs GW Bush
Gore vs GW Bush
B.Clinton vs Dole
B.Clinton vs GHW Bush
Mondale vs Reagan
Carter vs Reagan
Carter vs Ford

I'm too young to remember what the previous loser candidates looked like, but I admit Nixon doesn't strike me as a sunny type. So I don't know if this theory holds for earlier races than those above.

It's also a thing that the party that wins the White House twice in a row loses on the next election.

Part of me wonders whether policy has ANYTHING to do with our elections whatsoever.

[fishcakes]

In general, I agree that the more optimistic candidate has an edge, but that doesn't explain Trump. His campaign theme was, "America is a shithole and I alone can fix it."

[AntiBeeSpray]

9 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

In general, I agree that the more optimistic candidate has an edge, but that doesn't explain Drumpf. His campaign theme was, "America is a shithole and I alone can fix it."

BS'ing. I think that's generally how a lot of the candidates get in, in my opinion. The one who's more able to entertain. Not a good thing either, given where things are at now.

[DollEyes]

On 12/22/2016 at 1:09 PM, Blergh said:

DollEyes,

 

 Note please that my post was directed to supporters of ALL candidates who refused to consider that supporters of other candidates could be worthy of being considered human- not the candidates themselves nor those supporters who HAD proven by words and deeds that they were heinous people. I don't disagree what you said re Mr. Trump nor the worst actions of the worst of his supporters  (and I DO agree that ANY bad deeds by ANY side deserve to be dissed -even those who may otherwise support those whom one likes). However; ALL I was saying that one shouldn't blanketly lump ALL supporters of ANY candidate (Mr. Trump, Senator Clinton, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Stein, etc.) with the deeds and actions of the worst of them instead of considering giving EACH human being a chance to prove themselves worthy or not. Yes, I admit it may be easier to lump everyone who supports someone one dislikes in   simple, dehumanized categories (and its an impulse one must resist) but one winds up cutting one's own nose to spite the others' faces  and becoming as closed-minded as one claims others are.  Why act unfairly to those whom one would hope would treat you fairly? 

Still respectfully disagreeing. Not lumping all Trump supporters to the worst ones sounds nice in theory, but them giving him access to more power than he could possibly handle and his surrounding himself with those who seem to have no one's best interests at heart but their own gives me pause, to put it mildly. To quote the old saying, "All it takes for evil to triumph is good people who do nothing."

In light of the death of George Michael, here's an appropriate song:

Praying For Time

[Lantern7]

Four more days. Four more days. And I'm guessing JJ has contingencies in place, but motherfucker, this hurts.

ETA: I know celebrities are people, and people die all the time. But has there been a year where celebrity deaths hurt this much? JJ Abrams will probably forbid Mark Hamil to appear on The Flash, lest Luke Skywalker get crushed by something heavy.

[Chicken Wing]

1 minute ago, Lantern7 said:

Four more days. Four more days. And I'm guessing JJ has contingencies in place, but motherfucker, this hurts.

Seriously, I almost jumped out of my skin when I saw the headline a few minutes ago. Damn it. 2016 can officially go to hell.

[film noire]

On 12/22/2016 at 11:08 AM, DollEyes said:

 I don't care what the lot of Trump supporters have to say because as far as I'm concerned, they've not only got nothing to say that I want to hear, they've got nothing to say that's worth hearing. 

I already know what they're saying by their vote.

Trump mocked the disabled, called Mexicans rapists, insulted and body shamed Heidi Cruz, Alicia Machado and Megyn Kelly, spoke about his daughter as a sexual object,  called HRC a "nasty woman", said an American judge couldn't do his job because of his ancestry, insulted John McCain's military service, said vets suffering from PTSD were weak, monstrously attacked the Khan family and their son's service, bragged about sexual assault and then defended it as "locker room" talk,  praised Putin, said women who have abortions should be punished, threatened his political opponent with jail as political payback and suggested HRC would be assassinated by gun nuts if she won.

None of that was a moral deal breaker for the Trump voter -- and that's the deal breaker for millions of people like me. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by film noire

[fastiller]

Well put @film noire.

[Kromm]

You know what I'm starting to realize isn't working? "2016 blaming".  All of the "fuck you 2016" stuff. Carrie Fisher dying renewed all of that, and I found myself thinking, "how healthy is it to anthropomorphize the year, and THEN act like 2017 is going to be any better".

Because at best 2017 is going to be a fight. A battle for this country to stay sane, and in existence. It's not going to be better than 2016, and I think it's close enough that people need to start accepting that. 

Hey... maybe less celebs might die. Big deal. 

[Chicken Wing]

Quote

You know what I'm starting to realize isn't working? "2016 blaming".  All of the "fuck you 2016" stuff. Carrie Fisher dying renewed all of that, and I found myself thinking, "how healthy is it to anthropomorphize the year, and THEN act like 2017 is going to be any better".

I think people like to think that because a new year symbolically represents a new beginning, a fresh start, etc. Which is all bullshit, of course. It's just another set of days just like the set of days in the year before and the year before that. Personally I don't expect 2017 to get any better. I think we're just at the start of more bad times. But even though intellectually I know that, come January 1, nothing about life and fate and the world has been actually reset just because the calendars on our walls have, at least they won't say 2016 anymore. At least we can distance ourselves from that horrible time, even if it's just in our heads. So I say, bite me, 2016, even if you are nothing but a theoretical concept of reality.

[Lantern7]

I know the deal. Celebrities are people. People die all the time. Occasionally, somebody beloved kicks the proverbial bucket. It's just that there seemed to be so many of those in 2016. And I can't recall somebody infamous dying to offset the "good ones." And 2016 buggered us beyond that. Check out the last episode of the year of Last Week Tonight. It took place five days after America crapped the bed, but John Oliver went off on a tirade on how bad a year it had been . . . and there were about 6-7 weeks left. Start at 23:27 if you want to skip the gory stuff. If 2016 was a person, it would be a he, he would stick himself in a place we wouldn't necessarily want it, and he'd leave a crumpled $5 bill on the pillow when he left.

[aradia22]

Vox's solution is apparently that we all head to space. Meanwhile idiots in the comments are complaining about why more Hillary Clinton scandals weren't included. I'm not real pumped for New Year's or any more retrospectives but I think it's useful to consider everything we were able to survive and where a lot of our reasonable anxieties are stemming from and what good, productive work there is to do. And no, I don't mean figuring out a way to colonize new planets. I believe this is our one shot. No other planets. No afterlife. We need to heal this world because we're not getting a second chance. 

[NinjaPenguins]

1 hour ago, Kromm said:

You know what I'm starting to realize isn't working? "2016 blaming".  All of the "fuck you 2016" stuff. 

I have long felt like a terrible person for being annoyed by this. 2016 didn't kill anyone. It's just a year on the calendar. It's not alive and it doesn't care. 

[random chance]

2 hours ago, film noire said:

I already know what they're saying by their vote.

Trump mocked the disabled, called Mexicans rapists, insulted and body shamed Heidi Cruz, Alicia Machado and Megyn Kelly, spoke about his daughter as a sexual object,  called HRC a "nasty woman", said an American judge couldn't do his job because of his ancestry, insulted John McCain's military service, said vets suffering from PTSD were weak, monstrously attacked the Khan family and their son's service, bragged about sexual assault and then defended it as "locker room" talk,  praised Putin, said women who have abortions should be punished, threatened his political opponent with jail as political payback and suggested HRC would be assassinated by gun nuts if she won.

None of that was a moral deal breaker for the Trump voter -- and that's the deal breaker for millions of people like me. 

Also mocked a disabled reporter and picked a fight with the Pope. I still feel like I'm dreaming, how? HOW?

2 hours ago, Kromm said:

You know what I'm starting to realize isn't working? "2016 blaming".

 

1 hour ago, Chicken Wing said:

But even though intellectually I know that, come January 1, nothing about life and fate and the world has been actually reset just because the calendars on our walls have, at least they won't say 2016 anymore. At least we can distance ourselves from that horrible time, even if it's just in our heads.

Yes, I think that you hit the nail on the head there. We know bad things won't stop happening because the calendar flipped over, but it does give it some distance and the feeling of a fresh start and most importantly, hope.

[Duke Silver]

 

It’s Not About the Economy: In an increasingly polarized country, even economic progress can’t get voters to abandon their partisan allegiance.

EDIT:  forgot to include this; stupid quote box won't let me add edit below the quote I already had:

Quote

This bias is true for Democrats, too, of course. Before the election, according to the Gallup poll, 35 percent thought the economy was getting worse, while after the election, 47 percent of Democrats thought that.

Quote

Elkhart is a case study in how Democrats lost the 2016 elections despite the economic resurgence the country experienced under Obama. It shows how, in an increasingly polarized country, an improving economy is not enough to get Republicans to vote for Democrats, in part because they don’t give Democrats any credit for fixing the economy.  Gallup, for instance, found that while just 16 percent of Republicans said they thought the economy was getting better in the week leading up to the election, 49 percent said they thought it was getting better in the week after the election.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Duke Silver