OK...What's Next?

[Enigma X]

26 minutes ago, callmebetty said:

Other bolding is mine. Seriously,  who is blaming them for celebrity deaths other than in a joking manner. This is the shit they believe? And are these peers or higher ups, if they are peers where I'd the boss in all of this shit talking they are doing? How is it productive work time for any of you? I'm sorry you have to deal with this shit.

These are peers and some rank higher than me but not my boss. My supervisor is not very assertive, and, in his defense, when he got in they changed the subject. Although he has heard them in the past.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Enigma X

[possibilities]

20 hours ago, Pixel said:

It doesn't happen overnight.

I think this is key. Right now, we're all upset and there's an urgency to prevent great harm. But realistically, some harm is going to happen, and there aren't any shortcuts to changing hearts and minds. So we need both short term and long term strategies.

In the short term, it may be better in some cases to take space from people who are destructive. In the long term, they aren't going away on their own so it's important to figure out how to engage them in a productive manner.

I also think that there is room for more than one approach. Some people may be well-suited to dialogue and engagement, while others need to hold firm and convey that certain things are beyond the boundaries of dialogue and will be opposed by any means necessary. It's like in any other situation; there are "good cops" and "bad cops," negotiators, people who go on strike or become and boycotters, people who fight and people who go in and build bridges or clean up messes. We need all those people.

It's just important to figure out what each person or situation is most suited to. There are some people who are not going to be moved by dialogue and other people who will be. That kid who left his white supremacist background didn't sway his family even though he tried to stay in dialogue with them-- at least not yet. But some cases may be harder to crack than others, and I am grateful to the people who befriended him, and to him for becoming an ally and trying to make headway with his family once he did.

Sometimes there is no easy answer, but we have to just try whatever we personally can do from where we are.

Right now, there are some people I will engage with and others I won't.

Sometimes my distress is stronger than my patience and other times I feel like I can see an opening that allows for common ground. I think that there are people who are genuinely confused or acting out of motives I did not consider and could come to forgive, or they are innocently ignorant and afraid, and might respond to compassionate conversation, and there are others who are just dead inside and any engagement feeds their pathology. And some days I am on my last nerve and have nothing to give to a challenging conversation and other days I feel like I can make more of an effort.

[possibilities]

Also wanted to say: engagement might not always mean dialogue. One of the things that has been most effective in changing people is just exposure to members of the class of people they demonize, and having positive interactions with members of that group. Suddenly "liberals" seem less like sulphur-spewing demons when they are the ones who help you dig your car out of the snow, and racism seems stupider when you live next door to a very nice family who you previously wanted to keep out of the neighborhood and they are better neighbors than the people they replaced or someone like them gives you good care when you're in the hospital. And we all know that having a LGBT family member has convinced many a person that Those People are not so bad after all. It's not just talking about the issues, it's also other things that indirectly erode the hate. I think that's why places where there are more mixed/integrated populations are more likely to vote for equality, and places where things are very segregated or homogeneous tend to be more likely to vote bigoted.

Sometimes it doesn't work; we also know plenty of stories about people who do violence to nice neighbors or throw queer family members out of the house. And it's definitely not fair that the people targeted are burdened by having to be "the bigger person" and convince bigots or de-escalate abusers by being "nice" or whatever.

But to the extent that we all live on the same planet, things are not fair no matter how we handle it.

[random chance]

2 hours ago, Pixel said:

I understand that we are all fed up with the throwback racist ideas and bigotry and hate and all of it, but if someone raised in white supremacy can change the way they think by virtue of being surrounded by people who are willing to show him where he's gone wrong, there's hope for many.

I admire your selfless attempt to make the world better, and it's good to know that a racist can be unracist...icized. But the Trumpsters can't unvote. That damage can't be undone. And by the time they can vote again, they won't need us to change their minds - the dumpster fire formerly known as the United States will do that all on its own.

[izabella]

8 minutes ago, possibilities said:

Also wanted to say: engagement might not always mean dialogue. One of the things that has been most effective in changing people is just exposure to members of the class of people they demonize, and having positive interactions with members of that group. Suddenly "liberals" seem less like sulphur-spewing demons when they are the ones who help you dig your car out of the snow, and racism seems stupider when you live next door to a very nice family who you previously wanted to keep out of the neighborhood and they are better neighbors than the people they replaced or someone like them gives you good care when you're in the hospital. And we all know that having a LGBT family member has convinced many a person that Those People are not so bad after all. It's not just talking about the issues, it's also other things that indirectly erode the hate. I think that's why places where there are more mixed/integrated populations are more likely to vote for equality, and places where things are very segregated or homogeneous tend to be more likely to vote bigoted.

Sometimes it doesn't work; we also know plenty of stories about people who do violence to nice neighbors or throw queer family members out of the house. And it's definitely not fair that the people targeted are burdened by having to be "the bigger person" and convince bigots or de-escalate abusers by being "nice" or whatever.

But to the extent that we all live on the same planet, things are not fair no matter how we handle it.

I generally would agree with this, but it's not like the Trumpets have never encountered Democrats and liberals and "Others" before this election so they would suddenly be moved by human decency. 

[Moose135]

3 hours ago, Enigma X said:

They cared not one bit about whom they were offending. This is what they do daily in a government office.

Sounds like they may be creating a hostile work environment.  I wonder if a "friendly" chat with HR would get them to at least tone down the comments where others can hear them.

[Pixel]

1 hour ago, possibilities said:

I think this is key. Right now, we're all upset and there's an urgency to prevent great harm. But realistically, some harm is going to happen, and there aren't any shortcuts to changing hearts and minds. So we need both short term and long term strategies.

In the short term, it may be better in some cases to take space from people who are destructive. In the long term, they aren't going away on their own so it's important to figure out how to engage them in a productive manner.

I also think that there is room for more than one approach. Some people may be well-suited to dialogue and engagement, while others need to hold firm and convey that certain things are beyond the boundaries of dialogue and will be opposed by any means necessary. It's like in any other situation; there are "good cops" and "bad cops," negotiators, people who go on strike or become and boycotters, people who fight and people who go in and build bridges or clean up messes. We need all those people.

It's just important to figure out what each person or situation is most suited to. There are some people who are not going to be moved by dialogue and other people who will be. That kid who left his white supremacist background didn't sway his family even though he tried to stay in dialogue with them-- at least not yet. But some cases may be harder to crack than others, and I am grateful to the people who befriended him, and to him for becoming an ally and trying to make headway with his family once he did.

Sometimes there is no easy answer, but we have to just try whatever we personally can do from where we are.

Right now, there are some people I will engage with and others I won't.

Sometimes my distress is stronger than my patience and other times I feel like I can see an opening that allows for common ground. I think that there are people who are genuinely confused or acting out of motives I did not consider and could come to forgive, or they are innocently ignorant and afraid, and might respond to compassionate conversation, and there are others who are just dead inside and any engagement feeds their pathology. And some days I am on my last nerve and have nothing to give to a challenging conversation and other days I feel like I can make more of an effort.

I could cosign all of this.

45 minutes ago, random chance said:

I admire your selfless attempt to make the world better, and it's good to know that a racist can be unracist...icized. But the Trumpsters can't unvote. That damage can't be undone. And by the time they can vote again, they won't need us to change their minds - the dumpster fire formerly known as the United States will do that all on its own.

I don't disagree.  I know they've already done damage with their stupidity. This is why I've never subscribed to the idea that it's everyone's responsibility to vote.  It is the responsibility of informed people to vote.  You shouldn't vote for things you don't understand. If you haven't taken the time to educate yourself that the ACA insurance you love is also the Obamacare you think you hate, you shouldn't be voting. If you haven't taken the time to understand the issues at stake, you shouldn't be voting. And if you are taking the word of politicians over the word of scientists that climate change isn't caused by people - you should sure the fuck not be voting!

And for what it's worth, I'm not judging those here who just want nothing to do with the Trump supporters. I feel that way about them too.  No judgement from me at all.  I'm just making an effort to fight those feelings, but that's for me. I don't expect that of anyone else.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Pixel
ETA final comment

[Enigma X]

8 minutes ago, Moose135 said:

Sounds like they may be creating a hostile work environment.  I wonder if a "friendly" chat with HR would get them to at least tone down the comments where others can hear them.

Been to the Equal Opportunity Office. Other have before I got here a year ago. Nothing has happened.

[Lantern7]

Waiting out the year is like Willie Wonka And The Chocolate Factory. You know somebody is going to get the Golden Tickets, and you just don't know when. And then you look at Facebook, and it turns out the guy in the ALF suit died. Not a huge bummer, but still sad. Also: The actor who voiced Heat Miser died recently, and I have the Miser Bros. as Captain Cold and Heat Wave as my holiday-themed avatar.

[MulletorHater]

3 hours ago, aradia22 said:

Especially since I'm not the one who is supposed to be a Christian. The latest Fox News tactic is accusing Democrats of just looking for reasons to be angry or to protest since Trump is making all these great decisions. I feel like they're living in an upside down world. The less charitable part of me really hopes these people get what's coming to them... though they probably won't. 

And, my response to that tactic is to remind the propagandists at Faux News about their own behavior during the Obama years.  Such behavior included, but was not limited to, race baiting; refusing to air or cover President Obama's speeches when other networks did; giving aid and comfort to every conspiracy theorist and nut job imaginable (i.e, Jade Helm conspiracy, the ridiculous claim that President Obama's address to school children was an attempt to "indoctrinate" them, etc.); covering and proudly supporting Cliven Bundy and his not-so-merry band of anti-government thugs until it became uncomfortable to do so; blatantly disrespecting the Obamas; ginning up a fake "war on Christmas" and laying it at the president's feet; video manipulation of events such as the tea party rally in D.C. (to make it appear more people attended, which was later refuted by the Park Service); generating its own brand of fake news which they've mastered to a science; attacking protesters; cheer-leading the war in Iraq long after the rest of media stopped; acting as Drumpf apologists (along with CNN) when he admitted to sexually assaulting women; and flushing Roger Ailes and his sexual harassment scandal down a memory hole.

So, until they actually own their virulent anti-Obama bullshit and get their own house in order, they can kiss my ass with all that noise.  You see, you don't get to show your asses for 8 years because you couldn't get over your anger about a Black man decisively winning the presidency and then turn around and get pissy because people are protesting against a dangerously unqualified person that you hyped up.  Oh, and as quiet as it's kept, there are quite a few conservative voters who are also upset about Drumpf "winning."  So, it's not just Democrats looking for something to be angry or protest about.

Edited December 29, 2016 by MulletorHater
Because, reasons!

[Padma]

I have asked myself, "What is wrong with Trump, really?" I mean, beyond the obvious narcissism and greed possibly hardening of the arteries from age and poor diet.   And being a pathological liar. (Well, maybe that's enough. Seems like there should be one big word for it--"d-bag" doesn't count).

And also, what is wrong with his followers?  The people Enigma X is describing are everywhere--gloating, berating, and completely besotted with their new "God Emperor".  I can't remember anyone acting like this about Ronald Reagan, the most popular Republican I can recall.   Was it the brainwashing of Fox, Limbaugh, et al from the Clinton and Obama years--and suppressed anger at the "injustice" of no longer feeling white people are at the top of the heap in all situations in America?

Seriously, what is wrong with them?  So many are so obnoxious about supporting Trump and rubbing it in. I commend people who feel its productive to engage them, and have the temperament for it, but I think its better for my equilibrium to be around like-minded people of good will (including you all here. Thank you.)

I don't think anything I say or do will have the slightest impact on a Trump supporter.  The only thing that MAY get to them is if they REALIZE it when he's betraying them. (They don't apparently "get" it yet with his billionaire Cabinet officials and commitment to his own business needs over everything else.)

He'll probably start off with many symbolic things that excite them.  Start putting up a fence along parts of the border and call it a wall.  Repeal some of Obama's Exec Orders.  Make noises with Ryan about getting rid of Obamacare and maybe make cuts in benefits and pass legislation to repeal it completely by 2019 (after election).

He'll keep calling CEOs to find out if any company is expanding, hiring more people in 2017 and then take credit for it. When good number come in about Obama's economy, he'll take credit for that, too.

That should keep his followers happy for 6 months.  After that, who knows? Will we be in another war? Will he have privatized Medicare, SS and/or the VA? Will David Fahrenthold and Kurt Eichenwald have unearthed any more scandals--and will the media or Republicans pay any attention if they do?

Or will Trump just use every criticism lobbed against him as a way to scapegoat liberals and marginalize them, keep giving speeches and rallies, lying his ass off to keep his followers in love with him, and, behind the scenes, keep running the most corrupt government in our history, unseen and unchallenged?

Until it hits them personally--which will take a while--AND they realize who is to blame (which may be "never")--these Trumpers aren't going to change. They have the power over all those awful (diverse) liberals, as they see it, and they are loving it. 

[Lantern7]

"Twenty pounds of shit in a five-pound bag" works for me. Also, he was able to unite just enough of the garbage people (not sanitation workers) to give him the win, something McCain and Romney never considered doing.

ETA: Stupid question: Do you think Weird Al regrets wasting a parody of "Lump" on Forrest Gump?

ETA2: This just in on MSN . . . current administration drops the hammer on Russia. Nice, Obama, but could you do something for the slight majority of voters who didn't vote for that guy? And if things progress as usual, the "new guy" can just lift the sanctions.

[random chance]

16 minutes ago, KerleyQ said:

I've seen it speculated that Putin has some dirt on him outside of just business.  Now, I'm not saying that he is on tape with, say, an underage Russian prostitute, but, well, some people are saying it.  (That is how we do it these days, right?) 

Yep that sword cuts both ways - we can just imply stuff and palm it off on "many people"!

I am absolutely convinced this is the case - he was caught on tape and it had to be something way worse than just sex with an underage prostitute - I assume it's something that would put him in prison.  

[fastiller]

15 minutes ago, Padma said:

I have asked myself, "What is wrong with Trump, really?" I mean, beyond the obvious narcissism and greed possibly hardening of the arteries from age and poor diet.   And being a pathological liar. (Well, maybe that's enough. Seems like there should be one big word for it--"d-bag" doesn't count).

And also, what is wrong with his followers?  The people Enigma X is describing are everywhere--gloating, berating, and completely besotted with their new "God Emperor".  I can't remember anyone acting like this about Ronald Reagan, the most popular Republican I can recall.   Was it the brainwashing of Fox, Limbaugh, et al from the Clinton and Obama years--and suppressed anger at the "injustice" of no longer feeling white people are at the top of the heap in all situations in America? [A]

Seriously, what is wrong with them?  So many are so obnoxious about supporting Trump and rubbing it in. I commend people who feel its productive to engage them, and have the temperament for it, but I think its better for my equilibrium to be around like-minded people of good will (including you all here. Thank you.) [ B ]

I don't think anything I say or do will have the slightest impact on a Trump supporter.  The only thing that MAY get to them is if they REALIZE it when he's betraying them. (They don't apparently "get" it yet with his billionaire Cabinet officials and commitment to his own business needs over everything else.) [C]

He'll probably start off with many symbolic things that excite them.  Start putting up a fence along parts of the border and call it a wall.  Repeal some of Obama's Exec Orders.  Make noises with Ryan about getting rid of Obamacare and maybe make cuts in benefits and pass legislation to repeal it completely by 2019 (after election).

He'll keep calling CEOs to find out if any company is expanding, hiring more people in 2017 and then take credit for it. When good number come in about Obama's economy, he'll take credit for that, too. [D]

That should keep his followers happy for 6 months.  After that, who knows? Will we be in another war? Will he have privatized Medicare, SS and/or the VA? Will David Fahrenthold and Kurt Eichenwald have unearthed any more scandals--and will the media or Republicans pay any attention if they do? [E]

Or will Trump just use every criticism lobbed against him as a way to scapegoat liberals and marginalize them, keep giving speeches and rallies, lying his ass off to keep his followers in love with him, and, behind the scenes, keep running the most corrupt government in our history, unseen and unchallenged? [F]

Until it hits them personally--which will take a while--AND they realize who is to blame (which may be "never")--these Trumpers aren't going to change. They have the power over all those awful (diverse) liberals, as they see it, and they are loving it. 

[A] I've posted about this (perhaps on this thread, possibly elsewhere in this section): this is a real thing.  White men (& I do believe it's mostly white men) were so shit scared in the right states at the right numbers that they couldn't allow a woman to become president.  (I know HRC won the popular vote, but she didn't get enough votes in the right states.) Eight years of a non-white man POTUS means they couldn't stomach even four years of a white non-man.

[ B ] I wish I could have the temperament, but it's just so hard - I agree, folks who can are better people than I for that.

[C] Wait till their taxes stay high, or they still lose their jobs, and these things will happen.  I don't know if they'll open their eyes to it though.

[D] Which is a great way for CEOs to hold the US gov't hostage - like Carrier did.  "We're thinking of moving to [FILL IN THE BLANK], wanna give us a tax break so we don't leave?"  Then they'll still cut jobs anyway (see my point [C] above).

[E] There will be scandals, they will be ignored.  We will be screwed with our pants on.

[F] He will do that.  Over and over again. 

Edited December 29, 2016 by fastiller

[film noire]

@Enigma X -- so sorry you're in a work situation with such selfish, mindless assholes.

I don't think we should pour any more energy into racist sexist pigs, because even when it all comes crashing down, they'll do what they always do, blame liberals ("Liberals kept Trump from building the wall!") None of these "Back to the segregationist, sexist 1950s" alt. white Trump voters take responsibility for what they do  -- just look at how surprised and enraged they are because people are holding them responsible for how they voted.  They behave as if everything they do is clad in a soft pink baby blanket, every action taken by them value free, beyond reproach, without impact and "me just me havin' my opinion".  Which is why I think engaging (for the millionth election cycle) is a waste of time. They keep telling us who they really are, and we need to listen, instead of hoping we can "get through to them".  There are tens of millions of eligible voters who didn't vote,  millions who were barred, and every wasted second spent on trying to reach Trump's zombie army is time we could pour into decent people left out, or left behind. Time for the left to radicalize -- save the best, leave the rest.

[Chicken Wing]

30 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

ETA2: This just in on MSN . . . current administration drops the hammer on Russia. Nice, Obama, but could you do something for the slight majority of voters who didn't vote for that guy? And if things progress as usual, the "new guy" can just lift the sanctions.

And how would that look for his orangeness to go out of his way to un-punish Russia?

[Padma]

"It's been 23 days. They've suffered enough for helping me win."

The timing is outstanding for Obama. Normally, he is (imo) very timid. The abstention last week at the U.N. was because, with a month left, he decided to finally take a controversial, public stand.  Trump will undo it--but at least Obama has gone on record for opposing moving the embassy to Jerusalem and, most of all, opposing Netanyahu's "one state solution" via more settlements.

I used to think Netanyahu (whom I dislike as the far-right zealot he is) was nevertheless, kind of attractive. When I saw him yesterday, he actually looked (1) not attractive and it wasn't just the bloat or aging it was-- (2) he seemed kind of demented and the "spin" that used to seem smooth instead seemed kind of hysterical.  Much like Trump at times, actually.  They do not seem like "good people" (as Obama always does, even when I'm feeling exasperated by his moderation.)  You can picture Trump, Netanyahu and Putin trying to work together in an atmosphere of complete and total distrust, like mob bosses trying to get the upper hand on a job of mutual benefit.

[fastiller]

3 minutes ago, Padma said:

<snip>

You can picture Trump, Netanyahu and Putin trying to work together in an atmosphere of complete and total distrust, like mob bosses trying to get the upper hand on a job of mutual benefit.

Until they turn on one another.  And it will happen.

[Pixel]

6 minutes ago, fastiller said:

Until they turn on one another.  And it will happen.

Yep. The only reason they're playing nice with Trump now is because they know how easy he is to manipulate, and because it amuses them to make Obama look bad. If he shows any backbone with those guys, they're going to cut his throat so fast it will make his head spin right off.

[MulletorHater]

9 minutes ago, Padma said:

You can picture Trump, Netanyahu and Putin trying to work together in an atmosphere of complete and total distrust, like mob bosses trying to get the upper hand on a job of mutual benefit.

Yeah, like the Legion of Doom in the old Super Friends cartoons.  They were all abhorrently evil and supposedly on the same side, but they inevitably ended up turning on one another.  Of course, when the Superfriends prevailed, the Legion of Doom vowed to come back another day with an even more nefarious scheme.

I remember when President G.W. Bush used the term, "Axis of Evil," to describe Iran, Iraq and North Korea during the 2002 State of the Union address.  Now, I have to wonder if that term should apply to a whole new set of characters, to include Philippines leader, Rodrigo Duterte, whom Drumpf is said to have invited to the Alt-White House.  

If Drumpf is, indeed, being blackmailed by dead-eye Putin (remember when Bush said he could see into his soul?), I have a simple remedy for that.  Release those tax returns quick, fast and in a hurry.  That's the best way to get a blackmailer off his back.  Otherwise, every time he claims that we should just get on with our lives and that none of this matters, he will have exposed himself--and some of his fellow Americans--as Putin's bitches.  

[fastiller]

28 minutes ago, Pixel said:

Yep. The only reason they're playing nice with Trump now is because they know how easy he is to manipulate, and because it amuses them to make Obama look bad. If he shows any backbone with those guys, they're going to cut his throat so fast it will make his head spin right off.

Too true.  But since Petulant-Elect Trumplethinskin has no backbone, it could go on for years.  

@MulletorHater - I'm stealing "Alt-White House."

Edited December 29, 2016 by fastiller

[Lantern7]

Is "America Held Hostage" appropriate for the upcoming status quo? I know, Lardass Limbaugh used it during the Clinton Administration, but I think it'll be more fitting starting next month.

[Padma]

6 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

Is "America Held Hostage" appropriate for the upcoming status quo? I know, Lardass Limbaugh used it during the Clinton Administration, but I think it'll be more fitting starting next month.

Did he? It started with Carter when Nightline had the nightly tally of days American hostages were still being held at the U.S. embassy in Iran.  It would be refreshing (and fitting) to use it for a Republican.

[Duke Silver]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/312105-alt-right-leader-lands-250k-book-deal

[Duke Silver]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/814559277964754944

[PatsyandEddie]

Every time you think Milo Yiannopoulos couldn't be a bigger d-bag, he proves you wrong.looks like S&S wasted their money. Oh who am I kidding, this jackass' "thoughts" will end up on the best sellers list for months. SMFH! 

Edited December 30, 2016 by PatsyandEddie

[Pixel]

Thank goodness my favorite author is with Random House. Simon and Schuster is now on my boycott list. 

[Duke Silver]

Trump already has personal security goon squad.  I suppose he'll utilize intel supplied by Putin's FSB?

[AntiBeeSpray]

6 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

Waiting out the year is like Willie Wonka And The Chocolate Factory. You know somebody is going to get the Golden Tickets, and you just don't know when. And then you look at Facebook, and it turns out the guy in the ALF suit died. Not a huge bummer, but still sad. Also: The actor who voiced Heat Miser died recently, and I have the Miser Bros. as Captain Cold and Heat Wave as my holiday-themed avatar.

Except he passed back in June, not this month. It was a recycled obit. Thank you Snopes! It's still sad though :(.

 

1 hour ago, Pixel said:

Thank goodness my favorite author is with Random House. Simon and Schuster is now on my boycott list. 

Welp. Guess they're a no go for me now as well. Onto seeing if any authors I like go through them.

 

Damn it! Stephen King goes through them. Can I make an exception?

[Lantern7]

Shit. Sorry about that. Had I known, I might not have used that sketch as my avatar.

[aradia22]

They've got Philippa Greggory and the Folger Shakespeare Library but other than that, I feel like it'll be pretty easy to avoid Simon and Schuster unless I'm missing something. 

I don't know how and I know it seems unlikely at the moment, but I feel like the truth will be the thing that sees us through this. Every day we have to remind ourselves of what's actually true. And while others live in a fantasy world of spin and conspiracies and lies we'll be enabled to make decisions based on facts and realities. They're willfully handicapping themselves by refusing to see situations as they are. 

[AntiBeeSpray]

5 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

Shit. Sorry about that. Had I known, I might not have used that sketch as my avatar.

No problem. It was the Alf one who passed.

 

Another dammit, Jim Butcher goes through Simon and Shuster. Ugh. So does Dean Koontz.

 

Guess that's one company I can't fully boycott.

[Padma]

I'm so excited about the idea of Merrick Garland as an interim appointment (till Dec 2017).  http://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-seven-things-obama-should-do-he-leaves-office-536804

This isn't Obama's style, but he's been showing more fire of late.  Do you think anything, anyone could persuade him to do it?  It would be so important to have a liberal majority court for a year, with Republicans so completely in control of the other two branches (and some very bad legislation on the way). Plus, lawsuits are probably our only hope--and might move up to the SC in that time to be decided (fairly).

How can this happen?  When is the Senate on recess and for how long?

Plus, Obama deserves it. He and his nominee have been so disrespected for nearly a YEAR.  THIS move--appointing Garland to the SC for a year (only)--would be justice served. (And show the GOP in the senate that obstruction and bullying the president has its limits.) 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Padma

[Pixel]

8 minutes ago, Padma said:

I'm so excited about the idea of Merrick Garland as an interim appointment (till Dec 2017).  http://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-seven-things-obama-should-do-he-leaves-office-536804

This isn't Obama's style, but he's been showing more fire of late.  Do you think anything, anyone could persuade him to do it?  It would be so important to have a liberal majority court for a year, with Republicans so completely in control of the other two branches (and some very bad legislation on the way). Plus, lawsuits are probably our only hope--and might move up to the SC in that time to be decided (fairly).

How can this happen?  When is the Senate on recess and for how long?

Plus, Obama deserves it. He and his nominee have been so disrespected for nearly a YEAR.  THIS move--appointing Garland to the SC for a year (only)--would be justice served. (And show the GOP in the senate that obstruction and bullying the president has its limits.) 

I was just coming here to post that I'll never forgive Obama if he doesn't do just that. 

[Lantern7]

"I'm making an appointment because I'm still President. Get your punk asses back to DC and waste time listening to him. Your mistresses will still be waiting for you . . . assuming my replacement hasn't bought their services."

[Pixel]

57 minutes ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

Except he passed back in June, not this month. It was a recycled obit. Thank you Snopes! It's still sad though :(.

 

Welp. Guess they're a no go for me now as well. Onto seeing if any authors I like go through them.

 

Damn it! Stephen King goes through them. Can I make an exception?

Since Stephen King hates Trump, I guess so. I'd assume he's not a fan of this guy either. Maybe we should go to his Twitter and tell him to put the screws to his publisher. 

[AntiBeeSpray]

Just now, Pixel said:

Since Stephen King hates Drumpf, I guess so. I'd assume he's not a fan of this guy either. Maybe we should go to his Twitter and tell him to put the screws to his publisher. 

Yea he probably wouldn't be.

And I'm standing by the other authors I like. It's not their fault, that lies with the publisher themselves.

[possibilities]

There's also a movement to get Biden to get Garland appointed right before swearing in the new congress: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/6/1606610/-With-Biden-in-the-chair-on-Jan-3-the-Senate-can-confirm-a-renominated-Merrick-Garland-Here-s-how

Anyone want to host or attend a protest? In addition to the ones happening on the day after the inauguration (I read that more than a million people have registered for that one so far), the Dems are promoting a series that begins January 15th: https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/161222-Dear-Colleague-Health-Care-SIGNED.pdf

I think that highlighting the specific practical implications of various policy threats is a good idea, since a lot of people voted against their own self-interest.

[Bastet]

Of all the obstructionist actions by congressional Republicans during Obama's two terms, Senate Republicans announcing they would refuse to consider any nomination for Scalia's vacant seat is one of those most sticking in my craw.  The people elect a president to do numerous things during his or her (ha) tenure, including fill any Supreme Court vacancies that occur during that time.  A shit ton of lower federal court benches have been left unstaffed as well, but to say they won't even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee because a different president will take office almost a year after the seat opened up is pure bullshit.

(I'd have to delve into NLRB v Canning to see whether a recess appointment would pass muster, so I'm not yet commenting on the strategy; I'm just taking yet another opportunity to express my disgust with the refusal to consider Garland.)

Edited December 30, 2016 by Bastet

[AntiBeeSpray]

12 minutes ago, possibilities said:

There's also a movement to get Biden to get Garland appointed right before swearing in the new congress: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/6/1606610/-With-Biden-in-the-chair-on-Jan-3-the-Senate-can-confirm-a-renominated-Merrick-Garland-Here-s-how

Anyone want to host or attend a protest? In addition to the ones happening on the day after the inauguration (I read that more than a million people have registered for that one so far), the Dems are promoting a series that begins January 15th: https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/161222-Dear-Colleague-Health-Care-SIGNED.pdf

I think that highlighting the specific practical implications of various policy threats is a good idea, since a lot of people voted against their own self-interest.

Gotta love the righties... they're at it already.

Source: redalertpolitics.com

 

I'll be checking in my state to see if they're holding anything.

 

Anyone have a link to a list of where the events will be taking place?

[EyewatchTV211]

22 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Of all the obstructionist actions by congressional Republicans during Obama's two terms, Senate Republicans announcing they would refuse to consider any nomination for Scalia's vacant seat is one of those most sticking in my craw.  The people elect a president to do numerous things during his or her (ha) tenure, including fill any Supreme Court vacancies that occur during that time.  A shit ton of lower federal court benches have been left unstaffed as well, but to say they won't even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee because a different president will take office almost a year after the seat opened up is pure bullshit.

(I'd have to delve into NLRB v Canning to see whether a recess appointment would pass muster, so I'm not yet commenting on the strategy; I'm just taking yet another opportunity to express my disgust with the refusal to consider Garland.)

I thought I read that a recess appointment cannot actually be done, despite what many are hoping for.

[Padma]

6 minutes ago, VMepicgrl said:

I thought I read that a recess appointment cannot actually be done, despite what many are hoping for.

Jonathan Adler writing in the Wash Post says that, but I'm not yet convinced. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/29/the-real-reason-president-obama-wont-recess-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.7dff3e87dcc0

If there's any ambiguity, any chance at all that it would stick even for several months, Obama should do it. The idea of preserving checks and balances--and a progressive-friendly court--for as long as possible to ward off Trump & Co. is extremely important.

[EyewatchTV211]

Just now, Padma said:

Jonathan Adler writing in the Wash Post says that, but I'm not yet convinced. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/29/the-real-reason-president-obama-wont-recess-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.7dff3e87dcc0

If there's any ambiguity, any chance at all that it would stick even for several months, Obama should do it. The idea of preserving checks and balances--and a progressive-friendly court--for as long as possible to ward off Trump & Co. is extremely important.

I totally agree that whatever can be done should. Like @Bastet, this issue is one that really continues to get to me. Regardless of whether or not trump was fairly elected, the supreme court pick should never have been his. And even if the electoral count went to him, the GOP/McCarthy kept saying the supreme court pick should come from the "people's choice," which still isn't trump. Maybe Hillary should actually get to make the pick, then! 

[Duke Silver]

https://twitter.com/LOLGOP/status/814655351727521792

[Moose135]

45 minutes ago, Padma said:

If there's any ambiguity, any chance at all that it would stick even for several months, Obama should do it. The idea of preserving checks and balances--and a progressive-friendly court--for as long as possible to ward off Trump & Co. is extremely important.

I guess ultimately it would be something the Supreme Court had to decide.  Even if Garland recused himself (which he rightful should) it could end up 4-4, so it would not get overturned.

[izabella]

The Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources has been busy scrubbing its websites of information on climate change.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/28/dnr-purges-climate-change-on-web-page/95929564/

Verified by Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/wisconsin-department-natural-resources-removes-references-climate-website/

[Duke Silver]

^^^  Surprised that a Scott Walker-controlled state even had any to scrub, tbh.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Duke Silver

[Pixel]

8 hours ago, izabella said:

The Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources has been busy scrubbing its websites of information on climate change.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/28/dnr-purges-climate-change-on-web-page/95929564/

Verified by Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/wisconsin-department-natural-resources-removes-references-climate-website/

What a bunch of jelly-spined pussies.

[Lantern7]

Just did another "#shitmypresidentelectmightsay" post on Facebook, where he brags about possessing a Death Note. As fucked up as 2016 has been, I'm not expecting much different for 2017. Shit might get that weird. And guess what? Only three more weeks until the shit hits the White House! I mean, "fan."

[Kromm]

On 12/27/2016 at 4:08 PM, random chance said:

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

 

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.

I get that. But 2016 only had us having to LISTEN to a nutter running for President. Whereas 2017 will feature a nutter BEING President, and taking his whole collection of assorted nuts along with him into the Oval Office.

One minor bit of hope is that 2017 could also theoretically be a year where the disgruntled, dissatisfied white-rageaholic backbone of America realizes how petty and unfair their previous concerns were.  I mean once their chosen idiot gets into power and starts screwing up too badly even for them to make excuses for. 

But at what cost? It will be too late to do anything for almost another 2 years--and then only if they can make the realization, and commitment, to change their local congressman or woman and Senators.  And we're all already seeing how Trump plans to make it difficult just to even exist if you don't do what he says. I mean look at the Sanctuary City thing. True we are talking about Federal funding and an argument could be made that that's a legit Federal decision. But by tying that to the will of a President, it tosses out all of those long treasured rights/precedents which are supposed to balance local authority and decisionmaking against Federal. So out of one side of his big fat lying mouth Trump is hawking the so-called Republican ideal of local power when it comes to gay marriage, abortion, bathroom bills, etc. and out of the other side of his lying mouth he wants the Federal government to be able to tell local cities what their police forces are supposed to do about immigrants.

That's what we have to look forward to in 2017. Because the more I think about it, the more I start to think it might be a pipe dream to think that Trump's fanbase is going to reverse themselves on him. They'll find a way to justify apparent every bit of doubletalk, self-contradiction, and lies out of a Trump Presidency. The exception may be people hoping for fulfillment of specific promises, like the Steelworker who finally realizes Trump ISN'T going to bring Steel Industry jobs back to Pittsburgh, or the small farmer who realizes that Trump isn't going to do anything but support big Agri-business, or the Texas landowner, who even though they were momentarily relieved nobody is ACTUALLY going to build a wall, probably gets pissed off when their land gets taken with eminent domain just to build a stupid "enhanced fence".

If people break free of the mindset of Trump being some kind of populist hero, instead of an evil, greedy, selfish, easily manipulated, emotionally unstable nutbar, who if we are lucky won't get us killed but instead may enslave us in various ways, it probably won't be in 2017.  Maybe 2018. If we are lucky (and still free enough to talk about it).