The campaign lurches into the summer
June 29, 2016 7:48 AM Subscribe

Based on findings from experiments in political science, BuzzFeed News has designed what should be a powerful get-out-the-vote message. With less than a month before the Democrats get their convention started in Philadelphia, speculation on Secretary Clinton's running mate is rampant, and "Bernie Sanders [said] he is prepared for a floor fight at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia if the party doesn’t take more progressive stances on trade, the minimum wage, climate change and other issues in its platform."

Live from Los Angeles: Watch Hillary's town hall with @YouTube digital content creators.

posted by roomthreeseventeen (2213 comments total) 45 users marked this as a favorite

But Sanders and his supporters will be working with labor, environmental and human rights groups to call for amendments when the draft goes to the full 187-member Platform Committee for final approval in Orlando July 8 and 9. If he doesn’t succeed there, Sanders said he will have the votes to bring amendments to the convention floor in Philadelphia and “we are certainly intending to do that.”

Just personally, as a Bernie voter, this is what I thought my vote was going to be used for, and I'm glad to see this happening.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:56 AM on June 29, 2016 [35 favorites]

As someone who caucused for Bernie, I am growing increasingly frustrated with him and his semblance of a campaign. I voted for him mainly because I was excited about what his campaign was doing to push Clinton to the left, but he seems to be frittering his influence away and taking his hard-core supporters down a rabbit hole. I found this compelling.
posted by lunasol at 8:00 AM on June 29, 2016 [27 favorites]

#bernieputasockinitalready
posted by y2karl at 8:01 AM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]

"The neo-Nazis who organized the pro-Donald Trump rally in Sacramento, California, that turned bloody over the weekend have a new destination: The Republican National Convention in Cleveland."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:03 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Just personally, as a Bernie voter, this is what I thought my vote was going to be used for, and I'm glad to see this happening.

Yeah, if he'd pivoted to this after it was obvious that he wasn't going to win (and dropped the "I'm not for sale wink wink knowwhatImeanVern" stuff in the process), I'd have ground my teeth a lot less over the past coupla months.
posted by Etrigan at 8:04 AM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]

Bernie has overplayed his hand, and is in serious danger of undermining his goals.

"You got to know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run."
posted by Dashy at 8:06 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

I voted for him mainly because I was excited about what his campaign was doing to push Clinton to the left,

Actually, let me amend that to say I was excited about what he was doing to push the Democratic Party and therefore politics as a whole to the left. I'm still excited about that.
posted by lunasol at 8:07 AM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]

I like Janet Napolitano for Veep. Two term governor of Arizona. Secretary of Homeland Security. Current president of the University of California. Served as attorney for Anita Hill.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:12 AM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

Bernie Sanders is probably prepared for a lot of things that aren't going to happen.
posted by East14thTaco at 8:16 AM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]

I like Janet Napolitano for Veep.

Nooooooooo! She's just getting around to doing some good things for the UC! Don't go, Janet!
posted by Sophie1 at 8:16 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Bernie has overplayed his hand, and is in serious danger of undermining his goals.

On the contrary; Bernie is looking at a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity here. He has 40+% backing among 2016's primary voters and double-digit state primary wins. He is perceived as the current spokesman for the progressive wing of the modern Democratic party, and WHILE I AM NOT ARGUING WHETHER OR NOT SAID WING SHOULD HAVE ISSUES WITH HILLARY CLINTON it is undeniable that many of them do. Hillary has a historically weak and self-destructive general election opponent, meaning that if there was ever room to pull the platform to the left and not risk a loss by doing so, this is that year. Bernie is 74 years old and not likely to ever get another bite at this particular apple.

As the nominee, Hillary has every right to say "I won, the platform is ours, we'll do it our way." Or she can attempt to draw in some of the angry left flank by reaching out to a degree, some means other than yelling "vote for me or Orange Julius Caesar gets in." It is Bernie's job to make sure that the progressive wing gets more than lip service from that process.
posted by delfin at 8:21 AM on June 29, 2016 [64 favorites]

Bernie Sanders wrote an op-ed in the NY Times today. (via an ex-Bernie fan at balloon-juice.com)
posted by NoMich at 8:23 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

The good news is that Bernie did so much good with his campaign to push things in a more progressive direction that he'd really have to screw up in order to reverse that positive impact, but the bad news is that he seems to be doing all he can to give the impression that he'd trade all of those progressive gains in for another chance to tilt at the windmill.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:23 AM on June 29, 2016 [14 favorites]

Orange Julius Caesar
omfg
Welp, that's my new name for him.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 8:24 AM on June 29, 2016 [42 favorites]

The pro-Bernie posts on my facebook feed have steadily grown more and more toxic. The moment I say anything that isn't completely fawning over him that I get piled on by the same people and called a shill or a sellout.

It is only a few people, but their volume of output is wearying. At least my ultra conservative family members only post completely unhinged tea party dreck once or twice a day, not every 15 minutes.
posted by Badgermann at 8:25 AM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]

NoMich: "Bernie Sanders wrote an op-ed in the NY Times today. (via an ex-Bernie fan at balloon-juice.com)"

In which he doesn't once mention Clinton by name.
posted by octothorpe at 8:27 AM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]

Ballotpedia's battleground states poll
posted by nubs at 8:32 AM on June 29, 2016

Or she can attempt to draw in some of the angry left flank by reaching out to a degree, some means other than yelling "vote for me or Orange Julius Caesar gets in."

It seems that Clinton is attempting to do that now by having Elizabeth Warren stump with her. It seems, though, some are not buying that Warren is a true progressive anymore for endorsing Clinton. However, it does seem that Bernie voters will vote for Hillary after all.
posted by NoMich at 8:32 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Just in case you thought the DNC Platform Committee has been standing still ...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:38 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Or she can attempt to draw in some of the angry left flank by reaching out to a degree, some means other than yelling "vote for me or Orange Julius Caesar gets in."

Perhaps the "the most progressive platform put forth by Democrats in decades" could do it?

Or is that still not enough because $Hillary and also reasons?
posted by dersins at 8:39 AM on June 29, 2016 [38 favorites]

On the contrary; Bernie is looking at a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity here.

He was, right up until Elizabeth Warren came out hard for Clinton and stole his thunder. The number of Sanders supporters who say they won't vote for Clinton is rapidly dwindling, and Bernie's ability to influence general election is going down the drain with that figure. A man with something people need is a man with leverage. A man without it is just shouting into the uncaring wind.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:40 AM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]

Turns out that having leverage is only meaningful if you actually accomplish something with it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:41 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

Sanders lost. By a wide margin. And many of the people that did vote for him are exhausted and turned off by his actions over the past month or so. He seems entirely blind to the fact that he no longer has the support he once enjoyed. He doesn't need to give up entirely, many of us would still like a more progressive platform. But a floor fight is not the way to go about it, and is unlikely to actually do anything more than cause trouble.

I'm glad we have a new post, but it's sort of irritating that it is framed entirely as Hillary v Bernie and not Clinton v Trump, which is what the actual race is at this point.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 8:42 AM on June 29, 2016 [44 favorites]

I also wonder how much traction a No True ~~Progressive~~ Scotsman argument against Elizabeth Warren will get, considering how she has her own considerable fan base already.
posted by Gelatin at 8:43 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Just in case you thought the DNC Platform Committee has been standing still ...

The Democratic National Committee Platform recently voted to keep corruption and corporate influence as mainstays within the Democratic Party.

In an effort to pander to labor unions

This seems like a solid and unbiased source which I will definitely keep reading!
posted by beerperson at 8:43 AM on June 29, 2016 [62 favorites]

And I agree -- Hillary has been reaching to her left. It's a good start. It depends on what your pet issues are, of course, and there are some whom HRC can simply never make happy.
posted by delfin at 8:45 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

This seems like a solid and unbiased source which I will definitely keep reading!

That's an unfair place to cut off. The complete paragraph:

The Democratic National Committee Platform recently voted to keep corruption and corporate influence as mainstays within the Democratic Party.

In an effort to pander to labor unions, Hillary Clinton opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2015, but the surrogates she appointed to the Democratic National Committee Platform have formally supported the controversial agreement. This hypocrisy is unsurprising. Although Clinton helped move forward TPP negotiations during her service as secretary of state, her involvement with the deal has been omitted from the paperback version of her autobiography, Hard Choices. Even the Obama Administration has had a hand in shielding Clinton from TPP criticism, delaying the release of emails pertaining to the agreement until after the general election.

They're not condemning appealing to unions, they're saying that she told the unions what they wanted to hear and then did the opposite in actual practice, and declined to admit to it in her accounts of her activities. That's a claim that can be confirmed or rebutted, and if true is worth holding her feet to the fire about.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:46 AM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]

The DNC voted down language opposing the TPP to not oppose Obama's position, though both Sanders and Clinton have come out against it. The AP source of that article is clearer.
posted by Peccable at 8:48 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

That's an unfair place to cut off. The complete paragraph:

Complete paragraph or no, it's utterly reasonable to stop reading at--and ignore everything that comes after--"The Democratic National Committee Platform recently voted to keep corruption and corporate influence as mainstays within the Democratic Party."

That is not reporting, it is propaganda.
posted by dersins at 8:50 AM on June 29, 2016 [39 favorites]

Oh please, if it were "The Republican National Committee Platform recently voted to keep patriarchy and white supremacy as mainstays within the Republican Party" neither you nor I would blink at it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:51 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

Besides which, that same website also posted this trash about leftism being fascism so I mean maybe your expectations for the quality of its "reporting" are a bit high.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:53 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

I read the whole Observer article and found this at the bottom:

"Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media."
posted by FJT at 8:55 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

Hey I have an idea maybe this thread could not 100% consist of Hillary vs Bernie Round 78
posted by saturday_morning at 8:55 AM on June 29, 2016 [71 favorites]

On a lighter note, Alex Jones is concerned about Trump kissing goblins, perhaps even taking a goblin succubus. I must admit that although I've read what he says and read about him, I never literally listened to Alex Jones. It sounds like he's about to bring up the time he had to kill a Frankenstein.
posted by Countess Elena at 8:59 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

Oh please, if it were "The Republican National Committee Platform recently voted to keep patriarchy and white supremacy as mainstays within the Republican Party" neither you nor I would blink at it.

I would also be pissed about this, for the record. Tell me the god damned FACTS and let me draw my own conclusions, please!
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:01 AM on June 29, 2016 [16 favorites]

The amusing thing about fights over party platforms is that they're totally non-binding and usually instantly forgotten about as soon as the convention is over.
posted by octothorpe at 9:01 AM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]

Hey I have an idea maybe this thread could not 100% consist of Hillary vs Bernie Round 78

We could avoid it if Bernie would endorse Clinton already. Until he does, the conversation is inevitable.
posted by stolyarova at 9:01 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Actually, it's really not. It's just as easy to ignore Bernie Sanders until he does that too.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:03 AM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

We could avoid it if Bernie would endorse Clinton already. Until he does, the conversation is inevitable.

Roughly 8% of his voters, who mostly don't even seem to be Democrats, are voting for Trump. I don't think his endorsement is relevant anymore.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:03 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

There's no way Alex Jones could have killed a Frankenstein. Torch fire does not get hot enough to melt metal neck bolts, sheeple!
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:04 AM on June 29, 2016 [25 favorites]

Clinton v Trump, which is what the actual race is at this point

Well, technically not until the conventions. So there's still time for the Republican party to step back from the abyss and embrace a less chaotic, destructive - and frankly stupid - vision of the future than Donald Trump's.

There's still at least a sliver of hope in the form of the nascent "Draft Violent J/Shaggy 2 Dope" movement.
posted by Naberius at 9:06 AM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]

I think Trump surrounds himself with so many yes-men that his vision of reality is growing increasingly more warped and narcissistic. He may genuinely believe that he saw himself winning that poll when he tweeted it.
posted by stolyarova at 9:07 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure what message Trump thinks we're supposed to take away from that.

That he never wanted to be the candidate and this thing has gone too far?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:07 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

Until he does, the conversation is inevitable.

I wouldn't say it's inevitable, but that it's actually a lot more substantive a conversation than collectively WTFing about whatever latest WTF thing Trump said or did. This is about a very important election, but also about the future of the Democratic party, and when these rifts occur, I think it's important to analyze them and figure out how the party will try to unite behind a progressive agenda in the coming years. That's worth discussing.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 AM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]

"The neo-Nazis who organized the pro-Donald Trump rally in Sacramento, California, that turned bloody over the weekend have a new destination: The Republican National Convention in Cleveland."

I'm not naive enough to think that if Trump totally denounced these groups, that he'd lose their support -- I'm sure there'd be a lot of "it's fine, he's just saying what he has to say to get elected, we know what he REALLY means" within those groups. But at least, if they're in Cleveland causing a violent scene at his convention, he'd be in a position where he'd *have* to either denounce them in clear, consistent terms (haha no) or not (goodbye to the more reality-based half of the GOP, forever).
posted by saturday_morning at 9:11 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Actually, it's really not. It's just as easy to ignore Bernie Sanders until he does that too.

I'm increasingly inclined to do so even after, and I voted for him in the Indiana primary.

Elizabeth Warren should do a fine job of keeping income inequality and the pernicious influence of the corrupt financial sector on the national agenda.
posted by Gelatin at 9:11 AM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]

NoMich: "It seems, though, some are not buying that Warren is a true progressive anymore for endorsing Clinton."

So, before endorsing Clinton, Warren was a progressive hero. Afterwards, she's not a true progressive after all. As far as I know, she didn't renounce any of her previous positions or policies. So, simply the act of endorsing Clinton is considered poisonous to a certain subset of people (that presumably includes the author of that article, Walker Bragman).

I've been thinking more and more about the constant use of the word "corruption" in certain circles of political commentary. I'm starting to suspect that, in some ways, the connotative implications of the word can start to overwhelm any denotative definition. Specifically, "corruption" implies impurity, dirtiness, contamination. If you touch something dirty, you can't help but become dirty (corrupt) yourself. Conversely, something (or someone) that isn't "corrupt" is pure, unblemished, immaculate. Bringing in anything from outside of this bubble of purity can only result in corruption.

Under this (admittedly exaggerated) framework, it is the inevitable conclusion that by endorsing Clinton, Warren is also now corrupt, perhaps not as corrupt as Clinton herself but certainly no longer pure. Whether it was because Clinton drove a Brinks trunk worth of unmarked, non-sequential bills onto her front lawn or promised her a VP/Secretary of Treasury/Ambassador to Bahamas post is beside the point. Also beside the point would be if Warren decided that endorsing Clinton -- even if she doesn't agree 100% with her on all issues -- would be the most effective way of advancing her own agenda. That would also probably be a form of corruption.
posted by mhum at 9:12 AM on June 29, 2016 [25 favorites]

I like Janet Napolitano for Veep. Two term governor of Arizona. Secretary of Homeland Security.

If you held that job and didn't immediately call for half of its operations to be shut down you're not going to be someone I respect.
posted by phearlez at 9:13 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

Couple comments removed. Let's skip yet another round of the Yeah But Bernie Should Be The Candidate rehash stuff.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:14 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

So, before endorsing Clinton, Warren was a progressive hero. Afterwards, she's not a true progressive after all.

I seem to recall a not insubstantial number of the lefty #neverclinton crowd touting their hypothetical support of a hypothetical Warren candidacy as proof that they're totes cool with the idea of a woman on the ticket as long as it's the right woman and not $hillary.

How strange and unexpected that this seems to be changing as things become less hypothetical.
posted by dersins at 9:22 AM on June 29, 2016 [73 favorites]

No fan of the GOP here, but every person with a security clearance whom I've spoken with has told me they would be fired and imprisoned for Hillary's level of email fuckery. Shouldn't we be at all concerned about the possible outcomes of the ongoing FBI criminal investigation?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:26 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Afterwards, she's not a true progressive after all.

Not even then. A lot of at-the-time Sanders supporters were critical of Warren for not endorsing Sanders during the primary. In their perspective it's an outright betrayal and possibly cost Sanders the nomination. I think similar to Benedict Arnold, some dislike those that betray them even more than someone that's always been seen as an enemy (like Trump).
posted by FJT at 9:28 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

No fan of the GOP here, but every person with a security clearance whom I've spoken with has told me they would be fired and imprisoned for Hillary's level of email fuckery. Shouldn't we be at all concerned about the possible outcomes of the ongoing FBI criminal investigation?

Ask David Petraeus about that. Everyone knows the rules are for the little people.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:29 AM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]

Trump's already written off the reality based GOP contingent. Meanwhile, I'm wondering if I should dress to look whiter for the RNC Just In Case. Thanks, Trump, you unrepentant dickwad. I love having to add calculations about white supremacists into my thinking.
posted by corb at 9:30 AM on June 29, 2016 [23 favorites]

Also FYI, do you guys know Trump supporters are telling even legal immigrants that when Orange God King wins, we will have to go back?
posted by corb at 9:31 AM on June 29, 2016 [17 favorites]

That nobody is calling for Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell to be jailed for the same crime as Clinton, or for the Bush administration to be jailed for running their official state business over RNC-controlled servers to elude accountability and archiving regulations, tells you everything you need to know about the Clinton email server "scandal".
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:32 AM on June 29, 2016 [97 favorites]

Corb - I really want you to be careful in Cleveland. I am genuinely concerned about your welfare. That said, I hope we can get regular updates from you as to what is actually going on. I don't think the news media will have anywhere near the insight that you will.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:33 AM on June 29, 2016 [39 favorites]

Also FYI, do you guys know Trump supporters are telling even legal immigrants that when Orange God King wins, we will have to go back?

Given the tenor of his campaign thus far I honestly couldn't tell you if I knew it for a fact or just assumed they were doing that.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:33 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

Corporate America could support Clinton unlike any past Democrat. It could deliver her a win but for a very unlikely extreme mobilization of middle class white voters in battleground states. The only thing that could put that in jeopardy is a wild-eyes platform that makes business really worry -- and look at Trump as at least someone who believes in capitalism.

The platform would have to get pretty wild eyed to solidify corporate support around Trump. At this point, Clinton is the sane, supportable choice, and Trump is the unpredictable loon, and takes every opportunity to ensure he'll be the unpredictable loon. It's far from clear that Trump represents capitalism at all, as he's been as populist and shitty on some key issues as Bernie. Not to mention that Trump believes in Trump far more than capitalism, or the people.

The platform could get pretty wild eyed if Sanders somehow manages to exert influence at the convention. Just making a spectacle I think would be damage enough.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:34 AM on June 29, 2016

Also FYI, do you guys know Trump supporters are telling even legal immigrants that when Orange God King wins, we will have to go back?

I kind of want to see what happens when they pull that shit with a Native American, but past experience has shown that the cognitive dissonance is simply too much for them to process.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:37 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

A lot of at-the-time Sanders supporters were critical of Warren for not endorsing Sanders during the primary. In their perspective it's an outright betrayal

Betrayal? Did she promise to endorse him? Or ever campaign for him? (A hasty Google search turns up a Mother Jones article saying she won't rule out doing so, but that's hardly a promise.)

It seems plain that Warren sees the path to achieving her progressive goals as being much more via a Clinton presidency than a Trump one. It's also logical to infer that she would accept half a loaf of incremental gains to the ascendancy of the plutocracy that Trump and a Republican Congress would usher in.

If Sanders can't recognize that he, Warren and Clinton share many of the same goals and differ only in their preferred approach -- and more, acknowledge that an incremental approach might be at least possible, if not preferable, means of achieving those goals -- then what's inevitable is questioning how much his run was about his revolution versus just being about him.
posted by Gelatin at 9:38 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

Shouldn't we be at all concerned about the possible outcomes of the ongoing FBI criminal investigation?

Not really, considering it's just the latest incarnation of the proverbial 'other shoe' that Clinton haters have been predicting is juuuust about to drop for the past 25 years now.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:39 AM on June 29, 2016 [47 favorites]

every person with a security clearance whom I've spoken with has told me they would be fired and imprisoned for Hillary's level of email fuckery.

I doubt any person you spoke to was at Clinton's level of decision maker. Which I don't entirely mean as a "the rules are different at that level" (though that's true) but rather that they - if they're cleared - are presumably dealing with materials handed to them by other folks who set those classifications. Clinton was dealing with material that was not classified at the time it was going across the wire - and if it had been that would have been a violation of handling rules regardless of where the server was because email is not secure. So anything emailed to her which should have been kept under TS rules represented a violation on the part of the person emailing it.

Clinton's choices on the email thing were bone-headed and I have commented on that at length from my perspective as a technologist and having been in the government contracting world. But there's not much credible to support the idea that it was criminal. And as others have said, it's not remotely unique in the specifics. I can assure you it's not the tiniest bit unique as a general if-its-not-forbidden-go-for-it way of end-running around bad/inadequate government systems offerings.

I'd also suggest you temper the respect you give these opinions offered to you by these folks based on their answer to the question "does the current method and amount of classification in government documents strike you as too extensive?"
posted by phearlez at 9:41 AM on June 29, 2016 [37 favorites]

Yoa -- Kevin Drum cites a report that Donald Trump's campaign spent no money at all on TV ads in June.

Related anecdata: My father is spending time in Florida this week, and tells me that TV ads run heavily -- something like 10 to 1 -- for Clinton (the other ads must be pro-Trump PACs, I presume).
posted by Gelatin at 9:41 AM on June 29, 2016

Geez, you guys are being very harsh on Sanders. The big money in the politics is still a big problem, and Clinton won't fix it/Sanders shouldn't shut up about it.
posted by clawsoon at 9:41 AM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]

look at Trump as at least someone who believes in capitalism
That may be one of the biggest lies being perpetrated by Trump, unless you define "capitalism" as "living off daddy's money". "cheating everybody you do business with" and "making your 'personal brand' the only asset you have that's actually worth something".
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:42 AM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]

corb, please do be careful in Cleveland, and keep your head down as much as you can.
posted by Gelatin at 9:42 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

That may be one of the biggest lies being perpetrated by Trump, unless you define "capitalism" as "living off daddy's money". "cheating everybody you do business with" and "making your 'personal brand' the only asset you have that's actually worth something".

Unless you're one of those libertarians or ancaps who likes to rant about how what we really have, sheeple, is corporatism/cronyism/communist/etc, then yeah all of those are super-common and super-compatible with capitalism.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:45 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Thinking about down-ticket races and the future direction of the Dems, the New York Times has a list of 14 young Democrats to watch. Curious what those who've seen more of these folks at the state and local level think...
posted by une_heure_pleine at 9:47 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

"corporatism/cronyism" is totally compatible with "libertarianism"... that's why Peter Thiel is a delegate for Trump.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:50 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

I will. Supposedly there will be one bodyguard accompanying our state delegation, but I have no idea how he's supposed to protect 88 people. I'll be updating regularly though, and a couple mefites have my info and permission to tell you if I get seriously injured.
posted by corb at 9:54 AM on June 29, 2016 [14 favorites]

88 people

O_o
posted by tonycpsu at 9:55 AM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]

I also found the Slate article lunasol linked to compelling, and it represented a train of thought I'd been following into something of a morass for a long time now. I don't think Sanders voters were supporting him because they've always had a thing for aged socialists from Vermont. Even though they now seem to think he's the messiah and all that, I'm pretty sure most had never heard of him in 2013. They were drawn in by his support of progressive issues. In a Democratic party moving farther right all the time, because a collapsing GOP is giving them plenty of room to do so, Sanders presented a vision of a Democratic party that could serve some purpose for voters who didn't go to Yale and don't have a trust fund. (Beyond just being an alternative to living in The Handmaid's Tale, obviously.)

So like a lot of people here, I voted for Sanders in my primary. And like a lot of people I did so not so much because I thought he should be President as because I thought he was doing good work in forcing Hillary to tack left against her instincts. But then, as things started to go south, I had to consider how exactly was he going to do that? Sanders is using the stick, offering voters an alternative and forcing Hillary to fight to keep them. But that only works as long as Sanders remains an actual alternative. The moment he concedes, he has no leverage and Hillary tacks back to the right. So okay, he stays in right to the convention and has some influence on the platform. But as noted above, that still doesn't get him anywhere as the platform ultimately doesn't mean shit. If he isn't the candidate, then he eventually loses all his clout.

So I reluctantly concluded that Sanders couldn't really change the party in any permanent way. So what the hell good was any of this? But Elizabeth Warren, being in my view a considerably more savvy politician, may have actually found a way to do it. Warren is using the carrot approach. She's basically saying, if you come over here to the left, I can create some really fertile ground for you. That is working, and it doesn't go away after the convention.

I would have loved to see Warren as the candidate. (As I said previously, I think she represents a fantastic combination of Sanders' progressive instincts and Clinton's political skill.) And I think she may really have the answer that Sanders was going for but missed. I don't want her to be VP, as I've also said before. I think that actually weakens her. But I'm even more impressed with what she's been doing lately. She's found a way to not just fulfill a basic mitzvah we all face -- doing her utmost to destroy Donald Trump and the mob of troglodytes he leads -- but at the same time to at least begin steering the Democratic party away from neoliberalism. That's got to happen before another election cycle comes up and the GOP nominates Ted Nugent or some damn fool, and so much of the country is so desperate that no one can stop them and America simply collapses. Like Britain.
posted by Naberius at 9:56 AM on June 29, 2016 [29 favorites]

then yeah all of those are super-common and super-compatible with capitalism.

I think there was an article linked before about how since Trump is from the real estate development world his perspective of capitalism and business is completely zero sum, which happens, of course, but isn't the only way things occur. In theory and usually in reality "good deals" happen when all parties are better off because the pie grows, not because one party gains and the other loses.
posted by FJT at 9:58 AM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]

I think Trump surrounds himself with so many yes-men that his vision of reality is growing increasingly more warped and narcissistic.

When Trump loses (or God forbid wins), the competition for Greatest Donald Trump/Hitler Reacts Downfall Meme is going to be absolutely epic.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:58 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Castro is a rising star, but the limits for a Democrat on the TX cursus honorum have limited him, and he's been quiet at HUD.

Gabbard has two issues - she has a past of having more right wing views, and she was one of the people who hitched their wagon to Sanders' star firmly, jumping ship from the DNC to do so.

Kennedy's well...a Kennedy, for good and ill. Seems to have picked up the better parts of that heritage, though.

Raimondo - no. Just no. She practically defines "DINO", which is par for RI.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:00 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

A lot of at-the-time Sanders supporters were critical of Warren for not endorsing Sanders during the primary. In their perspective it's an outright betrayal

A friend of mine is a self-described Marxist who has generally positive feelings about Jerry Brown and Bernie Sanders but dislikes Clinton. When Brown endorsed Clinton he could not wrap his head around it. "Maybe she's going to give him a cabinet position."

It did not occur to him that there might actually be reasons why accomplished politicians, people who actually get things done in the government, might have a look at Sanders' record, his stated goals, and his absolute dearth of ways to accomplish them (Break up the banks! How? I don't know. Why? Because they're bad and unfair) and conclude that Clinton is the better bet for moving the country leftward from the executive office. I mean, this is a campaign which has made single-payer healthcare a core message, but apparently does not employ anybody familiar enough with healthcare in America to know what we spend on drugs every year. If anybody in Sanders' org had even the most basic familiarity with that very important number, they never would have issued a proposal that claimed to save more money on medication than the country actually spends.

I think it's incredibly telling that basically none of his colleagues are endorsing Sanders -- his endorsements are almost entirely from entertainers (a group in which I include your Cornwell Wests and HA Goodmans). But for the true believers it's not an indication that there might be problems with his fitness for the office, it's just further evidence that he's the one! true! savior!

It really is a cult of personality.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:01 AM on June 29, 2016 [37 favorites]

The platform could get pretty wild eyed if Sanders somehow manages to exert influence at the convention. Just making a spectacle I think would be damage enough.

Sanders isn't a "wild-eyed" socialist, he's a mainstream social democrat of the type the financial industry and corporate world have been working alongside for decades in the rest of the world. Compared to a guy who's promising to make their work a million times more difficult in almost every conceivable way, I doubt that the damage would be severe even if Clinton implemented his entire platform unchanged.

I'm beginning to think that, at this point, the only people that believe Sanders is a massively destabilizing force are the idiot extremists on both sides that think (or hope) that he'll seize the means of production and oil the machines with the blood of the bourgeoisie.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:01 AM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]

Cronyism is a way of getting things done, not a philosophy of government. There's no reason why any particular society wouldn't suffer from it. (Especially given that the line between cronyism and networking remains tenuous.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:02 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

I have zero problems with what Sanders is doing. The left/progressives/liberals in this country need to get over the idea that political engagement begins and ends with supporting the Democratic candidate in the General election. Sanders is mobilizing an army of young activists to both influence the Democratic platform in July but also, and more importantly, continue to work to elect like minded candidates after the Presidential election is over. It might not work, but I am glad someone is trying to do it.

As for the present election, Clinton doesn't need another surrogate against Trump. Elizabeth Warren is already doing a good job, and hell, even members of the Republican establishment who don't like Trump are willing to pitch in.

Also, I doubt Sanders suddenly turning into a Clinton attack dog would convince the portion of his supporters who don't like Clinton to suddenly support her. The best way to convince those individuals to support Clinton is to convince them that a vote for Clinton is tactical vote in the service of their goals.

Tactical voters is probably a good description of many Democractic voters, even if they don't realize it. In a country with a parliament, Sanders voters would be able to vote for a political party that would form a coalition government with Clinton's wing of the party. Our political system doesn't allow that opportunity.
posted by eagles123 at 10:02 AM on June 29, 2016 [14 favorites]

Sure, the DNC will have two Presidents appearing, but will it have Mikes Tyson and Ditka like the Trumpaplooza? Put Mike on stage with a chair and there's no telling what he'll say to it!

And Trump might be a capitalist, but he seems like the kind of capitalist only a marxist could love.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:02 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

One of my friends who voted for Bernie in the primary, as I did, is scaring me on Facebook by posting these, to me, anti-productive rants asking how she is supposed to simply give up all of her values to vote for Clinton. I hate sore losers. It's one thing to have an election stolen, and we all know what I'm talking about. But Bernie is not the presumptive nominee and this bullshit about taking your ball and going home drives me crazy. We have got to overturn Citizens United, and that will not happen if Bernie supporters stay home and sulk in the corner. Or worse, demand that everybody stays home and sulks in the corner. This may be the most important presidential election in my lifetime, given the Republican nominee. Sure, the Democratic Party is the compromised, corrupt institution sucking from the corporate tit. We totally need to fix that. Like, after kicking Trump's ass. I really hope Democrats and progressives can pull together on this one and get rid of the rancor in a hurry. Or rather, put it on hold until after November.
posted by Bella Donna at 10:08 AM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]

I just want to say that if we need a Kickstarter or something to get a Game Change-style recounting of the Trump campaign, I'm good for at least a few hundred dollars. It would be fucking amazing and would probably win a Pulitzer Prize for Fiction despite being real.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:12 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

Can we stop using the pejorative "$hillary", even ironically? For one thing, it's not cool, and for another, it's giving me Perl flashbacks.
posted by a car full of lions at 10:13 AM on June 29, 2016 [39 favorites]

Garcetti, if he can keep everything running smoothly here in L.A., is definitely a democrat to watch. He's Mexican, Jewish and Italian. His great-grandfather, a judge, was hung during the Mexican Revolution. He speaks fluent Spanish, his father was also the Los Angeles County DA forever and has really incredible name recognition. That said, keeping L.A. running smoothly is not an enviable task, but I think Eric could potentially go very far in the democratic party. Recently, he was on Chris Hayes show on MSNBC talking about the drought, and I felt like he was definitely working toward something other than his next term as mayor.
posted by Sophie1 at 10:14 AM on June 29, 2016

Re the "Young Democrats To Watch" article, I'm just impressed in a "knew him when" kind of way about Hakeem Jeffries making the list. I remember when he was first running for NY state assembly in my district, shaking hands outside my subway station! Go Hakeem!

Their point about him not fitting neatly into any particular box is on point. When the Atlantic Yards project was the new thing everybody in brownstone Brooklyn was pissed about, I don't remember ever seeing him speak at any of those rallies. (Though I guess it's possible that the footprint of that project was just outside his district?) He's definitely more in the model of HRC or pre-scandal Anthony Weiner than your Zephyr Teachouts and such. But I'm happy to hear that he's getting involved in police brutality issues and has a strong track record against Stop-And-Frisk and prison population based gerrymandering.
posted by Sara C. at 10:15 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

but will it have Mikes Tyson and Ditka like the Trumpaplooza?

I believe the RNC has denied the Ditka/Tyson/other sports figures rumors (for the moment, anyway). No telling who they will end up with.
posted by yhbc at 10:15 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

One of my friends who voted for Bernie in the primary, as I did, is scaring me on Facebook by posting these, to me, anti-productive rants asking how she is supposed to simply give up all of her values to vote for Clinton.

A lot of people have this weird view of voting as being some kind of manifestation of their innermost moral will, in an almost religious sort of way, such that you should only vote for a candidate if they're exactly the candidate you want, as if voting for a candidate who is less than perfect or ideal stains you morally. (It ties in with personal purity narratives of morality, to which of course I'm unsympathetic. )I wish we could vaccinate against this, but I'm not sure how to do that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:16 AM on June 29, 2016 [56 favorites]

rants asking how she is supposed to simply give up all of her values to vote for Clinton

Ask her to list which specific values she would have to give up, and exactly how her values conflict with those of Clinton.

Though even that is silly, since of course the term "values" is a lot mushier than something like "policies" or "goals" or "record on the issues".
posted by Sara C. at 10:18 AM on June 29, 2016 [16 favorites]

I just want to say that if we need a Kickstarter or something to get a Game Change-style recounting of the Trump campaign

I pretty much guarantee every major publisher will be paying top dollar to secure book deals from Trump campaign insiders. There will be no need for crowdfunding.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:18 AM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]

2016 is a reminder that the Left is not unified and never will be, except snarking in comment threads under a right-wing government.
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:20 AM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

Sure, the Democratic Party is the compromised, corrupt institution sucking from the corporate tit. We totally need to fix that. Like, after kicking Trump's ass.

A three sentence demonstration of the problem with the two-team sport that is the US presidential election.

We've totally got to overhaul our party... just...later... after we get to see them win this one next time.

Rinse. Repeat. And later becomes never.
posted by -1 at 10:21 AM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]

Can we stop with the Bernie v Hillary stuff and spend more time mocking how Trump is actively soliciting money from foreign nationals, including every member of Iceland's Parliament?
posted by TwoStride at 10:24 AM on June 29, 2016 [21 favorites]

In a country with a parliament, Sanders voters would be able to vote for a political party that would form a coalition government with Clinton's wing of the party. Our political system doesn't allow that opportunity.

I think our system is better in that regard, because it forces the deals to be made before people go to the polls, not after.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:25 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

That Buzzfeed letter reads so much like a Trump speech.
posted by ethansr at 10:25 AM on June 29, 2016

I pretty much guarantee every major publisher will be paying top dollar to secure book deals from Trump campaign insiders. There will be no need for crowdfunding.

Apparently Harper Collins offered Lewandowsky $1.2M but the deal fell apart when he would not show them his NDA with Trump
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:25 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

In a country with a parliament, Sanders voters would be able to vote for a political party that would form a coalition government with Clinton's wing of the party. Our political system doesn't allow that opportunity.

Sure it does; it's just that our political system has coalitions form before the election.
posted by Gelatin at 10:27 AM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

2016 is a reminder that the Left is not unified and never will be, except snarking in comment threads under a right-wing government.

Part of the problem is the assumption of commonality between the Democratic Party and the Left. We're not the same, even if we sometimes have certain common goals and common interests. We can work together, but the demand that the Democrats do what socialists say as though they owe it to us is every bit as weird and misinformed as the demand that socialists owe the Democrats our allegiance.

We can work together sometimes, and I think it's obscenely foolish to ignore the harm reduction in (in the realm of electoral politics) backing the Dems over the Republicans. But the idea that we're a subset of the Democrats, or that either side owes the other anything, is foolish and won't lead to political insight or effective policy.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:28 AM on June 29, 2016 [17 favorites]

I think our system is better in that regard, because it forces the deals to be made before people go to the polls, not after.

Doesn't that mean such deals are often opaque though and possibly not accountable to the voters, since there is no formal system for deal-making?
posted by kyp at 10:28 AM on June 29, 2016

Try reading the BuzzFeed letter in Mark Wahlberg's voice. Perfect, right?
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:29 AM on June 29, 2016

The deals are opaque and not accountable to the voters in a parliamentary system too. Nick Clegg will explain it to you in song form.
posted by zachlipton at 10:30 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Pretty damn telling that you've got facism on one side and a woman on the other and there's a question of how some people are going to vote.
posted by Mooski at 10:30 AM on June 29, 2016 [72 favorites]

women to the left of me
fascists to the right
here I am stuck in the middle with you
posted by murphy slaw at 10:34 AM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]

I voted for Sanders in the primary and I still wish he had won even though there was never really a point at which I actually believed that he would. And while I'm not so thrilled with the choices he and his campaign have made towards the end, but what really depresses and frustrates me is how quickly the media and Clinton supporters want to throw him under the bus.

I believe his campaign did significantly shift the national conversation further to the left. So what if he's going for a "floor fight?" Hillary will win the nomination either way. Does that mean the conversation needs to stop? This idea that political competitions should be run and covered like sports, with
clear victors and losers only hurts the democratic process. Sanders does not need to support Hillary simply because she won.

And to there are/were differences between the candidates. People generally supported who the supported for, I assume until proven otherwise, perfectly valid reasons.

This whole election cycle has been so draining and depressing. With a whole lot of useless bullshit coming from both the Sanders and Clinton side.

And because it seems to be required of all Sanders supporters that choose to express frustration and concern about the state of American politics and democracy, I will be voting for Clinton in the general.
posted by AtoBtoA at 10:35 AM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]

If you focus on the picture used in this TPM article you can see the sphere of Trump’s head hiding beneath that massive comb-over. Don’t start too hard though, or the void will stare back.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:36 AM on June 29, 2016

*cuts off a superdelegate's ear while dancing*
posted by delfin at 10:36 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Don’t start too hard though, or the void will stare back.

brrrr that is the most unsettling picture of his hair I have yet seen

it's like the branch that hovers in front of The Beast's face in The Magicians
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:42 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Pretty damn telling that you've got facism on one side and a woman on the other and there's a question of how some people are going to vote.

The DC direct-market comic book series Sonic Disruptors from the late eighties had a fascists Trump-like blowhard take power to save America from a woman president. The solution was Rock and Roll.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:44 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Jonathan Martin: Plagiarized Lessons and Deceptive Tactics: A Look Inside the Trump Institute

As with Trump University, the Trump Institute promised falsely that its teachers would be handpicked by Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump did little, interviews show, besides appear in an infomercial — one that promised customers access to his vast accumulated knowledge. “I put all of my concepts that have worked so well for me, new and old, into our seminar,” he said in the 2005 video, adding, “I’m teaching what I’ve learned.”

Reality fell far short. In fact, the institute was run by a couple who had run afoul of regulators in dozens of states and been dogged by accusations of deceptive business practices and fraud for decades. Similar complaints soon emerged about the Trump Institute.

Yet there was an even more fundamental deceit to the business, unreported until now: Extensive portions of the materials that students received after forking over their seminar fees, supposedly containing Mr. Trump’s special wisdom, had been plagiarized from an obscure real estate manual published a decade earlier.

posted by zombieflanders at 10:46 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

88 people

I noticed that just after you did. Bizarre.
posted by corb at 10:47 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

the Trump Institute promised falsely that its teachers would be handpicked by Mr. Trump

this was a selling point? and not a threat? what
posted by poffin boffin at 10:47 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

Sanders does not need to support Hillary simply because she won.

He doesn't, but endorsing Hillary Clinton does no harm to him, his supporters, or his movement. It makes zero sense why he's lollygagging on the endorsement.
posted by FJT at 10:52 AM on June 29, 2016 [17 favorites]

like imagine, just imagine the kind of people he thinks are worth listening to. it's himself and who else? prolly anyone who gives him money or attention, maybe hitler, idk.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:56 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

“I’m teaching what I’ve learned.” ... the institute was run by a couple who had run afoul of regulators in dozens of states and been dogged by accusations of deceptive business practices and fraud for decades.

Sounds to me like he delivered on his promises.
posted by metaBugs at 10:58 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

As many have observed, Trump is a symptom, not the disease itself. Even if Trump is defeated this year, others will carry the torch of xenophobic ethnic nationalism. Stephen Miller might run for President in 2028. Imagine someone eloquent and genuinely skilled at public speaking with Trump's philosophy of hatred.
posted by stolyarova at 11:00 AM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]

Of course, maybe I'm scared of nothing. Maybe it's like pornography, where Trump's lower-resolution, Rorschach-blot kind of speech is more palatable than ultra-high-resolution articulation of the same ideas.

But the way he's shifting the Overton Window makes me suspect we'll see a rise of more explicit "race realism" in the next ten to twenty years.
posted by stolyarova at 11:02 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

I dunno if there's an Overton Window in the U.S. anymore. You've got at least two windows nowadays, and the people looking out of them see completely different countries and have two completely different sets of acceptable political discourse.
posted by clawsoon at 11:05 AM on June 29, 2016 [41 favorites]

It makes zero sense why he's lollygagging on the endorsement.

Messiah complex.
posted by box at 11:06 AM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

Sure it does; it's just that our political system has coalitions form before the election.

We have people in this very thread arguing that over whether there actually is a difference between the views of Sanders and Clinton (for the record there is - Clinton herself will tell you as much). Given the relative disengagement of the American voter, I don't think the ad hoc coalition building that occurs within American political parties gives voters the same sense of being represented by their vote as a system where voters have the opportunity to vote for parties that more closely align with their views.

That being said, this is a weird side discussion because we aren't switching to a parliamentary democracy in my lifetime.

Sanders problem isn't that he's a mainstream social democrat of the type the financial industry and corporate world have been working alongside for decades in the rest of the world (never mind that the US isn't the rest of the world). It's that his proposals are hopeful at best. It's that, even if his ideas were completely mainstream *here in the US*, he'd still be a cranky, finger-wagging old coot who seems to have gotten a snoot full of himself and took it to mean something more than it does. His motivation at this point seems to be to make sure he can still hear his own fiery voice in the election coverage, not making sure that Trump goes down in flames.

There are some of us who want Sander's platform to become part of the mainstream of U.S. political discourse. Sanders is currently supporting candidates who agree with him and his supporters are trying to build a movement that will elect like minded candidates in future elections. Hopefully those efforts will shift the political conversation to the left so that Sander's ideas won't be outside of the mainstream anymore because there will an infrastructure to support them.

Moreover, Sanders himself has said he will vote for Hillary Clinton, and he does often attack Trump. I'm not sure what more people want.
posted by eagles123 at 11:09 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

Couple more comments removed. Folks, really really please make an effort to not just fall into whatever your personal reflexive grump-about-Sanders/Hillary mode is, it's not adding anything to the conversation. ZenMasterThis, you in particular have been grinding your beef pretty hard in here today and you need to cut it out immediately if you don't want me to cut it out for you.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:10 AM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

I'm not sure what message Trump thinks we're supposed to take away from that.

The same one as when he gave a speech in front of a giant pile of garbage? I kept waiting for them to set it on fire.

I thought about an FPP but this works here: A Child's First Book of Trump.
posted by emjaybee at 11:12 AM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm not seeing any rage in here, Slap*Happy, just frustration.
posted by stolyarova at 11:15 AM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm not sure what message Trump thinks we're supposed to take away from that.

Isn't it obvious? The poll has Trump's name in it! HIS name! It's about HIM, which means it's huge, a quality poll! What more could he want?
posted by happyroach at 11:16 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

> No fan of the GOP here, but every person with a security clearance whom I've spoken with has told me they would be fired and imprisoned for Hillary's level of email fuckery.

Of course that's what people with a security clearance say. Cops tend to think a certain way, too; doesn't make it right, or even endurable for those not obsessed by fantasies of total control.

(Not cop-hating here; every profession has its professional outlook, and that of cops and other badge-wielding gun-carriers is one of the absolute necessity of control = law and order, something civilians just can't understand. That doesn't make them vicious or unable to do their necessary work, but it needs to be taken into account. Similarly for people with a security clearance, who tend to wind up with a security clearance because they've bought into the vital importance of security = secret information that if the little people only knew it would make them fall into line like they should. I often wonder how they deal with the fact that our security apparatus was hopelessly compromised by the Soviets for decades and yet nothing terrible came of it and we wound up "winning" anyway.)
posted by languagehat at 11:20 AM on June 29, 2016 [31 favorites]

The DC direct-market comic book series Sonic Disruptors from the late eighties had a fascists Trump-like blowhard take power to save America from a woman president. The solution was Rock and Roll.

Sonic Disruptors also bears distinction as being the only miniseries DC Comics ever cancelled before it was completed.
posted by mightygodking at 11:30 AM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

There are some of us who want Sander's platform to become part of the mainstream of U.S. political discourse. Sanders is currently supporting candidates who agree with him and his supporters are trying to build a movement that will elect like minded candidates in future elections. Hopefully those efforts will shift the political conversation to the left so that Sander's ideas won't be outside of the mainstream anymore because there will an infrastructure to support them.

Sanders is currently supporting a candidate who is anti-choice. As a woman who is committed to the idea that I am fully, 100% human, that's not a direction in which I want the conversation shifted.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:33 AM on June 29, 2016 [58 favorites]

Yeah, I don't feel We The Sanders Supporters really have claim at this point on being the left, or more progressive, or whatever, given those anti choice endorsements, his strange comments after the Orlando shooting, etc.

Also the convention should be a time for the party to come together, not for Sanders supporters to turn their back on Clinton while she speaks or whatever else.
posted by zutalors! at 11:37 AM on June 29, 2016 [20 favorites]

He'll endorse during or after the convention. He's stated all along he's going to take his campaign to the convention, and now he's doing so to move the party more firmly to the left, and spotlight issues important to his voters and downticket candidates. Why is this such a surprise? Why is this so enraging? I really don't get it.

Politicians often “state things all along” about their run until they don’t - it’s part of the theater of the campaign, and part of being able to be inspiring. (“I’ll run until I lose” is a self-fulfilling prophecy.) A candidate saying they are going to take things to the convention is fine until it’s suddenly certain that the candidate has lost, and then they are expected to change. It’s fine if Sanders pulls to the left for down-ticket races, but his inability to concede the reality of what has occurred -to even eat that modest amount of crow- seems like the height of being a sore loser.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:39 AM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

I've really come to the conclusion that while Bernie might care about Black people or Women or whomever his feelings concerning the economic issues he wants addressed simply make anything resembling being progressive on women's issues or minority issues pretty much insignificant in comparison.

For people that are getting tired of white guys explaining to them why Y isn't a focus because X is the more critical issue it's gotten really fucking tiresome. It's always back of the line when someone white and male comes up with something new to worry about.
posted by vuron at 11:43 AM on June 29, 2016 [36 favorites]

Moreover, Sanders himself has said he will vote for Hillary Clinton, and he does often attack Trump. I'm not sure what more people want.

I guess I just wonder why Sanders is making it a sticking point. Given that I don't doubt that he supports Clinton (for some value of "support"), don't doubt that he'll work to defeat Trump, and don't think that an endorsement/lack thereof will have much effect on his ability to get a platform he wants, why not endorse the presumptive candidate, if for no other reason than that any politician would seem to prefer the kind of media coverage that comes with "Opponent supports candidate" over "Why doesn't opponent support candidate?" What does he gain by withholding his endorsement?

It all begins to look more like a "You're not the Boss of me I'll do it when I'm good and ready" thing than any tactical plan—and I say that as a Sanders voter who voted for him in part because he seemed much more savy than a mere "message" candidate.

I hope I'm adding to the conversation. Don't cut me, cortex. Please.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:44 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Of course that's what people with a security clearance say. Cops tend to think a certain way, too; doesn't make it right, or even endurable for those not obsessed by fantasies of total control.

Are you saying that they are wrong that they would be in huge trouble? Or that they simply don't understand the big picture and why the law wouldn't be applied equally?
posted by cell divide at 11:46 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sanders is currently supporting a candidate who is anti-choice.

I was really surprised when I found out about this, but in retrospect I shouldn't have been.

Sanders has said (or heavily implied) that women's and minority issues are a distraction from the "real issue" of economic justice.

For those that want more Marxists in office: this is what real, doctrinaire Marxism looks like. Women will have unlimited rights over their bodes *after* the Revolution, comrade!
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 11:48 AM on June 29, 2016 [41 favorites]

Hey, the 538 forecast tool is finally live!
posted by nicepersonality at 11:49 AM on June 29, 2016 [20 favorites]

Meanwhile, in Bernie-endorsement news, Zephyr Teachout just won the #NY19 Democratic primary:

Zephyr Teachout 2.0: A great Democratic hope for the fall - Politico

Lucy Flores (#NV04) and Eric Kingston (#NY24) lost in their respective primaries.
posted by kyp at 11:50 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

nicepersonality: "Hey, the 538 forecast tool is finally live!"

And it's currently giving Hillary an 80.6% chance of winning. I like those odds.
posted by octothorpe at 11:55 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

He's stated all along he's going to take his campaign to the convention, and now he's doing so to move the party more firmly to the left, and spotlight issues important to his voters and downticket candidates. Why is this such a surprise? Why is this so enraging? I really don't get it.

I would be fine with Sanders spotlighting issues important to his voters and downticket candidates.

But his campaign continues to be focused on convincing his followers that anyone who doesn’t support him is a bad person. In the previous thread somebody shared an email from his campaign that said “our delegates are not wealthy campaign contributors. They're not party insiders or establishment elites. They're working folks” — the obvious implication being that the other delegates ARE wealthy, establishment, insider elites.

The only reason to include that kind of language in your campaign mailing is to make your supporters feel superior to and dislike the other candidates supporters. Its very aim is to pit members of the same party against each other.

That’s not “A $15 minimum wage is ambitious and some worry that we can’t get it through congress, or that it will ultimately be bad for the economy, but here’s why that’s not true.” It’s “this campaign is us against them” — and the them isn’t even people who want to keep money in politics! Overturning Citizens United has been one of Clinton’s talking points since before she announced, and it's one that is extremely important to many of her supporters.

That’s the part that pisses me off. What he’s doing isn’t useful. It’s not helping the party meaningfully move leftward because he’s not even addressing the reasons some of his positions are ambitious. It’s just giving his supporters a false narrative that the whole rest of the party doesn’t care about their interests.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:56 AM on June 29, 2016 [38 favorites]

Hopefully those efforts will shift the political conversation to the left so that Sander's ideas won't be outside of the mainstream anymore because there will an infrastructure to support them.

Y'know, there's a lot of Sanders voters who are actually pretty upset at assumptions like this about said infrastructure. One of them is my father, a veteran of organizing and campaigning for leftist candidates and causes since before Sanders ever held elected office. He found it frustrating that Sanders and his campaign team squandered dozens of opportunities for months on end, sometimes incorrectly (whether by design or not) blaming them on the structure of the Democratic Party. For example, Sanders shouldn't have waited until last week--long after the primaries began, let alone the point they needed to apply to be on ballots--to make a strong push for his supporters to run for office. On multiple occasions his team couldn't get organized before caucuses or state conventions, and then complained about it as if it was all the Evil Clinton Machine at work.

People like my father want someone like Sanders to win. They want his ideas to be the foundation of a new direction for the party. They want changes to how elections are conducted. But they also want someone who can run a decently-competent campaign, and who doesn't let some of the most horrible of his supporters (like Weaver) be the ones who run the show. In a way, Sanders lucked out immensely that the other side was and is a clown-car that is on fire and driven by lunatics, because this might end up being a fluke. Hell, it might not even lose the Republicans the White House, and it certainly won't lose them control in the states and local legislatures where Sanders and his campaign* could have spent the last year working diligently to foster talent.

* Although, to be fair, Clinton and the DNC are guilty as shit in this respect as well.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:57 AM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]

Feeling kinda sick right now.
Passed a car on Aurora Ave in Seattle. Driver was a white dude with a greying mullet and a red "Make America Great Again" ball cap, which is how I know his rear window sticker wasn't meant to be ironic.

It said, "Trump*Cosby 2016."

Someone is actually printing and selling that shit. And people buy it and display it.
This election is fucking awful.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:09 PM on June 29, 2016 [26 favorites]

Hey, the 538 forecast tool is finally live!

And it’s currently giving Hillary an 80.6% chance of winning. I like those odds.

Esme Cribb at Talking Points Memo: “Fool Me Twice: Trump Continues Streak Of Tweeting Polls That Show Him Trailing”
posted by Going To Maine at 12:10 PM on June 29, 2016

Kind of wondering what epithet Trump is planning for Nate Silver…
posted by Going To Maine at 12:11 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

FJT: " It makes zero sense why he's lollygagging on the endorsement."

Ok. So one other half-baked theory I've been thinking about is trying to understand how and why certain politicians do the things they do. For my own sanity, I've sometimes found it helpful to orient my understanding of these public figures around certain archetypes.

For example, when I couldn't figure out why Obama was seemingly wasting so much time reaching out to congressional Republicans during his first term, especially when he had congressional majorities and the Republicans had openly declared that their main goal was to ensure that he was a one-term president. Then, I recalled some article(s) (probably the early New Yorker profile, though I'm not sure) that outlined a couple of key moments in his career up to that point: his tenure as president of the Harvard Law Review and his time in the Illinois senate. In the first case, he managed to somehow bring together (and/or appease) the different liberal and conservative factions within the Review to preside over a surprisingly orderly and non-contentious term. Similarly, in the Illinois senate, I think his signature achievement was to getting a gun control bill passed with bi-partisan (!) support by bringing enough Republicans over to his side. Looking at these events, together with his experience as a community organizer, it was to easy for me to slot Obama into an archetype of a bridge-builder. His first move is to try to bring together opposing groups, even if it seems hopeless.

As for Sanders, I look back at what he was doing for CORE and SNCC in Chicago. His work there was largely dominated by direct action (e.g.: sit-ins, demonstrations, pickets) and fiery denunciations. Even through his congressional career, his biggest moves have been protest votes and filibusters, not passing signature legislation or political horse-trading. He seemed to have relished his role as an outsider even from within Congress. So, for Bernie, I think of him as typifying a firebrand. His mode of getting things done is by making big, dramatic, and sometimes symbolic gestures to shake up the opposition and the status quo (often one and the same). Given this (again, totally simplistic) framework, his actions with respect to Clinton and the DNC make a little more sense. When you're most proficient as a protestor, it may be a little harder to shift into negotiator mode.

Now, of course, a lot of this is probably nothing more than post facto rationalization. Most glaringly, I have no idea what kind of archetype to slot Hillary Clinton into, despite the fact that she's been in the public eye for over 25 years. Of course, some of that is due to the fact that the (probably) most significant events in her political life were things that happened to her (and her husband), not things that she herself did -- the vast right-wing conspiracy, Arkansas Project stuff (e.g.: Whitewater, Vince Foster was murdered, Travelgate, etc..) and the Lewinsky affair and subsequent impeachment. Leaving those things aside, I'd probably want to further understand what kinds of lessons she drew from the defeat of her health care proposal (a public option! in 1993!).
posted by mhum at 12:11 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

Hey, the 538 forecast tool is finally live!

Oddly enough, the polling averages for NC are (just barely) favoring Clinton, yet they've got it shaded pink. I assume this is a combination of polling trends and historical data and etc, but I thought I'd point it out anyway.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:22 PM on June 29, 2016

mhum: Leaving those things aside, I'd probably want to further understand what kinds of lessons she drew from the defeat of her health care proposal (a public option! in 1993!).

There was an interesting article linked in one of the thousands of previous comments in one of the many previous threads that made a case for the defeat of Hillary's healthcare proposal in 1993 as a defining moment for her. If I'm remembering the narrative correctly, she was quietly approached by the health insurance industry to tone it down a bit, she refused and believed in The Power of the People, and then the health insurance industry crushed her with ads like Harry and Louise. She's been loathe to take on the power of money, or to encourage others to dream that dream, since then.
posted by clawsoon at 12:25 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

And it's currently giving Hillary an 80.6% chance of winning. I like those odds.

And closest races include SC, GA, MS and AZ. That's interesting.

showbiz_liz, I see NC as pale blue (59% Clinton)
posted by Rumple at 12:28 PM on June 29, 2016

Sanders clearly isn't trying to pull the party to the right on abortion. I don't agree with that representative's views on abortion either, but its clearly untrue that the focus of Sander's campaign is to pull the Democrats to the right on abortion. From the beginning his focus has been to pull the party to the left on economic, issues, environmental issues, and the influence on money in politics. I think its fair to criticize him for his messaging outside of those areas, but its clearly untrue that he is trying to pull the party to the right.

Besides, Kaptur has been in congress since 1983 as a Democrat. I'm sure she's been endorsed by many national democrats during that time. Treating Sander's support of her as somehow indicative of his overall platform is simply dishonest. I don't know of any other way to put it. If supporting Kaptur is problematic, you might as well criticize every other Democratic, from Clinton (either one) to Obama.

Look, I'm not trying to turn this into a Bernie vs Hillary thing. I plan on voting for Clinton in the fall. I have been all along. I've was surprised by how well Sanders did. I just think its important, for the future health of the United States, for Democrats and people in general to not dismiss Sanders and his supporters as personality cultists or some other form of asshole. Just because someone might want Sanders to try and pull the party to the left (on most issues) and not have a problem if he doesn't spend 100 percent of the time attacking Trump (or whoever the current big Republican bad is) doesn't mean that person also doesn't think its important for Clinton to beat that big Republican bad, or that person hates Clinton, or whatever. Basically, what I am asking for is at least some recognition that politics isn't just some gigantic sporting event or reality TV show where concepts like "sore losers" have any kind of meaning and everyone has to be cast as either a hero or villain.

Since 2010, the Democrats have suffered unprecedented losses in Congress and at the state level. The party has serious problems mobilizing people, especially young people, to vote. Rather than expressing frustration at a candidate who managed to garner unprecedented support from young people and mobilize hundreds of thousands of, mostly young, volunteers, Democrats should be trying to understand why that candidate was able to do what he did. I don't think millennials voted for Sanders in unprecedented numbers because they had a deep desire to vote for an old white guy. There is far more to be said about, and drawn from the Sanders campaign, than "lol Berniebro" or "lol personality cultist". Such attacks amount to slurs against people who are clearly the future of the Democratic party.

Is Sanders perfect? No, I would never say that. Has his campaign been perfect? No, clearly not. Has he made mistakes? I would say so. But then again, who hasn't? Nobody is perfect, and I think Sanders, warts and all, still has value and will continue to have value for as long as he chooses to serve as politician.

To summarize, I object 100 percent to the impulse to bury one of the few progressive politicians in this country (like I said, Republicans control most branches of government). I also object 100 percent to the impulse to write off the concerns of the people supporting him. Basically, its possible to believe all of these things: (a) Sanders isn't perfect, (b) Clinton isn't perfect, (c) Clinton is the rightful Democratic nominee, (d) Sanders has a right to fight for the views of himself and his supporters, (e) its important for Clinton to win in November, and (f) its important to the future health of both the country and the Democratic party for the effort to reform the Democratic party and push it to the left that Sanders is a part of to succeed. All of these things are true.

This is the last I'll post about this. Like I said, I don't want to contribute to just making this a thread about Sanders versus Clinton. I consider myself a supporter of both politicians, actually. I think they both have something positive to contribute. Its that when the first few posts consist of attacks against Sanders and his supporters, its hard not to respond. I also think the internal dynamics of the Democratic party, like it or not, are going to be an important feature of the coming election, as well as future elections.
posted by eagles123 at 12:33 PM on June 29, 2016 [28 favorites]

Hey, the 538 forecast tool is finally live!

Missouri R+1
Arizona D+1
Georgia R+2

That should absolutely scare the shit out of the Republicans. Arizona is officially in play thanks to the human cheeto.
posted by Talez at 12:33 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

showbiz_liz, I see NC as pale blue (59% Clinton)

Ah - it's different in 'polls' and 'polls plus'
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:37 PM on June 29, 2016

To summarize, I object 100 percent to the impulse to bury one of the few progressive politicians in this country

He's already dug the hole, jumped in, and is frantically trying to bury himself without any help from the outside. The question is should we try to stop him, and the more he drags this out, the less sanguine I am about him being an agent of progressive change after November, and the more I'm inclined to tell him he can keep the shovel.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:43 PM on June 29, 2016 [13 favorites]

That should absolutely scare the shit out of the Republicans.

I think most of them have no shits left to scare out. Trump looks absolutely unelectable at this point.
posted by Devonian at 12:44 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

And closest races include SC, GA, MS and AZ. That's interesting.

Trump did say that he was going to put traditional strongholds in play.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:46 PM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]

"Trump*Cosby 2016."

Someone is actually printing and selling that shit. And people buy it and display it.

I drove past a pickup this morning that had 'Killary For Prison 2016' written on it, plus a sticker that said 'Too Many Liberals, Not Enough Bullets' and almost rear-ended the guy in front of me while my brain tried to parse out the logic of the truck owner's moral code. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by robocop is bleeding at 12:47 PM on June 29, 2016 [19 favorites]

That should absolutely scare the shit out of the Republicans.

I think most of them have no shits left to scare out. Trump looks absolutely unelectable at this point.

Ahem! The model clearly says he is 20% electable.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:49 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Besides, Kaptur has been in congress since 1983 as a Democrat. I'm sure she's been endorsed by many national democrats during that time. Treating Sander's support of her as somehow indicative of his overall platform is simply dishonest. I don't know of any other way to put it. If supporting Kaptur is problematic, you might as well criticize every other Democratic, from Clinton (either one) to Obama.

Regardless of Kaptur's politics, she has, as you note, been in congress for more than thirty years. She won her last two elections by 50-some and 30-some points, respectively.

It's not that it's problematic in itself that Sanders has selected her as one of the relatively small number of candidates he is actively supporting, but rather that choosing to raise money for someone who doesn't actually need it is just plain dumb from a resource-allocation standpoint.

This dumbness is only compounded by the fact that he is at the same time sending out different fundraising emails harping on the fact that his supporters are so poor they can't afford to attend the convention.

Seriously--if they're that poor, stop fucking asking them to give money to candidates who aren't even in competitive races.
posted by dersins at 12:54 PM on June 29, 2016 [33 favorites]

There are quite a few prominent Republicans who are jumping ship this time around. Trump seems symptomatic of a final split between the Buchanon wing of the Republican party and the party's business wings. I think there is a decent chance that Gary Johnson might grab enough of the Republican presidential vote to tip things to the Democrats in some western states if his campaign takes off.

The current political balance in this country seems like a weird mirror image of the 70's and 80's. After 1968, the Democratic coalition came apart at the Presidential level, and Republicans won wide victories in Presidential elections. Nevertheless, the Democrats remained strong in congressional elections and elections at the state level.

Now it seems like the opposite is occurring.
posted by eagles123 at 12:54 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

Geez, you guys are being very harsh on Sanders.

You're new here, aren't you?
posted by vibrotronica at 12:55 PM on June 29, 2016 [14 favorites]

Trump looks absolutely unelectable at this point.

Perhaps we should actually be grateful for Trump. If it weren't for him, we might quite possibly be looking at President Ted Cruz, and then god help us all.

If nothing else, Trump's brought all the neo-nazis and racist monsters out from under the refrigerator of American culture, so now we know who they all are. I honestly believe we should build a monument to Trump, a long black wall like the Vietnam Memorial, except this will be the Trump Election Memorial. And it will list the name of every elected Republican official (are there any Democrats? Surely not.) who fell in line behind Donald Trump rather than renounce the party and relinquish their grip on personal power to save the country. We'll take our grandchildren to see it. And we'll tell them that when we stood at the brink of the abyss, and we all held our breath to see if America would survive or fall, these people failed the test, and it's our duty to always remember who they were. First name, obviously, will be Chris Christie.
posted by Naberius at 12:55 PM on June 29, 2016 [17 favorites]

Sanders clearly isn't trying to pull the party to the right on abortion.

Nobody is saying that, so you can stop beating on that strawman. What they are saying is that reproductive rights are not a major issue for him, and it's unlikely that he would be a major supporter of them.

Which is why Planned Parenthood and NARAL chose to back Clinton, who does have a long standing history of defending reproductive rights.

The problem there was that Sanders, instead of accepting that these progressive organizations were fully in their right to support the candidate that better aligned with their goals (and perhaps shift his position to make himself more palatable to them), he publicly attacked them for supporting Clinton over him. And we saw a further pattern with other progressive activists and their interactions with the Sanders campaign, of how they were expected to just support the campaign line.

Which comes back to the core issue with the Sanders campaign that has dogged it from the start - the myopic focus on economics. That, more than anything, is why he failed. And the constant refusal of the progressive left to recognize that there are other groups with their own focuses, and the demands that their positions are the important ones, is the reason so many people wind up looking askance at them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:56 PM on June 29, 2016 [34 favorites]

PredictWise is going with a 59% chance the Democrats retake the Senate!
posted by readery at 1:03 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well Predictwise was showing an 85% chance of a Remain victory the morning of the Brexit vote, so I've decided I'll take everything they say with a giant pinch of salt.
posted by peacheater at 1:07 PM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]

I'm not going to let myself get caught up in poll fever.
I'm not going to let myself get caught up in poll fever.
I'm not going to let myself get caught up in poll fever.
I'm not going to let myself get caught up in poll fever.
posted by bardophile at 1:11 PM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]

The Democrats should be able to retake the Senate because Republicans will be defending Senate seats in a lot of states that traditionally vote for Democrats at the presidential level and the increased turnout in presidential election years benefits Democrats.
posted by eagles123 at 1:11 PM on June 29, 2016

Remember when we were told to keep calm and trust Nate Silver? I still think we should, despite his miss on Trump being the nominee.
posted by zutalors! at 1:16 PM on June 29, 2016

The current political balance in this country seems like a weird mirror image of the 70's and 80's. After 1968, the Democratic coalition came apart at the Presidential level, and Republicans won wide victories in Presidential elections. Nevertheless, the Democrats remained strong in congressional elections and elections at the state level.

White nationalists and their enablers have always had a structural advantage in the lower house of Congress. They just switched their dance partner is all.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:18 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Democrats were dancing with white nationalists after 1968? What?
posted by zutalors! at 1:20 PM on June 29, 2016

No, they switched from the Dems.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:23 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Ahem! The model clearly says he is 20% electable.

Yeah, the problem is that the 20% of Trump that's electable is the R. Don't underestimate the willingness of people to hold their noses and say to themselves "At least he's not Hillary."
posted by Etrigan at 1:25 PM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]

My mechanic is in the "at least he's not Hillary" camp. He's a conservative Christian, and abortion and gun rights are his big issues. There's no convincing him not to vote for Trump.
posted by stolyarova at 1:27 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

True enough, but there may be some convincing voters like him to stay home, or to vote third party.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:30 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Also latent sexism. But that probably doesn't need a mention :(
posted by stolyarova at 1:30 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Guys I don't think we're going to get any debates this year

1. Trump knows that he can't do three 2-hour marathons of getting lectured to by a girl without losing his marbles
2. Says the lying media has it in for him and refuses to participate altogether or only under outrageous conditions
3. He's already refused to do several traditional-but-not-constitutionally-required campaign things (release tax information, stop running his businesses, etc) so really who's even counting anymore
4. Ten thinkpieces about how the debates were archaic political theater anyway and obsolete in this age of twitters
posted by theodolite at 1:31 PM on June 29, 2016 [16 favorites]

I think Trump would be wise not to debate, for all the reasons you mention.

Happily I think he has more hubris than wisdom.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:37 PM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

I honestly believe we should build a monument to Trump, a long black wall like the Vietnam Memorial, except this will be the Trump Election Memorial.

A field of Twitter eggs, surely, with a giant emoji eggplant in the middle.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:38 PM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

Trump: "There were the Walking Heads. What are they called, talking heads or walking heads? I call them walking heads."
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:39 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

4. Ten thinkpieces about how the debates were archaic political theater anyway and obsolete in this age of twitters

You are assuming that Trump has staffers who write think pieces.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:39 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Guys I don't think we're going to get any debates this year

Say it isn't so! My husband has been trying to talk me into buying a Hillary pantsuit so that we can play Hillary and Donald at our First General Election Debate Party 2016. We've been planning it for months!

(I'm actually not kidding about this. He really wants to don a Donald wig. I've been resistant. I'm more interested in pizza and cupcakes and trying not to hide, cringing behind various pillows and dogs.)
posted by Sophie1 at 1:39 PM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]

As far as I could tell, the problem Nate and Sam had with the Republican primary was that they didn't trust the aggregated polls. Nate argued that the Republican establishment or a gaf would derail Trump even when he was leading in the polling, and Sam argued that the supporters of the other Republican candidates would coalesce around an anti-Trump candidate once other candidates dropped out. Maybe that will happen in future primaries if/when Trump proves to be a disaster in November, but it didn't happen this time around.

I didn't follow it closely, but it looks like a similar thing happened with the Brexit vote. Polls consistently showed that the vote would be essentially too close to call until the day of, but it seems like people expected some sort of reversion to the status quo like what happened during the Scottish independence vote.

Democrats were dancing with white nationalists after 1968? What?

I think tivalasvegas is referring to the South switching from being solidly Democratic in congress and at the state level to being solidly Republican. Certainly the switch of the Dixiecrats from the Democrats to the Republicans played a part in that.

That being said, the South didn't switch from Republicans to Democrats in sufficient numbers to tip the balance in he House until 1994, 30 years after the passage of the civil rights act and 46 years after the initial split with the Dixiecrats in 1948. You even had odd holdouts like Zell Miller well into the 2000's.

There were other forces at work. The switch of white supremacists to the Republicans played a part, though.
posted by eagles123 at 1:40 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

1. Trump knows that he can't do three 2-hour marathons of getting lectured to by a girl without losing his marbles

On the other hand, Warren spending the next 4+ months holding a picture of Trump up to the news cameras while making chicken noises.

Either way he loses his shit.
posted by dersins at 1:41 PM on June 29, 2016 [32 favorites]

Tommy Wiseau chicken noises
posted by Countess Elena at 1:42 PM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

After watching Trump climb from a laughable one of the many to the one guy standing, I refuse to underestimate his chances in November. This is no year for complacency.
posted by jetsetsc at 1:43 PM on June 29, 2016 [38 favorites]

Countess Elena: "Tommy Wiseau chicken noises"

We will also accept Arrested Development chicken noises.
posted by mhum at 1:44 PM on June 29, 2016 [16 favorites]

If Trump tries to avoid any debates he will lose in a landslide. It's one thing to just kinda sorta not get around to releasing your medical and tax records. Only political wonks know that's a thing, and the only people it pisses off are people who wouldn't have voted for Trump anyway.

But the debates are a Thing. Especially since Trump was happy to debate other Republicans. At best, it will come off as highly unorthodox to longtime Republicans who were planning to hold their noses and vote. At worst, the Clinton campaign will spin it as Trump is a gigantic manbaby who is afraid to lose to a girl, and start making a real dent in his base.
posted by Sara C. at 1:45 PM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]

I agree. I think he'll debate, or at least commit to debates, but perform haphazardly, both in the debates and in the scheduling, with petulant last-minute pullouts and sudden demands. He'll probably get off some good lines that make his base cheer. Whatever he does won't hurt him with his base, because anything that looks bad will be the lamestream media's fault. But he will hopefully show his ass enough to convince some reluctant conservatives to vote third party or abstain.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:47 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Cleveland is sounding scary:

“This is a whole different animal from other political conventions,” he said, noting that typically, most RNC protesters come from the left. “The serious problems that you had in terms of any kind of disruption by and large came from the anarchists. Here you’ve got a big number that are coming from the right this time … it presents a different dynamic.”

Bresler noted that firearms will be allowed in the “event zone” because of Ohio’s status as an open carry state, even though other more mundane items will be banned — from water guns to tape to sleeping bags.

posted by octothorpe at 1:48 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

The NRA has released a pro-Trump Benghazi-themed ad . I'm increasingly confused about the use of Benghazi by the right wing. Is that really a winning issue for them? It seems like first degree choir preaching.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:49 PM on June 29, 2016

I don't think it's a winning issue for them, but I'm also not sure what are winning issues for them. What should they go with instead?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:51 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Bresler noted that firearms will be allowed in the “event zone” because of Ohio’s status as an open carry state, even though other more mundane items will be banned — from water guns to tape to sleeping bags.

Wow, if there's anything that sums up the insanity of American gun politics to me, it's this sentence.
posted by peacheater at 1:52 PM on June 29, 2016 [42 favorites]

Just want to go on record in encouraging corb to start a "Live! From Cleveland! Starring Corb!" thread once the convention hits the fan.
posted by SPrintF at 1:53 PM on June 29, 2016 [17 favorites]

If sleeping bags are outlawed, only outlaws will have sleeping bags.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:53 PM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]

Wait, so you can bring a real gun but not a water gun to the Republican national convention? But you could probably smuggle in a water gun if it looked enough like a real gun?

We live in interesting times.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:54 PM on June 29, 2016 [20 favorites]

I feel very happy to live thousands of miles from Cleveland.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:54 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Water guns don't dampen people. People dampen people.
posted by Sara C. at 1:55 PM on June 29, 2016 [52 favorites]

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a roll of tape is a good guy with a roll of tape.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:59 PM on June 29, 2016 [20 favorites]

Eeeeeew.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:59 PM on June 29, 2016

Considering that the Cleveland PD has a hard time distinguishing replica guns from real ones I think I might leave my water pistol at home regardless.
posted by murphy slaw at 2:00 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

god wtf is the convention theme IT'S HIIIIGH NOON
posted by poffin boffin at 2:01 PM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]

i fucking hate high nooning
posted by poffin boffin at 2:01 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

While it's so absurd it borders on funny, we're talking about people's lives here. Somebody's probably going to die in Cleveland. The Traditionalist Workers' Party (a neo-Nazi group) is going to be there, and so are a lot of protest groups (including, probably, BLM).

Stay safe, corb.
posted by stolyarova at 2:02 PM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

Not that it's much better, but the "event zone" is the secured public area surrounding the arena. The actual convention floor is Secret Service territory and definitely no-guns-allowed.
posted by theodolite at 2:04 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Can we stop exhorting corb to stay safe? it's getting a little patronizing and creepy.
posted by zutalors! at 2:05 PM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]

They can have my water gun when they pry it from my cold, soggy fingers.
Hopefully they'll at least give me a towel in exchange.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:05 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

I have a very strong hunch that there's going to be another one of these large-scale national news cycle dominating mass shootings (as opposed to the humdrum routine mass shootings that don't make the news) in Cleveland during the RNC.

If white supremacists shoot up a restaurant full of nice Republicans in town for the convention, does that change the national dialogue even a little?
posted by Sara C. at 2:05 PM on June 29, 2016

I hadn't previously exhorted corb to stay safe. Won't do it again. Though it's the dangerousness of the situation that's creepy, in my opinion, not us caring about an acquaintance's well-being.
posted by stolyarova at 2:07 PM on June 29, 2016 [13 favorites]

If a school full of children getting massacred didn't change the national dialogue, I kind of doubt a restaurant full of people who believe that the lack of guns implicitly (or worse, explicitly) means they are somehow responsible would.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:11 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Looks like Trump's going to try to make a go of it in Colorado. I was kinda hoping he wouldn't bother.
posted by rewil at 2:12 PM on June 29, 2016

...But there is another reason why the MSM haven’t called out the Republican Party, despite its egregious behavior, and this one is especially relevant in this election: The media simply won’t discuss the Republican Party’s values, as values are the third rail of political journalism. You just don’t talk about values, because when you do so, you can’t fake balance. We all know that there is a big difference between Republicans and Democrats, and it isn’t just a matter of philosophy-cum-policy. It is a matter of what values underlie the parties’ philosophies. And, if I may be blunt, Republican values just aren’t very consistent with what most of us think when we think of good values.

So the GOP’s blatant contradictions, its hate disguised as individual rights and its disdain for the weakest among us, largely go unexamined. Indeed, our media state of affairs is so sad that it largely has fallen to comedians to be our primary truth tellers about what one of our two major parties really stands for — among them, Jon Stewart in his day, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, and Samantha Bee, whose recent broadcasts on Orlando and guns and on Republican racism have torn the so-called “principled ideological” veil off the GOP and exposed it for what it is: a cult of cranks.

America Has a Republican Problem — and the Media Is Partly to Blame
posted by y2karl at 2:13 PM on June 29, 2016 [15 favorites]

In all honesty: I'm really worried about any violence at the convention. I'll be thinking about corb, but I'm also genuinely worried about all the people who will be caught in the middle. Apart from delegates, conventioneers, protesters, etc., there will be a couple metric tons of people who work at the event sites and nearby businesses who will be caught up in this shit.

And I don't know whether it's poor taste to think about it now while it's still only a hypothetical, but I am not at all looking forward to whatever "dialogue" we have in the media and the country if this gets ugly. There is ZERO reason to doubt that Trump and the Republicans will deliberately spin and play politics with any violence to their benefit.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:15 PM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]

I don't get what's weird about fearing somebody could get hurt at the GOP convention. I'd say the odds of violence are like 60-65 percent.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:20 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yeah, I mean, I'm worried about corb, because I think she's the only person I know who will be there. But I'm also worried in general: about everyone there, whether as a delegate or because its their job or whatever, and about what violence at a convention would mean for the country's political culture, which Trump already seems to be taking to some weird and unsettling places.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:20 PM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

The media simply won’t discuss the Republican Party’s values, as values are the third rail of political journalism. You just don’t talk about values, because when you do so, you can’t fake balance.

But "values" was a HUGE media buzzword in favor of the Republicans and against the Democrats in the 90s and early 2000s.

Is this another one of those IOKIYAR things?
posted by Sara C. at 2:23 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump (speaking in Bangor, Maine):

I have to say one thing about Bernie — he, you know, he'll be nasty and say, 'Oh, I'd never vote for Trump,' but that's OK. I know what he thinks inside." Trump said. "He hates her. He hates her."

Trump continued, "I mean, he cannot stand her."

I'm pretty good with people," the Manhattan businessman declared. "Bernie Sanders cannot stand Hillary Clinton."

He's good with people. The Hispanics love him! And he has the Best Words. That's why it is "nasty" not to vote for him.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:28 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

> Are you saying that they are wrong that they would be in huge trouble? Or that they simply don't understand the big picture and why the law wouldn't be applied equally?

I'm saying I take their thoughts on the matter exactly as seriously as I took the advice of the cop who told my friend looking for a neighborhood in which to look for an apartment in Brooklyn to go to Canarsie when we were all standing in Brooklyn Heights. To the (white) cop, it was clearly of paramount importance that my (white) friend be able to live in a place surrounded by the maximum possible number of white people, even if that place was far, far away and inconvenient to pretty much everyplace else. He had his priorities, and the security-clearance people have theirs, none of which are mine.
posted by languagehat at 2:37 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

Mike Huckabee Fined $25K for Playing "Eye of the Tiger" at Kim Davis Rally

The former presidential candidate, who is still settling up his campaign debts, had to pay it off in two installments.

Well he'll just have to buckle down and work harder on his email scams.

And speaking of email scams....Reform Group File Complaint Against Donald Trump For Soliciting Foreign Money to Fund His Campaign

Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign committee is violating black-letter federal law by sending campaign fundraising emails to foreign nationals – including foreign politicians – in at least Iceland, Scotland, Australia and Britain. The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 today will file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission highlighting this violation and demanding the agency send a clear message that foreign money is not allowed in U.S. elections.

“Donald Trump should have known better,” said Paul S. Ryan, CLC deputy executive director. ”It is a no-brainer that it violates the law to send fundraising emails to members of a foreign government on their official foreign government email accounts, and yet, that’s exactly what Trump has done repeatedly. The FEC’s forum last week highlighted how foreign corporate money could infiltrate U.S. elections, but Trump’s fundraising antics show that the FEC must also monitor candidates directly soliciting foreign money. [snip]

Federal law provides that a candidate violates the foreign national fundraising ban if they make a solicitation despite being aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person “to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited . is a foreign national” or “to conclude that there is a substantial probability that the source of the funds solicited . is a foreign national.”

I don't know what penalties the FEC can bring if they decide that the solicitations were done knowingly and not just a stupid goof on the part of Trump's campaign.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:43 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump (speaking in Bangor, Maine)

But what is he even doing in Maine? That's like Clinton holding a campaign event in Montana, there's just no upside to spending time there if you're trying to win an election.
posted by peeedro at 2:45 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Their governor is Paul LePage (R-Crazytown), a big Trump booster.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:46 PM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

Thus confirming once again that Trump is not an incorruptible businessman, but a pure Tammany Hall candidate.
posted by stolyarova at 2:48 PM on June 29, 2016

I was just reading the other day that LePage's wife works as a waitress 3 days a week to save up for a car. The Governor of Maine is paid $70,000 a year and the LePages just bought a new house. She says she is "First Lady of Maine" 4 days a week and a waitress the rest of the time. Not really pertinent to this election but just an odd fact that stuck in my brain.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:50 PM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

Having listened to family complain about the state of Maine's finances, I couldn't imagine a bank giving a LePage a car loan either.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 2:52 PM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

Tammany Hall was an organization composed of people who made politics a career. Trump was only peripherally involved in politics until the present election. He's more analogous to Ross Perot with the addition of Pat Buchanon's explicity nativist rhetoric and Sarah Palin's communication style.

Berlusconi is also an interesting comparison from another country.
posted by eagles123 at 2:57 PM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

Meanwhile, in Canada...
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:58 PM on June 29, 2016

I think the Tammany Hall reference was in pointing out that Trump is just as much a "you scratch my back..." politician as anyone else (possibly even moreso than others), and not a think outside the box disrupting businessman.
posted by Sara C. at 2:59 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Of course that's what people with a security clearance say. Cops tend to think a certain way, too; doesn't make it right, or even endurable for those not obsessed by fantasies of total control.

Are you saying that they are wrong that they would be in huge trouble?

Well, they are wrong for a multitude of reasons. You can do your own googling or old-thread-reading about what was and was not actually classified material when it passed through that email server. But even aside from that, the opinion of a TS holder on what would or wouldn't amount up to a handling violation is about as significant as the opinion of a driver's license holder on the intricacies of traffic law.

Having your clearance as a government employee or contractor means you went through a vetting process and were found to be sufficiently ~~inoffensive~~ trustworthy to be allowed to handle certain material within the scope necessary for you to do your job. It's not some sort of blanket access to the secrets of power, and the knowledge these folks have about the ins and outs amounts up to a fairly minimal overview. Here's Grummon's little slide deck about one's obligations as a cleared individual handling materials which is used for the every 2 years refresher training.

Does this strike you as the sort of rigorous learning that will equip someone to judge the likelihood of prosecution of a member of the Cabinet?

So, if they say "if I did X I would be fired" is undoubtedly true. And when I was a government employee much of my work product was subject to FOIA and I couldn't expect to refuse requests the way someone would in the executive branch. Shit's different.
posted by phearlez at 3:00 PM on June 29, 2016 [16 favorites]

SNEED EXCLUSIVE: Ditka politely declines Trump’s invitation

There's an actual transcript of the call because the Sun-Times set it up and jesus christ how is this election getting more ridiculous still.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:00 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Re the emails thing, here's an analogy. I work for a television production company. I'm an assistant. The owner of the company (my boss) can decide to take a random Tuesday off with no notice. But if I did that, I'd be fired.

"If I did that, I'd be fired" is not germane to the situation at all in the case of Hillary's private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
posted by Sara C. at 3:02 PM on June 29, 2016 [28 favorites]

Question for polling experts:

I live in a very important Ohio county and over the last few months have received an onslaught of random number calls to my cell phone from every state imaginable (at least 3-4 a week). I sometimes pick up and much of the time it's a polling company. I always ask who it's with, because I'm wary of push polls. They never answer any of the names I've heard of like Gallup, Quinnipiac, or any recognizable news organization, etc so I usually hang up, assuming it's a push poll.

I'm starting to wonder if the big polling orgs contract out their calls. I'd love to answer if it was a big reputable polling org, but usually when I ask questions the person on the other line gets super cagey about who the poll is being conducted for. Thoughts, MeFites?

(If it matters, I am on pretty much every liberal mailing list imaginable so I don't know if that factors into anything)
posted by mostly vowels at 3:09 PM on June 29, 2016

Nick Gass at Politico: “Trump: Sanders hates Clinton”
posted by Going To Maine at 3:19 PM on June 29, 2016

I'm wary of push polls.

It doesn't have to be push polling--and even if it is, you don't have to allow yourself to be pushed. It could be campaigns, parties (national, state, or even county), c3/c4's, superPACs, etc. doing (non-push)polling for their own internal use. Generally they'll contract with polling/research firms to do that for them, and mostly you will not have heard of those polling firms because they don't make their results public .

Confidentiality is usually part of the contract, and anyway the people actually making the calls may not have any idea who the client actually is.
posted by dersins at 3:23 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

By now, we should all know that there are four things on Facebook:

1) Restaurant specials and menus.
2) HELP ME I NEED ENERGY IN CANDY DRAGON VAMPIRE MAFIA JEWEL SAGA
3) Cats.
4) Horror.
posted by delfin at 3:25 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

Worth it for the cats. I highly recommend Tussetroll and Tingeling as an antidote to Facebook horrors.
posted by stolyarova at 3:28 PM on June 29, 2016

Also during his speech in Bangor: Trump: Rivals who don't back me shouldn't be allowed to run for office

Trump said his primary opponents who now refuse to support his candidacy should not be allowed to run for office in the future, since they've gone back on their word.

“It was a rough campaign, and I wasn’t nice, but they weren’t nice either,” the presumptive GOP nominee said at a rally in Bangor, Maine.

“Honestly, you sign a pledge, you’re supposed to honor the pledge,” he continued.

Trump called them “really sore losers” and said they only signed the pledge so he would do so as well.

"They broke their word, and in my opinion, they shouldn’t be allowed to run for office again ... because what they did is disgraceful."

My first thought on reading this was that Trump would have broken that pledge in a nanosecond without thinking twice about it but my second thought was "Why bring it up at all?" He won the nomination. He should be looking towards the GE but he is whinging about guys who lost to him. Why? What does it get him? It makes him appear petty and vengeful rather than Presidential and he can't legally stop them from running for office again. So why waste his speaking time?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:30 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

because he's a gigantic fucking manbaby
posted by dersins at 3:32 PM on June 29, 2016 [37 favorites]

Because it reinforces to his supporters that he's a Tough Guy who doesn't mind breaking the rules to hit back at The Enemy.

*shudder*
posted by stolyarova at 3:34 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Yeah, that was pretty much my conclusion. I still can't get over that the GOP nominee for President is this guy. It's surreal every time he opens his mouth.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:35 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

tbh i suspect it was inevitable that the republican party would come to this
posted by dersins at 3:40 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

tbh i suspect it was inevitable that the republican party would come to this

Been expecting it since they tapped Sarah Palin, personally.
posted by mordax at 3:43 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

I have nothing against Trump going after people who signed the pledge and then refused to endorse him. They bullied him into it thinking that it would work out when cooler heads prevailed and cooler heads didn't. Why is he the bad guy for holding his opponents to an agreement he didn't want to sign in the first place?

He's the bad guy for a million other reasons, but that's not one of them.
posted by East14thTaco at 3:50 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think the criticism of Trump is for the "they shouldn't be allowed to run for office again" comment, which is super dictatorial - not for him saying he's mad at the others for not supporting him.
posted by stolyarova at 3:53 PM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]

What is it with Republicans and pledges, anyway? Are they just pining for the good old days of loyalty oaths?
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:56 PM on June 29, 2016 [14 favorites]

He could stop them from running again if the Republicans had implemented the no takes backsies rule after the loss in 2012.
posted by snofoam at 3:57 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

He should be looking towards the GE but he is whinging about guys who lost to him. Why?

Because he still hasn't figured out that he's in a Presidential campaign, not an episode of The Real Candidates Of The GOP.

(And because he's a gigantic fucking manbaby.)
posted by octobersurprise at 4:09 PM on June 29, 2016 [18 favorites]

Yes, East14thTaco, I get where you are coming from they most certainly did go back on their pledges and it isn't wrong to point that out. Yet he isn't running against them anymore. That's what I mean about it being pointless. It isn't that Trump is being 'bad" or a jerk, it is that any normal candidate wouldn't bother with those guys. They lost. He won. Yet he can't let it go.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:16 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

I have to say, when I read Bernie's NYT editorial I shared Trump's hot take on it. Maybe it's something more refined, like, "hatred of established politics" but Bernie is like a man with no game hating a woman with game.
posted by angrycat at 4:25 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

but Bernie is like a man with no game hating a woman with game.

I'm not so sure that needs to be a simile.
posted by dersins at 4:28 PM on June 29, 2016 [21 favorites]

After watching Trump climb from a laughable one of the many to the one guy standing, I refuse to underestimate his chances in November. This is no year for complacency.

I'm living through Brexit. I strongly STRONGLY advise against complacency in the face of right-wing demagogery.

You guys should be working your guts out to get everyone gagging at the bit to get to the polls in November and vote every possible ticket in the largest possible numbers from Alaska to Florida to drive a stake through anything that even hints it might have once looked at an elephant.

It should hurt that you have to wait that long.

I heard a story today about the recording of Iron Maiden's The Number Of The Beast. The producer kept making Bruce Dickinson redo and redo and redo the intro. For hours. Just the intro. "Isn't that enough? Can we do the scream?" "No, it's not quite right. Let's go again on the intro." Dickinson was throwing chairs across the studio. Eventually, "Yeah, that's good. OK, let's move onto the scream."

If you know the track, you'll know that scream. That's what finally being allowed to stick it to the fuckers should feel like, when you get into the voting booth. That's what everyone, and everyone you know, should be wound up to do.

Think of all the stuff the Republicans have done these past eight years. Think of the shit they've made worse. Think of the madness they've injecting into your country, the people they're hurting, the sheer awful stupidity.

Nothing else matters, not Bernie vs Clinton, not veepery, not bloody email servers.

Make it happen. Please make it happen.
posted by Devonian at 4:44 PM on June 29, 2016 [66 favorites]

Frankly, some people's assertion that Bernie or other progressive candidates should 'put a sock in it already' (as said in the start of the thread) sounds like concern-trolling to me. It's nauseating : 'don't get uppity, you've lost! be gracious and yield to the winner! guide your voters to more productive activities (grassroot activism), etc!'.

Some of the people here has said that the notion of Sanders continuing his campaign is detrimental to the Democratic party as a whole (from a loooooong time ago and the remarks were repeated in every election thread) - that's pretty bullshit, though. If anything, if Sanders did give up his campaign early in his trail, we wouldn't see people - lots of young people - vote in term of what they really believe - as nonpermanent as their views are.

Honestly, did you guys not understand the lessons from Brexit? Calling Leave voters racists or racist-aligned or xenophobic (while probably true to some extent) would not help at all - their anger and frustration, while misguided, is pretty valid --- that's also true for Sanders' voters (especially younger people, since I'm also at that age group) who voted for a candidate that really speaks to them on economic issues.

To me and others my age, it seems, voting strategically is something of a last resort. Most of us, seeing impossible chance, don't really care. What we want is that for our vote and speech to be heard and hearing someone voicing our concerns is really great. And handwaving Sanders as someone who 'oversteps his bounds' or some bull like that is.. not really the correct thing to say because fuck politics is the default for young people who is sick of how politics is played - not only in the U.S. but also abroad.

This quote from this thread also demonstrates the wrongheadedness that is booing Sanders for continuing his campaign :

Sure, the Democratic Party is the compromised, corrupt institution sucking from the corporate tit. We totally need to fix that. Like, after kicking Trump's ass.

Then I ask : when the fuck is the right fucking time to make the changes then? Do we need to shut the fuck up about how we think the current political system sucks? Even though maybe we don't really know how to change it or even what is it that we need to fix? I know that fully informed political decision making is supposedly a characteristic that all voters should have, but how about when we do know that lots of things are wrong, but we don't really have a plan to do it? What is wrong with supporting a candidate that voices that concern and don't dismiss it out of hand?
posted by tirta-yana at 5:13 PM on June 29, 2016 [15 favorites]

Make it happen. Please make it happen.

White Britons made up 81.9% of the UK population in 2011.

Non-Hispanic White Americans made up 63.7% of the US population in 2010.

If our (US) racial demographics looked like your (UK) numbers, Donald Trump would be ahead right now.

We (black and brown Americans) are about to save (white) Americans' collective ass.

I hope.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:18 PM on June 29, 2016 [63 favorites]

be gracious and yield to the winner! guide your voters to more productive activities (grassroot activism), etc!'.

Yes. The primaries are merely the first stage in a prolonged electoral process that results in the winner getting to be the President.

One of the people who has a really strong chance of getting elected President is Donald Fucking Trump.

It's time for Sanders to graciously yield to the winner of the primaries and guide his voters to more productive activities like preventing Trump from being our next President.

Sorry if his pwecious fee-fees are hurt by this, but he's an old man who has surely seen multiple Presidential elections in his day. He knew this was coming.
posted by Sara C. at 5:18 PM on June 29, 2016 [13 favorites]

Humanfront shared this in the last thread, but I think it's worth sharing again:

Ethicists discuss the morality of strategic voting .
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:24 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

We (black and brown Americans) are about to save (white) Americans' collective ass.

I hope.

Arizona is in play. Hispanics are coming through.
posted by Talez at 5:26 PM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]

It's nauseating : 'don't get uppity,

Nobody is calling Sanders or his supporters "uppity," at least not in here.

I think Sanders is being kind of a dick, and I think a small-but-vocal minority of his supporters are also kind of being dicks, but saying someone is being a dick is a long god damn way from saying they're "uppity."

"Uppity"-- in addition to being super loaded with racial connotations that seem kind of weird to apply to a rich and powerful old white man--has a "know your place" thing going on, and I give no shits what Sanders' "place" is, and whether or not he "knows" it.

I would just like him to stop being a dick.
posted by dersins at 5:35 PM on June 29, 2016 [34 favorites]

Do you really think that Sanders campaign not gracefully bowing out and instead pushes and pushes for change is the deciding factor or even a big factor in Trump being or not being president, though? The voters that vote for Sanders are not going to vote for Trump : some tiny, tiny minority will do so, no doubt; but the majority likely already knows that no matter what they say in social media (Like "Well I'll vote for trump. The dems are corrupt as hell and I'd rather burn everything to the ground" or some strawman statements like that) they'll be better voting for Hillary Clinton than the alternative.

I don't believe that the dichotomy is meaningful. I believe that we can both support Sanders' campaign for change and support Hillary Clinton in the presidential elections.

@Joey Michaels : In a 3rd party creation scenario, the rationale for voting for a 3rd party or pushing for a change in the party system is to make changes - if everyone is a rational utilitarian, no change would be made because everyone strategically votes and thus no-one would bother making a (present-constrained) irrational choice of voting for a 3rd party or whatever. But I think if we manage to take a longer view, the fact that there are tiny minorities who vote for a 3rd party regardless of the consequences actually emboldens others who might share the same views but are too scared/strategic to not vote for a 3rd party. Year-to-year, presumably, the number of voters who will vote for them will increase; snowballing. People used to not touch LGBTQ issues with a ten-foot pole : most politicians are afraid of the topic. When the overton window was moved by the activists, so do LGBTQ-positive politicians - previously reluctant to show blatant support for LGBTQ issues and now emboldened by public support - appear.
posted by tirta-yana at 5:35 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Do you really think that Sanders campaign not gracefully bowing out and instead pushes and pushes for change is the deciding factor or even a big factor in Trump being or not being president, though?

Yeah, I think it could be. I don't want to sound really pissy about Sanders, but right now my best guess about his strategy for the Dem convention is to stage some protests and have his supporters be booing at parts of the pro-Clinton speeches. That may not sway many people, but the visuals will appear in pro-Trump commercials and will hurt Clinton, without accomplishing anything, imo.
posted by puddledork at 5:40 PM on June 29, 2016 [23 favorites]

Fair enough w/r/t to the uppity part @dersins, and some Sanders supporters do know that he can be an asshole in some ways and kind of vindictive. True. But the issue on the table is ~~secretary hamilton's plan to assume state debts~~ whether or not a chance for a candidate like that could appear again on the democratic nominee platter or not. If people could make peace with Hillary Clinton's hawkish tendencies and compromise with that part of her even if they are themselves pacifists due to her projected political positives outweighing her negatives, then I believe that Sanders supporters, at least, deserve that same amount of... understanding.
posted by tirta-yana at 5:41 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

What many Clinton supporters find frustrating is the feeling that if the roles were reversed there would be far louder calls for Clinton to endorse the winner of the primary by Sanders' supporters than what we hear from the Clinton side.

Sanders is well within his right to behave as he is now, but IMO he is squandering goodwill and missing opportunities to advance his agenda.
posted by haiku warrior at 5:42 PM on June 29, 2016 [14 favorites]

Then I ask : when the fuck is the right fucking time to make the changes then? Do we need to shut the fuck up about how we think the current political system sucks? Even though maybe we don't really know how to change it or even what is it that we need to fix?

I can tell you when it's not the right time to hold your breath and pout like a toddler having a temper tantrum: when there's even the slimmest possibility of someone like Donald Fucking Trump being elected to be POTUS.

Nobody is arguing with you about whether the current political system sucks. I think (having read every comment in every political thread here over the last several years) that pretty much we all agree that the current political system is a mess and needs to be fixed. We are TRYING to accomplish a lot: overturn Citizens United, stop the constant assault on women's rights and issues, make sure that even poor people are able to see a doctor, keep some of our citizens from shooting up the rest of us, making sure that every citizen is able to even cast a damn vote and also on that list is making our political system less corrupt and more equitable for everyone.

If you (not you personally, but a global you) don't know how to effect change or how to even define the problem, then try listening to the people who may be older than you or may have priorities that don't match exactly to yours because we will work with you to do both of those things. But you have to act like an adult who understands compromise and not like a child who doesn't want to wear blue shorts to daycare today.
posted by hollygoheavy at 5:43 PM on June 29, 2016 [28 favorites]

Ok, so you would like to see the Democratic party and the US as a whole take a more progressive direction. Agreed so far, I totally would like to see that too. In the US as it is right now, like it or not, the Democratic party represents the more progressive part of the US electorate. I agree that Democrats are really not that progressive on a global scale, however they're currently getting their asses handed to them in Senate and Congress elections all over the country, in large part because the country as a whole is even less progressive (plus likely some gerrymandering). If you would like to see the country take a progressive direction, try to get more Democrats elected in local and state elections.

When their supporters turn out reliably in these elections, like Republican (and Tea Party) supporters do, Democrats will have the room to move to the left. Currently, they're getting squeezed in races with much more right-wing opponents - how do you expect them to pivot to the left? That's simply not possible given their electoral reality. When Sanders supporters insist on using a purity test to determine which Democrat politicians are worthy of their support, they damage the Democratic coalition from within and allow Republicans to romp home. There's a reason so many Republicans are running unopposed. There is no way you're going to get meaningful economic change in this country without wresting control of the Congress and Senate from the Republicans. Turning out every four years to try to elect the most progressive possible person in the Democratic primary (and hopefully to the US Presidency) is simply not enough.
posted by peacheater at 5:46 PM on June 29, 2016 [24 favorites]

Devonian just said:

I'm living through Brexit. I strongly STRONGLY advise against complacency in the face of right-wing demagogery.

This thread then proceeded to resume the Clinton/Sanders argument.

Get it together people.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:47 PM on June 29, 2016 [11 favorites]

Get it together people.

But I want my social democratic revolution with single payer healthcare and nordic state style welfare NOW!
posted by Talez at 5:48 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

So do I, Talez. So do I.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:51 PM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

I believe that we can both support Sanders' campaign for change and support Hillary Clinton in the presidential elections.

I totally agree, which is why Sanders needs to stop running for president and just run for changing things.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:52 PM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

*facepalm*
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:53 PM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

Some of the people here has said that the notion of Sanders continuing his campaign is detrimental to the Democratic party as a whole (from a loooooong time ago and the remarks were repeated in every election thread) - that's pretty bullshit, though. If anything, if Sanders did give up his campaign early in his trail, we wouldn't see people - lots of young people - vote

Early on, sure. He absolutely should have stuck it out. It is no longer "early" in the primary season. It's not even early in our godforsaken endless hell march towards the general. Now is the time for him to graciously support the presumptive nominee while continuing to build infrastructure and support for his progressive goals, instead of lingering at the margins ruining all the good work he actually has done in his campaign.

I'm not mad at Bernie Sanders, I'm disappointed, because all I'm seeing from him is version 500 of the same old stump speech. The progressive left deserves better. It's great that he makes people feel heard, I mean that, but that's the starting point, not the end point. Throughout the entire course of his campaign, I have never felt confident that he has an end point beyond some nebulous revolution. As someone who has a really lot at stake in this election, that's not enough for me.

All that said, Bernie v. Hillary is besides the point. I think Bernie has missed his window for substantive influence at this point, partly due to world events and partly due to his own action/inaction. It's more important to focus on how to combat whatever noxious thing the ongoing Republican garbage fire spews forth next. For example, I'm deeply concerned about what's starting to seem like inevitable violence at the RNC convention, and what any violence there will enable elsewhere in the country.
posted by yasaman at 5:55 PM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]

Until and unless Sanders endorses Clinton it is absolutely inevitable that Sanders-vs-Clinton debates happen. That's actually one of the stronger arguments why he should do it; for as long as he doesn't the energy that should be directed at Trump is divided.

This is not a Metafilter problem. It's a natural consequence of the choices made by the people running for the office.
posted by Justinian at 5:55 PM on June 29, 2016 [23 favorites]

Earlier today I posted a link on Facebook to that Guardian piece urging Clinton to pick Warren as VP.

A friend (whom I've known online for years), a Libertarian-leaning Republican who has been vocally #NeverTrump and considering voting for Sanders since he lives in SC, commented that he'd "have to reconsider #NeverTrump" if Warren were on the ticket.

This is a smart, thoughtful, PhD-having gay man, who could choke down a Hillary presidency over Trump, but maybe not if Warren were added to the mix.

It's amazing how differently we see the world. I would be curious to inhabit his mind for a day, to try to understand how this even works.
posted by Superplin at 6:02 PM on June 29, 2016

Uh, yeah gay men do not get an automatic feminist card unfortunately. nb I am a gay man who tries to be a feminist
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:07 PM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

People used to not touch LGBTQ issues with a ten-foot pole : most politicians are afraid of the topic. When the overton window was moved by the activists, so do LGBTQ-positive politicians - previously reluctant to show blatant support for LGBTQ issues and now emboldened by public support - appear.

When we were voting for President in 2008, we voted in somebody who didn't publicly support marriage equality. He evolved to that position while he was president because of what was happening state by state.

Had John McCain (who also didn't support marriage equality) won the 2008 election, would marriage equality have advanced as quickly as it did under President Obama no matter how hard we activists pushed?

Having a President who is potentially sympathetic to one's positions increases the chances that one's activism will have an impact significantly. Having a president diametrically opposed to one's position similarly reduces the impact of one's activism.

We spend so much time in these discussions fetishizing the role of the president. While this is an important role (and its important that the person in that role is not Donald Trump), there are many more facets to our government that we progressives tend to ignore. Why don't we do better electing candidates to state houses and senates? Why aren't there more progressive governors? The fact that the senate and house are Republican right now is a huge stumbling block for us.

I've come around to recognizing that demanding ideological purity means watching the things you want drifting further and further out of your reach.

Anyhow, the lesson from Obama and marriage equality (to my way of thinking) is "vote for good enough, then push and push for better."
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:16 PM on June 29, 2016 [53 favorites]

My main thought on the "our political system is broken, when is it ever the right time to make changes" idea is that we first have to decide how exactly the system is broken and what needs fixing.

Is it extra-governmental structural stuff like how political parties work, attempting to establish a Westminster system, giving more space to third parties, etc? Is it radical changes to the procedures of government, like getting rid of the electoral college? Is it voting technology and polling laws?

Is it the actual meat of government? More funding for infrastructure, better schools, more protections for labor, specific approaches to foreign policy?

And once you establish what you think is broken and how it should change, how do you get the whole country on board? We are a massively divided country where politics is concerned.

So, yeah, it's just not as simple as "burn it down, we need massive change and we need it right now and I don't care if there's a pre-existing system we need to also deal with in the meantime"

(On the other hand, would it be so hard to declare Election Day a national holiday, or at least hold all elections on weekends?)
posted by Sara C. at 6:17 PM on June 29, 2016 [10 favorites]

Also, Obama on Trump's nativism.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:22 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

And the problem is usually that while you can get a lot of people to agree on an idea like "the political system is broken", getting enough to agree on the solution is tough. I mean, both Sanders and Trump push the "system is broken" argument, after all. Or look at the ACA, I remember seeing polls about the "popularity" of the ACA, but people who didn't like it spanned both the "government shouldn't be involved in healthcare" side and the "there should be single payer" side.

The Democrats (or even just like, people in this thread) are not united on the solutions. The country as a whole isn't even close to being on the same page about solutions. I suspect a majority would agree with the "politics is broken" sentiment.

I don't think that actually accomplishes or means anything, however.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:22 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

A giant meteor hitting the Earth actually does pretty well against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in a new PPP poll results released exclusively on The Rachel Maddow Show just now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:26 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Giant Meteor 2016.
posted by Justinian at 6:29 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

The killer app of the Trump campaign: Trump supporters don't care what he says. Ideas and logic have no part in his party-leadng campaign.

If you're going all in after George W., that may be the only way to do it.

And how do you defend against or attack - nothing?
posted by petebest at 6:29 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Gee, Trump is openly doing something openly illegal. It must be a weekday.
And the most important narrative about Trump should be (IMHO) not that he's a bigot or a fascist or even a bad manager (all of which are true) but that he's America's Biggest CROOK who wants to be President so he can stick his hand in the Federal Cookie Jar and pull out enough Billion $$$ to achieve his life-long goal of being the Richest Man in America, not the President of America; that's just a means to an end. When he started talking about Building a Wall, he explicitly said his own companies could contract for it - that whole issue to him is less about "keeping them out" than "making ME money". (Also as President, he believes he'd be shielded from prosecution for all the crimes he's recently committed ... he has to know that if he loses, there's a high likelihood he'll share a cell with Bernie Madoff). I just think that's the Best Narrative to use against him because it is so true, it'll drive him nuts.

And also note his early statements that "I was never a politician; I OWNED politicians". That's pure Tammany Hall. He also gave contributions to the Clintons in his old pre-Republican days... if he wants to prove his claims about Hillary's dishonesty, all he has to do is reveal the 'quid pro quos' she gave HIM.

For me, two factoids tend to explain the mindset of Bernie Sanders:
(1) until this campaign, he was proudly Not A Democrat, ensuring he would not be all that close with any serious 'insiders' in the party, not even those who agree with him more than Clinton or Obama, and the belief that he could come in from literally-left-field and change the Party in one election cycle was near-delusional... that he did as well as he did is incredible but still...
(2) he 'lost badly' with 43% of the popular vote... compared to Trump, who won 60+% of the delegates with 44% of the popular vote and there's no way Bernie HASN'T done that math (yes, the difference between having one opponent and a dozen, but it's still so frustrating when it happens to you).

Also, the clock is ticking down now for Bernie Sanders to respond to Trump's Big Lie about him and Clinton. If he doesn't make it 100% clear in 100 words or less that Trump is the one he HATES, then he will essentially prove to way too many people (including some BernieBros) that this is one thing Trump actually got right.
Trump and Sanders
Sitting in a tree...

We've totally got to overhaul our party... just...later... after we get to see them win this one next time.
The one thing that will open up the way to overhauling the party is a BIG win, Presidential and Congressional, with a minimum of elected 'DINOs' and no reversal in the next mid-terms. It would simply demonstrate that The Big Money and The Compromises are totally unnecessary and give the less fearless members of the party a lot less to fear.

Pretty damn telling that you've got facism on one side and a woman on the other and there's a question of how some people are going to vote.
In some aspects, there's the question of "why does it have to be THAT woman?" And yes, I have qualms with the fact that she is STILL married to my LEAST favorite major Democratic Party figure of my adult life (he was #2 until Lieberman quit the party), and you can't really separate her from Her Husband's "Third Way" politics that put the party where it is today. That said, the status of women in American Politics is still so sadly awful that she is the only woman who ever really has had a CHANCE to win the Presidency. And without as terrible an opponent as Trump, she would most likely be the underdog to Mr. Generic Republican (one of the surveys showed how much better Ryan or Kasich would do and it was scary). But if you substituted Elizabeth Warren or any other 'top-tier woman Democrat', she would be even weaker. Sadly, a fact. Remember, she went into the 2008 campaign as the Democrats' front-runner and lost to a first-term Senator with what bigotry-apologists would call "a pigment problem". (Personal confession: when I first heard about Barack Obama, I was massively impressed and thought he COULD be America's First Non-White President... except for his name, which I felt would've turned a lot of "I'm not VERY racist" Americans against him. Not the only time I was wrong - when we were having an Economic Emergency in 2008, I seriously suspected Bush and Cheney would try to use it as an excuse to cancel the election and extend their rule... maybe, if Cheney weren't looking forward to retirement so much.)

One more thing... Obama's anti-Trump 'rant' came surprisingly close to what I suggested the message should be above... Trump is not a "populist" and not even a "nativist", he's just a Con Man, "paying the roles on TV". But his defense of trade agreements at the end was rather tentative... as if he realized it is a bad time to come to a full defense of Globalization.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:36 PM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]

People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people.
Night Watch, Terry Pratchett
posted by landis at 6:45 PM on June 29, 2016 [29 favorites]

The killer app of the Trump campaign: Trump supporters don't care what he says. Ideas and logic have no part in his party-leadng campaign.

I enjoyed that Eggers article, but it’s a pretty light take on Trump; a lot of people are at that rally, but he has no idea why or what’s really motivating them. The one thing he can say is that Trump lost their attention when he began ranting off-topic, but that’s honestly fairly damning. It’s without a doubt true that there are die-hard Trump supporters out there who support him whatever he says. The same is true -to lesser degrees- for Sanders and Clinton, who have their own die-hard bases. The same was true for Rob Ford: I remember a reporter mentioning in an obit that he spoke to a man who didn’t think that he had smoked crack but also didn’t care if Ford was lying about having done so - after all, if someone accused the man of smoking crack, he’d lie about it too.

Trump die hards, while noisy, aren’t numerous. You don’t convince them, and you don’t try to convince them. You convince everyone else.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:47 PM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

And how do you defend against or attack - nothing?

You have to realize that, for many on the hard-right side of the spectrum, this election is not about ideology or policy or legislation directly. It is about tribalism. It's like a sports rivalry -- whatever their guy does is right because their guy is doing it and whatever the other guy does is wrong because they're slimy sacks of Satan spawn.

There are people who can be reached about Trump and fundamentalist conservatism in general -- and they're being reached if the polls are any indication. The rest will require, as alcoholics would say, a Moment of Clarity before they even consider reconsidering.
posted by delfin at 7:01 PM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

Uh, yeah gay men do not get an automatic feminist card unfortunately. nb I am a gay man who tries to be a feminist

Oh, I know--I was just listing traits of his that do not, in my mind, correlate to someone who would even remotely consider voting for Trump, even if a literal dumpster fire were running on the opposite ticket. I find it baffling.
posted by Superplin at 7:04 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump is running the Seinfeld of campaigns in some ways. It's a campaign about nothing and the only real consistency is mean-spiritedness.
posted by snofoam at 7:04 PM on June 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

(Oh, and I don't think he's being sexist--although, maybe?--but see it more as a reflection of his views on financial markets and regulations.)
posted by Superplin at 7:05 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Would-be future leaders of the Republican Party are staying away from the Convention in droves. Nobody wants to be there.
posted by yesster at 7:31 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

The enemy is in disarray, Don't bother with them. Energise your base.

Democracy isn't about truth or facts, it's about numbers.

It's what won Brexit for the Leavers.

How many elections have been lost by a few percent, when those who didn't bother could have changed the result if they'd only turned out?

Mine was, and by God it hurts.

How many of those potential voters will respond to the call, if you make it with passion and conviction? They're not staying at home because they're torn by policy disagreements. But they haven't responded to the other lot, so they're open to you. Reach them. Every last one.

Don't sweat the details. You're good guys. You can make it work (and when you win, you'd better: facts and truth and responsibility MUST matter to you). Trust yourselves. Make it simple, make it powerful. Make it resonate.

But get the vote out, otherwise it's all just walls of text on Metafilter.
posted by Devonian at 7:35 PM on June 29, 2016 [12 favorites]

Even Ted Nugent has declined to appear at the convention. When you lose Ted Nugent, you're past scraping the bottom of the barrel.
posted by peeedro at 7:36 PM on June 29, 2016 [20 favorites]

Until and unless Sanders endorses Clinton it is absolutely inevitable that Sanders-vs-Clinton debates happen

are you kidding me, it's gonna keep happening for all 8 years of her presidency.
posted by poffin boffin at 7:45 PM on June 29, 2016 [19 favorites]

It's not going to be Donald Trump. He's gone above and beyond to torpedo his own candidacy, including firing the guy who got him there. There's going to be a convention floor revolt, and it will be Paul Ryan. He has continually proven himself to be incapable of saying "No" to a position he knows he is not qualified for and has no desire to hold.

Can you imagine that first debate?

"Unlike Speaker Ryan, I actually had to win elections against a very well qualified opponent..."

Camera closeup. Bernie, seated in the front row, scowls, then winks, then waves, the crowd goes nertz as he gives Hillary the double-thumbs-up-pointing-at-you.

Ryan blinks and does his "Awww, man!" expression - this is way worse than debating "Corvette" Joe!
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:59 PM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

I think Sanders fucked this up in almost every way by not saying "we are a part of the Democratic Party, and this is where we think the party and the country should be moving". Instead he tried to Trump the Dems. Instead of playing smart and using the momentum to actually change the party he bet it all on one spin and wasted all the excitement and passion.

At this point it seems it really wasn't about the ideas and the movement, it was only all only important if it was him doing it. Apparently no one else is capable.
posted by bongo_x at 8:27 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

For those that want more Marxists in office: this is what real, doctrinaire Marxism looks like. Women will have unlimited rights over their bodes *after* the Revolution, comrade!

So, two things.

First, let's not equate Sanders with Marxism or socialism. From my perspective, Sanders is effectively as much of a socialist as Clinton is.

Second, that's not what doctrinaire Marxism looks like.
posted by Dalby at 8:31 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

At this point it seems it really wasn't about the ideas and the movement, it was only all only important if it was him doing it. Apparently no one else is capable.

Yes, and yet Elizabeth Warren has been coming out gangbusters for HRC and everyone is eating it up, especially HRC.
posted by zutalors! at 8:31 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

It's not going to be Donald Trump. He's gone above and beyond to torpedo his own candidacy, including firing the guy who got him there. There's going to be a convention floor revolt, and it will be Paul Ryan.

It's going to be Donald Trump. He fired the guy who got him here and replaced him with a guy who has him running a marginally more polished campaign. There won't be a convention floor revolt; Dump Trump lacks the votes.

Paul Ryan is a tool, though.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:34 PM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

Would-be future leaders of the Republican Party are staying away from the Convention in droves. Nobody wants to be there.

So, kind of like the Brazil Olympics, except the bloodsucking parasites will be wearing neckties.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:36 PM on June 29, 2016 [15 favorites]

It is a month away, and NO big-name (or middle-name) Republican has pledged to speak at the RNC. So many seem to have other places to be.
posted by yesster at 8:43 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Just more speaking time for The Donald.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:50 PM on June 29, 2016

Trump's Rumored B-List Convention Guests: We Weren't Asked to Appear:

At least two of the quasi-celebrities Donald Trump was rumored to have invited to appear at the Republican National Convention [Mikes Ditka and Tyson] have shrugged off reports that they'll attend.

posted by kirkaracha at 8:59 PM on June 29, 2016

Sorry if it seems like I'm doing drive-by's here.

The political strategy for Democrats is to hold the Republican's feet to the fire. Ask them, seriously, if they're willing to endorse their standard-bearer.

I'm no fan of the 2-party system and first past the post. But this is what we have to live with for now.

"What about Trump?" should be the first thing anybody asks about a "R" candidate.

Because he's what they've chosen.

And they're all running away from him.
posted by yesster at 9:01 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Just want to go on record in encouraging corb to start a "Live! From Cleveland! Starring Corb!" thread once the convention hits the fan.

I think that would be pretty much the definition of making something All About Me. But don't worry, I swear I will be posting to Metafilter until my phone runs out of power or the thread gets a billion comments and I can't make it work anymore. (For those of you interested in this sort of thing, I got my plane tickets tonight, so am now definitely, 1000%, going)

Someone upthread asked what the deal is with pledges, and you're right, it's totally a thing. When I signed up as part of the Cruz team, they made anyone wanting to run as a delegate or take a leadership position sign secret loyalty pledges. I think it's so that if people switch or do other than the campaign asks, they can Publicly Expose Them As Disloyal.

Me, I give zero fucks, but I understand that for those people who are intending to run as a Republican, this is the kind of "Gotcha!" that grassroots activists live by. "In 2016 you signed a loyalty pledge, but then went back on it! How can we believe you won't go back on your promise to cut taxes?!" type stuff.
posted by corb at 9:02 PM on June 29, 2016 [31 favorites]

I would love to see the graph that shows how use of the phrase "dumpster fire" has spiked online and in the press since Trump began his run.
posted by EatTheWeek at 9:27 PM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

Here's a start.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:33 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

"trash fire" spikes at a very similar point. As does "tiny hands"
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:45 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Who here is attending the democratic convention? We can have people on the scene at both.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:20 PM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

You can almost see the correlation if you use the right search terms. ("Trump" scores so high that "Dumpster fire" fades into the noise.)
posted by mmoncur at 10:27 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Chamber of Commerce has been engaged in a twitterstorm of running away from Trump.

Chamber of Commerce has never not supported the Republican candidate.
posted by yesster at 10:27 PM on June 29, 2016

Apparently one of the foreigners Donald Trump, Jr. hit up for campaign contributions was Natalie McGarry, Member of Parliament for Glasgow East. She tweeted screen caps of his email and her glorious shut-down response.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:01 PM on June 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

...By the time Trump launched his campaign, the conservative movement had already destroyed the intellectual immune system that is necessary to resist grifters. A telling example can be found in the famous “Never Trump” issue of National Review from February. Amid all the editorials and articles warning of the dangers of Trump was a full-page ad for something called “The Patriot Power Generator 1500.” The ad begins: FORMER CIA OFFICIAL WARNS; “ISIS TERRORISTS WANT TO CRIPPLE AMERICA’S ELECTRIC GRID!” Further down is a series of alarming sub-headlines designed to sell the generator: “IT May Have Already Begun,” “You Know We’re Targeted,” “Weather Is the Other Enemy.”

Here is the paradox of Never Trump in a nutshell: Could the people who have been conditioned to think they need to buy the Patriot Power Generator in order to fight off an ISIS attack on America’s power grid really be expected to see through Donald Trump ? Conservative publications like National Review have spent a generation cultivating an audience of gulls. Now they’re shocked that a far more talented hustler has stolen them away.

Conservatives Have Groomed the Perfect Suckers for Trump’s Epic Scam
posted by y2karl at 11:04 PM on June 29, 2016 [38 favorites]

Trumpster Fire?
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:05 PM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]

Conservatives Have Groomed the Perfect Suckers for Trump’s Epic Scam

This has been my analysis from the beginning. The Republicans cobbled together this machine, like a Mad Max mobile of turbosupercharged bullshit propaganda, and were like "well the Democrats aren't going to want this thing, it's made of racism and idiocy" so they left the keys in the ignition: didn't even bother to curb the most fevered excesses of the roiling cauldron they'd stirred up or leave any basic sanity checks in place because they wanted it ready to go at any time, in any direction.

The Birtherism phase was Trump checking to see if the door was unlocked, and when he found it was open he just got in and drove off.
posted by XMLicious at 3:03 AM on June 30, 2016 [42 favorites]

Nobody is saying Bernie should not push for change ... but many are disappointed in the way he is going about that push. Instead of working as an ally and a collaborator, he is doing so as an opponent and confrontationalist. His language is highly dismissive of and disrespectful to millions of voters, few of whom can be characterized as wealthy donors, plutocrats or special interests... particularly since so many are women and people of color who do not feel his revolution sufficiently addresses their concerns. It is also massively disrespectful to good democratic politicians who have labored diligently over years to suppport liberal and progressive causes to say they are not a party concerned with working people. It's become readily apparent why he did not get support from any of his peers.

Instead of moving his people to healing and positive change, he is fostering cynicism and mistrust. That's not constructive leadership.

On a more positive note - it was so awesome to see Obama get a standing ovation and a chant of "four more years" after his speech at the House of Commons yesterday. Haven't heard the whole speech yet, will have to defer until later today but here it is: Read and watch President Barack Obama's speech to Parliament.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:49 AM on June 30, 2016 [25 favorites]

Of course that's what people with a security clearance say. Cops tend to think a certain way, too; doesn't make it right, or even endurable for those not obsessed by fantasies of total control. [...] Similarly for people with a security clearance, who tend to wind up with a security clearance because they've bought into the vital importance of security = secret information that if the little people only knew it would make them fall into line like they should.

I know this is kind of a derail, but something like 4 million people hold security clearances, and I'd wager that some of that multitude would take umbrage with this characterization.
posted by Hal Mumkin at 5:21 AM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

Ari Melber and Alexandra Jaffe: After Saying He Forgave Loans to Campaign, Trump Won't Release Proof

Last week, campaign spokesperson Hope Hicks said Trump was submitting formal paperwork forgiving the loan on Thursday, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Reached by NBC this week, she said the paperwork "will be filed with the next regularly scheduled FEC report," and declined to provide any documentation.

The delay could matter, because until Trump formally forgives the loans, he maintains the legal option to use new donations to reimburse himself. (He can do so until August, under federal law.)

In his most recent FEC filing, which posted June 20, Trump treated all his spending on the campaign as loans.

An FEC staff member tells NBC News there is no new filing changing Trump's loans. The FEC's candidate tracking page, which posts filings, does not show new paperwork from Trump changing his loans.

Even the remote possibility that Trump could tap new donations to pay himself fed skepticism among GOP donors, who wanted assurances that money intended for the election would not end up in Trump's own pockets.

posted by zombieflanders at 6:10 AM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]

Trump’s Campaign Wishes It Were a Garbage Fire. Garbage Fires Get the Job Done.
posted by Naberius at 6:24 AM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]

That is singlehandedly the single Slate-iest article that Slate has ever published.
posted by rorgy at 6:30 AM on June 30, 2016 [9 favorites]

Max Rosenthal: When Donald Was "Principal for a Day" and Confronted by a Fifth-Grader

[T]he school's chess team was scraping together money to go to the national championship. It still needed several thousand dollars at the time of Trump's visit, according the New York Daily News. But Trump focused on something else. He held a drawing in which 15 lucky students could win coupons for Nike sneakers—but there was something of a catch. The shoes had to be picked up at the Niketown store at Trump Tower. "He said we were going to have to go on a bus to get them," Eugenio Tavares Jr., a P.S. 70 student, told the Daily News.

The Nike lottery caused "frenzied excitement" among the students, the New York Times reported, but one kid questioned Trump about it. "Why did you offer us sneakers if you could give us scholarships?" asked Andres Rodriguez, a fifth-grader whose father had died and whose mother couldn't work because of a bad leg, according to the Times.

"I asked because school is more important than sneakers, but he didn't really answer," Rodriguez told the Daily News.

Trump's generosity didn't end with the 15 pairs of sneakers. He decided he could hand out additional sneaker coupons to disappointed kids who didn't win the drawing, and he distributed what the Times called "beautiful, psychedelic Trump Tower hats for every child." As he departed the school, he donated a fake $1 million at the bake sale raising money for the chess team.

posted by zombieflanders at 6:32 AM on June 30, 2016 [13 favorites]

Read Obama's speech and loved it. The USA and the rest of the world are going to miss him.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:39 AM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

> I know this is kind of a derail, but something like 4 million people hold security clearances, and I'd wager that some of that multitude would take umbrage with this characterization.

No, of course you're right and I was overreacting, but as an anarchist I tend to do that when confronted with what I consider statist bullshit. "I have a security clearance, so I can say with confidence that X [and you can't contradict me, you uncleared sucker]" is not going to bring out my best, most rational side.
posted by languagehat at 6:58 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

Caitlyn Jenner: Donald Trump Is a Champion for Women and LGBT People
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:07 AM on June 30, 2016

This changes everything. I'm selling everything I own and starting a religion.
posted by y2karl at 7:21 AM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

So I'm just a humble volunteer at the Philly convention but I'll be able to report on random people muttering as they sign my clipboard or whatever
posted by angrycat at 7:28 AM on June 30, 2016 [16 favorites]

Trump’s Campaign Wishes It Were a Garbage Fire. Garbage Fires Get the Job Done.

I'm going to disagree, on the basis that the Trump Campaign is not about winning the Presidency, but about revitalizing the Trump brand. Waste-to-energy.
posted by nubs at 7:55 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

I wish people would stop calling Trump a garbage- and/or dumpster fire.

He is quite evidently the bloated, orange-haired, itty-bitty-handsed living embodiment of the Great Waterbury Tire Fire of 1981, referred to at the time by the paper of record as a "noxious mass" whose stench caused "tears, headaches, raw throats and vomiting and, if the cloud cover is low...can affect people miles away."

That anyone could harbor the merest suspicion that Trump might not be the literal, actual incarnation of this event is utterly baffling to me.
posted by dersins at 8:16 AM on June 30, 2016 [15 favorites]

Trump's supporters don't care what he says.

Fine, they're a tiny fragment of the population. However, his feckless actions are driving away every conceivable undecided voter and discouraging turnout among even diehard Republican loyalists. This election is shaping up rather nicely. (No complacency, etc.)
posted by msalt at 8:24 AM on June 30, 2016

dersins: I read that aloud to my partner and he said, "that has shades of Chuck Tingle." I'm fairly certain that is a compliment btw.
posted by R343L at 8:26 AM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

But were it truly Tingle-esque, surely there would be a not-insubstantially larger quotient of assfucking.
posted by dersins at 8:31 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Did you think it got weird in 2012 at the McCain/Palin convention when Clint Eastwood talked to a chair? Wait until Ted Nugent reads a love poem to an Uzi.

Yes, I know that Clint Eastwood talked to a chair in 2012, but the idea of Paul Ryan following whatever desperate down on their luck celeb that Trump can pull in (Chachi?) or a Palin or Gingrich type with absolutely no shame is just too funny. I mean the Speaker of the House would have to make an appearance, right?
posted by readery at 8:38 AM on June 30, 2016

[T]he school's chess team was scraping together money to go to the national championship. It still needed several thousand dollars at the time of Trump's visit, according the New York Daily News. But Trump focused on something else. He held a drawing in which 15 lucky students could win coupons for Nike sneakers—but there was something of a catch. The shoes had to be picked up at the Niketown store at Trump Tower.

Everything about this man is just so... shabby.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:46 AM on June 30, 2016 [43 favorites]

Second, that's not what doctrinaire Marxism looks like.

It would be more correct to say that this is what the 60's/70's New Left looks like. "Women and Minorities can get in line behind everyone else while we focus on economic issues" was the classic message of the New Left, and why a lot of women left in favor of Women's Liberation.

Despite the fact that many men in the New Left were Marxists or Maoists, I'm not sure that impulse actually comes from there. Gender equality was actually a major tenet of early socialism, and The Russian and Chinese revolutions did a lot to improve women's rights in those countries. (Maybe not permanently, but at least early on.)
posted by Sara C. at 9:04 AM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

Sadly, we won't be seeing Ted's Uzi serenade this year:

Washington Post: Singer Ted Nugent, a Trump fan, is skipping the convention despite numerous invitations to appear “due to our intensive concert touring schedule”
posted by fitnr at 9:06 AM on June 30, 2016

The raw star power and charisma of Clint Eastwood talking to a chair is going to look like the height of decorum compared to whatever two-bit know-nothings they get to speak this year.
posted by Sara C. at 9:18 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

What if it's just three days of Trump?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:19 AM on June 30, 2016

OK fine two-bit know-nothing singular, then.
posted by Sara C. at 9:22 AM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]

What if it's just three days of Trump?

Got a picture in my head of how that would turn out, well before it was over.
posted by mordax at 9:23 AM on June 30, 2016

How Bad Can A President Be?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:25 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

three days of Trump?

the little-known, even nastier sequel to Salò
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:29 AM on June 30, 2016 [10 favorites]

What if it's just three days of Trump?

Yes! In a variety of cheap disguises, fake mustaches, afro wigs, etc.

"Hello, Cleveland! My name is Ronald Tump, successful rocket scientist and wealthy small business owner, and I want to talk to you about the guy—classy guy—who's going to make America great again—me! Er, I mean... Donald Trump!"
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:32 AM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

Half-baked theory: The real reason that so many politicians hate Trump is that he promised every single one of them a big donation and then gave them a coupon for sneakers.
posted by clawsoon at 9:33 AM on June 30, 2016 [32 favorites]

Trump 2016 -Coupons for Some! Colorful Hats For All!
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:38 AM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]

As he departed the school, he donated a fake $1 million at the bake sale raising money for the chess team.

Wait, hold up, whut? Like, whut? Does this mean what I think it means and if so does this mean that Trump is the cruelest human being to ever walk this planet?
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:44 AM on June 30, 2016 [19 favorites]

"Many current GOP leaders remain committed to going. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) will attend as the convention’s official chairman, and all of his lieutenants are scheduled to be there, including House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who is a Trump delegate."

Kevin McCarthy!
posted by octobersurprise at 9:46 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Kevin McCarthy at the GOP convention.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:48 AM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]

Apparently true: In a grand finale, Mr. Trump stopped at a bake sale being held by the school’s championship chess team, which was short on money to get to a national competition. Mr. Trump pulled out a $1 million bill and dropped it in the basket. Like all $1 million bills, it was a fake. Mr. Trump apparently kept a stash of them handy as hilarious gags. He also gave the team $200 in real money.

The sum of his two-hour visit was: coupons for 15 pairs of sneakers for 300 kids, an apparent joke about Trump Tower being in the “inner city,” a suggestion that a boy who asked a smart question must have been put up to it, a fake $1 million bill, and $200.

Nyt
posted by snofoam at 9:51 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

Gross.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:53 AM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

One million dollar bills are possibly hilarious (for a given value of hilarious) if you are not actually a millionaire/probably-not-a-billionaire-but-say-you-are. But this is like me keeping a stash of fake twenties in my wallet and giving them to homeless people along with, like, a nickle.

This fucking guy.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:55 AM on June 30, 2016 [17 favorites]

This gif of Bill O'Reilley and Trump doing the wave has made my day.
posted by peeedro at 9:56 AM on June 30, 2016 [23 favorites]

Those kids should be grateful, actually. They were inoculated against Trumpism at a very early age.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:57 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

Christie being vetted for Trump VP

enjoy, for a moment, the thought of a VP debate where Warren is just all "Did he tell you to say that? Are you under duress? Chris: are you okay? Do you need us to call someone for you? Did he hurt you? Chris, did he hurt you?" the whole time
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:01 AM on June 30, 2016 [48 favorites]

enjoy, for a moment, the thought of a VP debate where Warren is just all "Did he tell you to say that? Are you under duress? Chris: are you okay? Do you need us to call someone for you? Did he hurt you? Chris, did he hurt you?" the whole time

"Chris how does it feel to be sent on an errand meant for an intern? Is this the man you really hitched your wagon to?"
posted by Talez at 10:02 AM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]

The story about Trump and the kids getting Nike sneakers? I'm sure he had some scam wherein Nike had to give him those coupons. He was supposed to be principal for a day, showed up for two hours, talked up his properties and gave $200.00. I bet he claimed much more as charity on his taxes which will never be seen (and for this time period, the matter is closed anyway). Fake million dollar bill. What an asshole.

Chump change should from this point forward be called 'Trump Change'.
posted by readery at 10:09 AM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]

"Why did you offer us sneakers if you could give us scholarships?" asked Andres Rodriquez, a fifth-grader. With all his empty-headed foolishness summed up in one sentence from an 11-year-old, Trump did not let down his admirers. Who told Andres to ask the question, Trump demanded to know.

So even 20 years ago, Trump was already attacking the press for asking a perfectly reasonable question, even when the press is an 11-year-old kid.
posted by zachlipton at 10:11 AM on June 30, 2016 [33 favorites]

Yes! In a variety of cheap disguises, fake mustaches, afro wigs, etc.

Matt Lubchansky at The Nib: “The Right Hand of Clod”
posted by Going To Maine at 10:18 AM on June 30, 2016

Christie being vetted for Trump VP

Chris Christie's Lawyers Hid One of His Personal Email Accounts from the Feds
posted by kirkaracha at 10:20 AM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

What if it's just three days of Trump?

...okay, the very legitimate concerns about violence at this convention aren't enough to worry about? Seriously, we're already concerned for corb as it is.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:25 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Chris Christie's Lawyers Hid One of His Personal Email Accounts from the Feds

I look forward to all the right-wing chuckleheads salivating over the indictment that will surely be coming any day now
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:33 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

"I'd blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left."
posted by octobersurprise at 10:39 AM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

FiveThirtyEight: An 80 Percent Shot Doesn’t Mean Clinton Is A Sure Thing
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:41 AM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]

I think this poor man tried a "please stop yelling at me" shirt first but it wasn't enough.
posted by delfin at 10:41 AM on June 30, 2016 [9 favorites]

That wave gif is the best thing ever.
posted by drezdn at 10:41 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

From the cover photo of the New Republic article y2karl linked to above, I see the Trump campaign has brought back the "Silent Majority" concept yet again.

So fine, let's unpack that. You'll recall the basic idea that conservatives have used to explain away every electoral defeat in the last 20 years or so is that GOP candidate X lost because he wasn't conservative enough. It wasn't that conservative values failed in the marketplace of ideas. How could that happen? No, it was that the GOP lacked the courage to give voters a real conservative choice. You're familiar with this idea, yes?

For this to be the case, there has to be a huge number of conservative voters, a "majority," who don't show up to vote - a "silent majority" if you will - because they are disappointed in the "moderate" candidates the GOP keeps nominating. When a true conservative - and I guess that now means Donald Trump - finally gets a chance to run, this huge bloc of hidden voters will supposedly rise up and carry him to victory, a real landslide that doesn't even depend on gerrymandering or sleazy tricks or policies designed to keep the other side from voting.

So my question is, what the fuck are all these people thinking? For this argument to make any sense, all these voters had to decide to stay home and let a black Muslim from Kenya, a man whose stated goal is to disarm America in preparation for a takeover by ISIS (hey, I just report, you decide) actually become President of the United States (twice!) because Mitt Romney wasn't quite conservative enough for them.

How many people do you really think there are out there who would make that calculation? Millions? Or more like two dozen? Trust me, when someone you think is a mouth-foaming maniac is being run for President by a major party, you don't just stay home and go, "well, the other guy is a little wobbly on monetary policy." You hold your nose and you vote for the other guy and hope to fuck he wins so the mouth-foaming maniac doesn't. That's been the story of my entire adult life.

So let's just say I'm dubious and leave it at that. Though I guess it's a little too late for that now, isn't it?
posted by Naberius at 10:47 AM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]

enjoy, for a moment, the thought of a VP debate where Warren is just all "Did he tell you to say that? Are you under duress? Chris: are you okay? Do you need us to call someone for you? Did he hurt you? Chris, did he hurt you?" the whole time

Gonna need to have some of those cult deprogramming guys on standby I think
posted by nubs at 10:48 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Ari Melber, Marti Hause, and Brad Gold: RNC Rules Fight Begins With Plan to Lock In Donald Trump

Anti-Trump forces have talked up rules that could let delegates vote against Trump, regardless of the primary results. But the new rule would stop any and all of those efforts with a silver bullet — freezing the 2012 rules so that no alternatives go into effect this year.

The proposal states "any amendments" to the party rules will not "take effect" until after this year's convention ends.

If the proposal passes, it guarantees that if amendments designed to stop Trump, such as a "conscience clause" that would function as a delegate escape hatch, are also passed, those would only go into effect at "the 2020 National Convention."

posted by zombieflanders at 10:49 AM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]

Singer Ted Nugent, a Trump fan, is skipping the convention despite numerous invitations to appear “due to our intensive concert touring schedule”

I mean, state fair season only rolls around once a year.
posted by palindromic at 10:52 AM on June 30, 2016 [24 favorites]

Naberius: When a true conservative - and I guess that now means Donald Trump

I am assured by National Review that Trump is not a True Conservative. In fact, he might as well be Clinton. (And that's why he'll lose, I guess.)

There's another branch of the Republican Party which says that they're destined to lose unless they capture the (socially conservative therefore winnable) Hispanic vote. That's why Marco Rubio was the Great Establishment Hope this year. We all know how that turned out.
posted by clawsoon at 10:53 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

man if I was going to be attending that convention I'd be keeping my eyes on the exits at all times and ready to run like hell if I heard anything that sounded like the opening notes to "the rains of castamere"
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:53 AM on June 30, 2016 [20 favorites]

What could they be vetting Christie for? I mean what could they find that's worse than what we already know about him?

And does his campaign really need another loud asshole from the New York Metro Area? It's not like he has a hope of carrying either New York or New Jersey.
posted by octothorpe at 10:57 AM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]

And does his campaign really need another loud asshole from the New York Metro Area?

Wait, are you telling me that one of the most appealing qualities for conservatives isn't "New York values"? Next you'll be telling some sort of hogwash like they don't like Washington insiders or ivory-tower intellectuals.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:02 AM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

I think there's only a slim chance Trump's VP comes from the world of politics. Most sensible politicians recognize his campaign as a sort of necrotizing malignancy, tainting everyone who spends too much time in its presence. But folks looking to get on the right-wing media gravy train? Now those are people who would have some interest.

It still wouldn't be surprise me if he picked one of his kids. Could he truly bear having to share valuable billboard/sticker/sign space with some lesser mud name?
posted by palindromic at 11:03 AM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

It seems like an anti-NeverTrump proposal at the rules committee is a bit redundant -- if it has the votes to pass, then none of the Trump-blocking proposals would succeed anyway.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:04 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

TRUMP/SPAWN 2016
posted by Existential Dread at 11:05 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Most sensible politicians recognize his campaign as a sort of necrotizing malignancy, tainting everyone who spends too much time in its presence.

Trump is political greyscale
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:05 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

necrotizing malignancy

Perfect phrasing.
posted by Sophie1 at 11:05 AM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

Trump is political greyscale

Can we exile him to the Sorrows yet?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:09 AM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

It seems like an anti-NeverTrump proposal at the rules committee is a bit redundant -- if it has the votes to pass, then none of the Trump-blocking proposals would succeed anyway.

This is not entirely true, depending on how the votes are looking. Keep in mind the Rules Committee is there for a week - time to schmooze, build alliances, etc. This would kill it right at the start.
posted by corb at 11:12 AM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]

I think there's only a slim chance Trump's VP comes from the world of politics.

I wonder what Ian MacKenzie is doing these days?
posted by happyroach at 11:22 AM on June 30, 2016 [10 favorites]

Singer Ted Nugent ... is skipping the convention despite numerous invitations to appear “due to our intensive concert touring schedule”

Yes, unfortunately, the Nuge will be in Baton Rouge on the 18th and in Jacksonville and Melbourne, Florida on the 20th and 21st. And I guess he's gotta recover on the 19th. The good seats in Jax are 50 bucks a pop so get'em while they last!
posted by octobersurprise at 11:23 AM on June 30, 2016

Trumpwhere i have never travelled,gladly beyond
any experience,your hands have their mendacity:
in your most flail gesture are things which oppress me,
or which i cannot touch because they are nasty

your slightest look easily will oppress me
though i had opened my long fingers,
you close always petal by petal myself as Winter gropes
(touching clumsily,mercilessly)her first rose

or if your wish be to deport me,i and
my love will leave very unjustly,suddenly,
as when the heat of this union imagines
fallout carelessly everywhere descending;

nothing which we are to perceive in this world equals
the power of your intense vapidity:whose texture
compels me with the banality of your evil,
rendering death and destruction with each speeching

(i do not like what it is about you that closes
and opens;only something in me understands
the tone of your skin is deeper than cheetos)
nobody,not even the Ryan,has such small hands

posted by Rumple at 11:25 AM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]

"I'd blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left ."

That video is freaking terrifying.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:40 AM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]

Still, it's a bit of a shame that the Nuge can't play Cleveland because there's a perfect set list in his catalog: start with "Free-for-All," then continue with all the hits like "Dog Eat Dog," "Out of Control," "Weekend Warriors," and "Stormtroopin'" and conclude by ~~saluting~~ begging the voters of America with "Need You Bad."
posted by octobersurprise at 11:41 AM on June 30, 2016

Caitlyn Jenner: Donald Trump Is a Champion for Women and LGBT People

BYE.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:55 AM on June 30, 2016 [15 favorites]

Josh Marshall: The Desperate and the Fail: Inside Trump's June Fundraising Blitz

They're clearly desperate to raise money fast. But not just because they need a lot of money to compete against Clinton in the fall. Look at the calendar. The terrible May FEC report came out just ten days ago. It was only after that report that Trump's campaign seemed to kick into high fundraising gear or perhaps better to say fundraising mania. The key is that the June FEC report is baked as of today. And then everything is frozen in place until that report is released in late July.

Late July ... what's that? Right, during the Republican convention. If the June report is anything like as awful as the May report it's catastrophic. And that catastrophe will land right during the convention, the worst possible time imaginable. Put that all together and it means Trump had to raise a huge amount of money in about a week. Even if July and August are amazing fundraising months that wouldn't necessarily matter because right now he needs to convince Republicans that his campaign isn't a joke. So he's got until midnight tonight to raise as much money as possible. If the number ain't good, it's a PR time bomb set to go off during the GOP convention.

Put this all together and you start to get a sense of why Trump has gone from fundraising indifference into a kind of manic fundraising blizzard in a matter of days. It also likely gives us a sense of why he's sending his emails to parliamentarians in Iceland and Finland and Australia. No, not because he's that desperate that he wants their moeny but because they're in a such a panicked rush they're throwing everything at the wall they can.

At first, we thought he'd gotten the foreign politician emails from a crooked or stupid list broker. Having researched it a bit more, that seems less and less likely. It seems more like these were lists simply floating around the Trump Organization, tied to some earlier business venture, and someone in the campaign just decided to toss them in the hopper too. Admittedly, this seems like a preposterous theory. But all the conceivable explanations are equally preposterous. And yet one of them must be true since it definitely did happen.

posted by zombieflanders at 11:56 AM on June 30, 2016 [18 favorites]

And, of course, the entire thing undermines Trump's claim that he's Unbelievably Rich and Can't Be Bought. If he really had $10 billion, surely none of this would be necessary.
posted by stolyarova at 11:58 AM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

Caitlyn Jenner: Donald Trump Is a Champion for Women and LGBT People

I always suspected that Wheaties would rot your brain.
LITTLE CHOCOLATE DONUTS 4 LIFE!
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:00 PM on June 30, 2016 [12 favorites]

Admittedly, this seems like a preposterous theory. But all the conceivable explanations are equally preposterous. And yet one of them must be true since it definitely did happen.

Someone needs to trademark that statement or otherwise find a way to camp on it. Because as far as I can tell, it equally describes pretty much everything about the Trump campaign from beginning to its lurching, staggering end in a sealed bunker beneath the Trump Tower.
posted by Naberius at 12:12 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

"So he's got until midnight tonight to raise as much money as possible."

It's hard out there for a pimp.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:12 PM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]

"So he's got until midnight tonight to raise as much money as possible."

I smell a teenage fart comedy directed by the White Castle guys featuring reality TV washout Donald "J." Trump and the kid who played McLovin in two years time
posted by Existential Dread at 12:15 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

And why do things like this never seem to happen to Crooked Hillary? Is she paying these guys off? I bet that's what it is.

She's such a crook.
posted by Naberius at 12:17 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

In other news, Naked Man Jumps From Ledge In Times Square, Calls Out For Donald Trump. Reince Priebus is said to be in stable condition.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:18 PM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]

seems oddly familiar, doesn't it? I guess we know what the combover is hiding
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:21 PM on June 30, 2016

Screaming nude man begins vetting process, report sources close to the Trump campaign
posted by theodolite at 12:25 PM on June 30, 2016 [25 favorites]

With Boris Johnson giving up his candidacy to be the UK's PM, I wonder if he'd be interested in a slightly more junior position on the Trump ticket. I'm pretty sure he's eligible to serve as VP even if he has actually renounced his U.S. citizenship. It would be irresponsible not to speculate about the possibility, at least.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:29 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump: 'Why am I not doing better in the polls?'

“Well, you know, I really feel it, Mike. I go to Ohio, we were there two days ago, and Pennsylvania and near Pittsburgh and we — I was in West Virginia, the crowds are massive. And you know, I walked out of one, and I said, ‘I don’t see how I’m not leading,'" Trump said, invoking the size of his crowds.

"We have thousands of people standing outside trying to get in, and they’re great people and they have such spirit for the country and love for the country, and I’m saying, you know, ‘Why am I not doing better in the polls?’ And I’ve noticed the polls are coming up," Trump said. "But you know, you have to understand, your show, no, but many shows it’s just a constant hit from mainstream media, no matter what you do, it’s always a negative.”

Trump apparently thinks polls are wrong because his crowds are big, once again showing his political ignorance. I hope he stays ignorant right up until the day of the GE.

I wonder if he'd be interested in a slightly more junior position on the Trump ticket

Trump/Johnson-- hairstylist's dream or nightmare?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:36 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

Trump has already tried to tell us about his Johnson once this election season, and once was enough.
posted by stolyarova at 12:38 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

Trump apparently thinks polls are wrong because his crowds are big

And they're not nearly as big as he thinks they are. In the Eggers article linked above, Trump tells the crowd at a Sacramento hangar that there are 11,000 people there. The actual capacity of the hangar was 2,500, and that day it was less than half full.
posted by zakur at 12:56 PM on June 30, 2016 [13 favorites]

Really, though, what's an order of magnitude between friends?
posted by tonycpsu at 12:59 PM on June 30, 2016 [14 favorites]

Looks like voter suppression laws are working as intended in Wisconsin — 85% of people turned away under the new law are black, latino or native american.

The article linked to above compares Wisconsin and Minnesota which are culturally, demographically and historically very similar, but have most recently been ruled by a Republican and Democratic governor & legislature respectively.

"Whereas Wisconsin elected Walker and a GOP legislature in 2010, Minnesota narrowly elected Mark Dayton, and two years later a Democratic legislature. Minnesota raised taxes on the wealthy, invested in public education, expanded health care, and boosted unions, while Wisconsin did the opposite. Now Minnesota is winning the border war, with faster job growth, higher wages, and lower unemployment.

Nowhere is this difference starker than in the states’ approaches to voting. In contrast to Wisconsin, Minnesota defeated a high-profile voter-ID ballot initiative in 2012; recently passed legislation switching from a caucus system to a presidential primary, which is more inclusive; and is considering new reforms, such as restoring voting rights to 47,000 people on probation or parole. “Wisconsin is heading toward Alabama and Mississippi status,” says Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, “while Minnesota is leading the nation on expanding voting rights.”

The divide illustrates how the United States is fast becoming a two-tiered democracy, a country where it’s harder to vote in Republican-controlled states and easier to vote in Democratic ones. There are some notable exceptions—New York, a blue state, ranked 47th in the Pew Charitable Trust’s 2012 Elections Performance Index, while North Dakota, a red state, ranked No. 1—but the trend is unmistakable."
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:05 PM on June 30, 2016 [17 favorites]

And with Trumps crowds, how many are just there for the crazy factor? Donald Trump and the nut house crew are gathering near by, it's awfully tempting to go just to witness. I was stuck on the el as the Chicago rally went south and it was tempting to get out and walk around. I wouldn't count any more than say 50% as hard core supporters, I bet many are going for the lols.

His potential voters are people who watch a lot of TV, many have never taken part in the process before. I wonder how many of them will inconvenience themselves enough to either register themselves to vote or make sure their registration is up to date, and actually vote. That's not as much fun as yelling about foreigners.
posted by readery at 1:13 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

Trump: 'Why am I not doing better in the polls?'

BECAUSE YOU'RE A SENTIENT ANAL ABSCESS DONNY
posted by poffin boffin at 1:14 PM on June 30, 2016 [11 favorites]

If they've got enough time to tell me they hope I'm killed by terrorists, they've got enough time to vote. (Sadly). I wouldn't count on these being low energy voters.
posted by corb at 1:15 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

His potential voters are people who watch a lot of TV, many have never taken part in the process before. I wonder how many of them will inconvenience themselves enough to either register themselves to vote or make sure their registration is up to date, and actually vote. That's not as much fun as yelling about foreigners.

According to polling data this is not true -- his base in the primaries wasn't composed of first-time voters nearly as much as it was long-time registered Republicans who rarely vote in primary elections but have voted GOP in general elections.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:18 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

(So, on the one hand, Trump supporters do vote. On the other hand, they voted for Romney and McCain, so they're not kingmakers.)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:21 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

And with Trumps crowds, how many are just there for the crazy factor?

Exactly. Also some are protesters, some are there to see Trump in person so they have a story to tell their friends, some are there because their husband or friend was going, etc. This is where Trump is showing his lack of politicking-- crowds do not equal votes. Crowds mean interest which is a start but then you have to seal the deal and GOTV. I think at this point Trump is more of a train wreck than a viable candidate.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:23 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Boris Johnson ... I wonder if he'd be interested in a slightly more junior position on the Trump ticket. I'm pretty sure he's eligible to serve as VP even if he has actually renounced his U.S. citizenship.

According to his Wikipedia page, Boris still has his dual citizenship. But, Article II and the 12th Amendment combine to dash his hopes - there's a 14-year residency requirement to become president or vice-president. If only he'd moved to back to the states in 2002!
posted by fitnr at 1:27 PM on June 30, 2016

I just finished reading the Ioffe piece about Stephen Miller that was linked in the previous election thread. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to sleep tonight.
posted by bardophile at 1:30 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

Yeah, Trump is scary enough, but Miller will be eligible to run for President in five years. He could be running in 2024 or 2028.
posted by stolyarova at 1:31 PM on June 30, 2016

From that Stephen Miller piece: “Everything that is wrong with this country today, the people who are opposed to Donald Trump are responsible for!”

Also, they told me you guys look like dorks!

But seriously, creepy creepy shit.
posted by Existential Dread at 1:43 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

I picked a bad year to read The Water Knife. These days I'm like, *yeah I can totally see states closing their borders and posting bodies as warnings to climate refugees*
posted by angrycat at 2:14 PM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]

also, yeah, that Stephen Miller sounds like Sauron a few decades before it became that fiery eye thing.
posted by angrycat at 2:21 PM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]

But you know, you have to understand, your show, no, but many shows it’s just a constant hit from mainstream media, no matter what you do, it’s always a negative.

Is this taken out of context, or is Trump actually thinking of his campaign as if it's a television show?
posted by Sara C. at 2:22 PM on June 30, 2016

so this happened
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:28 PM on June 30, 2016 [10 favorites]

Sara C.: Decoding Trump-speak is always a challenge, but I think the intended meaning is: "Our poll numbers are only bad because the nasty media is biased against us. But not you guys, you're cool."
posted by teraflop at 2:28 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

"But you know, you have to understand, your show, no, but many shows it’s just a constant hit from mainstream media, no matter what you do, it’s always a negative."

The context of the quote is Trump is on a radio show, and he's addressing the host.

But yes, he thinks of his campaign like a TV show. Specifically, a reality TV show.
posted by fitnr at 2:31 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

That's how I read it, as well, but the term "show" made me think that maybe Trump doesn't understand the difference between polling numbers and Neilsen numbers.

Your show can stay on the air despite bad Neilsen ratings, because ultimately it's about advertisers and networks and complex business decisions that may not directly relate to your show.

But polling numbers correspond fairly reliably to how people will vote. And if people don't vote for you, you definitely won't be President.
posted by Sara C. at 2:34 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

pbo, woooooooooooooow. I know he was joking, but in what universe would Mexico ever attack the United States? He's getting his boogeymen jumbled.
posted by stolyarova at 2:34 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

ahhhhhh, the "your show" as a reference to the show he is appearing on during this interview makes more sense.
posted by Sara C. at 2:35 PM on June 30, 2016

so this happened

I finally figured it out -- Trump is running for Mr. President from Death Race 2000, except he's not campaigning against the French -- the treacherous French, who have crippled our once-great economy and wrecked our telephone system.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:41 PM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]

I just finished reading the Ioffe piece about Stephen Miller ...

Admittedly, I know nothing about Stephen Miller beyond what I read in that piece, but there's something in there that pings my "self-loathing closet-case" gaydar so hard. I don't what his kink is but I'll bet it's freaky.
posted by octobersurprise at 2:52 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

99% sure he's into being walked on by someone in high heels while he wears a gimp mask.
posted by stolyarova at 2:53 PM on June 30, 2016

so this happened

This is a dumb joke. It’s Mitt Romney saying that the trees are the right height. Worse, because he’s joking about Mexico and the international chaos he’s causing, but that’s all it is. On the other hand, Donald Trump eavesdropped on employee conversations at Mar-a-Lago. That’s a thing he has actually done.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:53 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

"heebie jabbies"
posted by Countess Elena at 3:00 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

It's a joke (I'm pretty sure), but coming from the guy who was more than happy to use the Orlando shooting to drop some implications about Obama and ISIS, I think this is the kind of joke he'd be perfectly happy for some of his supporters to take semi-seriously, like, sure, he's not really saying that particular plane is a Mexican warplane, but feel free to take away the impression that Mexico is a dangerous enemy that might want to attack us. It is so gross, and so shitty.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:01 PM on June 30, 2016 [9 favorites]

Yeah obviously it's a joke, but it's the kind of thing that for most politicians would be a gaffe, and yet here are commentators on MSNBC saying he was totes "normal" today.
posted by zutalors! at 3:02 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

He flagrantly violated the law by soliciting foreign investments to his presidential campaign.

The RNC should use that as the basis for running away from Trump. This is significant enough to make his candidacy invalid.
posted by yesster at 3:06 PM on June 30, 2016 [11 favorites]

I formally invoke reintroducing the "surely this..." meme at Metafilter.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:19 PM on June 30, 2016 [13 favorites]

I would think that any party would have a kind of morals clause, allowing (not requiring) it to reject a nominee who had on a preponderance of the evidence committed an act adversely reflecting on his fitness for the office of etc. etc.
posted by Countess Elena at 3:20 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

it'd be like Reagan doing, "We commence bombing the USSR in five minutes" believing the mike is on instead of off.

wow I just used Reagan as some sort of standard of class
posted by angrycat at 3:21 PM on June 30, 2016 [10 favorites]

Remember when everyone was outraged that Mitt Romney abused his dog?
posted by Sara C. at 3:27 PM on June 30, 2016 [15 favorites]

Or Paul Ryan's fake marathon time?
posted by peeedro at 3:31 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

Ryan fake washed a clean dish at a soup kitchen for a photo op
posted by zutalors! at 3:33 PM on June 30, 2016 [19 favorites]

trump woulda fired that dog after getting it down offa the car
posted by murphy slaw at 3:34 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

Rick Perry forgot the third of the three things he was totally gonna do in a debate
posted by zutalors! at 3:36 PM on June 30, 2016 [10 favorites]

Obama said 57 states instead of 47
posted by theodolite at 3:37 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

Sarah Palin totally reads magazines, Katie, her favorites are whatever is put in front of her.
posted by zutalors! at 3:39 PM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]

All of them, Katie.
posted by drezdn at 3:41 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

I formally invoke reintroducing the "surely this..." meme at Metafilter.

That would be great news for John McCain.
posted by nom de poop at 3:42 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

Kerry was unelectable because he was married to the weird ketchup lady.
posted by stolyarova at 3:46 PM on June 30, 2016 [9 favorites]

Don't forget his windsurfing.
posted by Sara C. at 3:47 PM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]

Howard Dean screamed Beyoonnnnnceeeee! at a Taylor Swift concert
posted by Existential Dread at 3:47 PM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]

Ah the salad days of mild gaffes and incompetences.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:48 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

Yeah, remember when Ted Cruz ate a booger on camera
posted by Existential Dread at 3:50 PM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]

Remember when Newt Gingrich was going to build a moon base?
posted by stolyarova at 3:52 PM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]

[David] Barton, who has already made clear that he will be voting for Trump despite the fact that he ran a super PAC supporting Ted Cruz, explained that since Christians were very active in the Republican primaries, they must conclude that Trump's victory was part of God's plans.

"One thing I know for sure is that in the race of primaries, we had a lot really good God guys in there," Barton said. "And we had a huge turnout of professing Christians and evangelicals and others, so there is nothing to complain about that we didn't get a voice, we didn't get a candidate. We had great candidates to choose from and this is who the people chose, and this is who the people chose with a really high turnout of evangelicals. So I kind of look back and say, 'Hmmm, I wonder where God's fingerprint is in this?' because this is not necessarily a failure of the church."

"This may not be our preferred candidate, but that doesn't mean it may not be God's candidate to do something that we don't see," he said. "We may look back in a few years and say, 'Wow, he really did some things that none of us expected.' So I am fully open to the possibility that because we did everything as Christians that we could, we can't complain about our turnout, we can't complain about our quality of candidates, and this is what the people chose; I'm a whole lot more open to the fact that God may have something going here that is much bigger than what we think or see."

Hmmm What is God up to? Maybe preparing for End Times? Or maybe God is just a giant jokester who sent Cheeto Jesus to test his believers. "Would you vote for an immoral narcissist with no previous experience as long as he runs as a Republican? Let's find out!"
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:59 PM on June 30, 2016 [11 favorites]

Remember when Trump ate a live baby on-stage at the GOP convention?

*sees date stamp of previous comment*

Oh, I mean... remember when Dan Quayle misspelled potato? Heh. That was quite the gaffe!

*pushes button on wristwatch, disintegrates into thin air*
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:04 PM on June 30, 2016 [22 favorites]

Trump is the very picture of Evangelicals' idea of The Antichrist -- I mean even down to if you get your idea of The Antichrist from Left Behind -- and it disappoints me greatly that none of them seem to be seeing that.

(I gather that Trump hasn't precisely captured the Evangelical vote, but if these people were in any way honest they should be RUNNING to almost any other candidate and doing everything in their power to make sure Trump isn't elected.)
posted by Sara C. at 4:05 PM on June 30, 2016 [15 favorites]

A meh moment in Trumpland: Trump rejects 'nasty' anti-Israel comment at town hall until you get to the end which has this gem:

“And you think Hillary Clinton would ever do a news conference on this, totally unvetted?" Trump asked the crowd gathered outside the shuttered Osram Sylvania factory. "And by the way, speaking of unvetted, we’re going to take care of our vets. Just remember that.”

And speaking of unvetted I have to remember to take the dog in for her shots next Tuesday.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:05 PM on June 30, 2016 [20 favorites]

well it's not like god has a history of raising up terrible evil rulers to make a point or anything, I mean if there was anything like that in the bible I'm sure it'd be raising all kinds of red flags for evangelicals
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:06 PM on June 30, 2016 [19 favorites]

"This may not be our preferred candidate, but that doesn't mean it may not be God's candidate ..."

If Trump doesn't insist on anointing his own forehead with Trump Oil™ at the start of every speech, then he's missing a trick.
posted by octobersurprise at 4:12 PM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]

It's the idea of God as grand puppet master that gets to me. Like humans have no freewill. People didn't vote for Trump over Cruz because of reasons...no it had to be God's plan. I'm no longer a Christian but this goes against everything I was taught. If God has all of this worked out to his liking then I don't know how anyone could worship him because that means he has planned famine, genocide, murder, cancer, and every other horrible thing on Earth. Thanks, God!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:12 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

Nah, he didn't plan it, he just knew it was going to happen since the beginning of time and didn't do anything to stop it.
posted by XMLicious at 4:18 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote.

We’re not uneducated, uninformed, unemployed or low-income zealots. We’re affluent, well-educated, gainfully employed and successfully retired. Some of us even own our own business, or did before we retired, creating not only our own job but also employment for others. While we’re fiscally conservative, we’re not tea partyers. And on certain social issues, many of us even have some leftward leanings.

For many of us, Trump has only one redeeming quality: He isn’t Hillary Clinton. He doesn’t want to turn the United States into a politically correct, free-milk-and-cookies, European-style social democracy where every kid (and adult, too) gets a trophy just for showing up.

posted by Monochrome at 4:20 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah, Trump is scary enough, but Miller will be eligible to run for President in five years. He could be running in 2024 or 2028.

Just remember Miller. And also know that, as long as he keeps his hands reasonably clean, everyone on the right that's rending garments and pulling hair about Trump right now will be be lining up to kiss his ring. Kasich and Graham and Sasse. Kristol and Brooks and Will. Everyone. It won't matter that he'll be asking for exactly the same thing Trump is, it will matter that he says it in a way that doesn't creep out. And because both the media and electorate have short memories, he stands a very good chance of getting away with it.

So remember who he is and what he's saying, because a lot of people won't.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:21 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote.

Wow, I've seldom seen someone spend so much time trying to claim intelligence in the first paragraph, only to prove themselves an utter moron in the second.

"I don't like free milk and cookies so I'll set the country on fire!"
posted by tavella at 4:25 PM on June 30, 2016 [35 favorites]

Of course people have free will. How else could they decide to go against God's Will as laid out in this handy series of texts that could never possibly be mistranslated or misinterpreted, thus earning a one-way trip to That Place Where The Guy With The Horns And Pitchfork Conducts His Business?
posted by delfin at 4:25 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote.

I read that essay. It’s a massive, substance-less troll, and will make you angry without even feeling like the effort had a point.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:26 PM on June 30, 2016 [12 favorites]

I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote.

tl;dr "Trump might be a terrible, unqualified presidential candidate, but I can't pass up the opportunity to stick my thumb in the eye of those damn millennials and their participation trophies WHARRGARBL"
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:27 PM on June 30, 2016 [30 favorites]

Trump is the very picture of Evangelicals' idea of The Antichrist

A lot of Evangelicals are pumped for the Apocalypse, so that may be a feature rather than a bug.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:28 PM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]

Just remember Miller. And also know that, as long as he keeps his hands reasonably clean, everyone on the right that's rending garments and pulling hair about Trump right now will be be lining up to kiss his ring. Kasich and Graham and Sasse. Kristol and Brooks and Will. Everyone. It won't matter that he'll be asking for exactly the same thing Trump is, it will matter that he says it in a way that doesn't creep out. And because both the media and electorate have short memories, he stands a very good chance of getting away with it.

Alternately, having tied his career to the worst possible presidential candidate in history, after the election he will be obliterated from the party without a trace. (One hopes.)
posted by Going To Maine at 4:29 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

For many of us, Trump has only one redeeming quality: He isn’t Hillary Clinton. He doesn’t want to turn the United States into a politically correct, free-milk-and-cookies, European-style social democracy where every kid (and adult, too) gets a trophy just for showing up.

I continue to be amazed at how Hillary Clinton is simultaneously perceived as a socialist antichrist and a capitalist antichrist, depending on who you talk to.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 4:32 PM on June 30, 2016 [45 favorites]

Basically that guy's argument is that he realizes that Trump is a literal fascist, but he's still going to vote for him, because PC is run amok on college campuses? Dude, maybe you should just admit that you're cool with fascism.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:37 PM on June 30, 2016 [33 favorites]

He doesn’t want to turn the United States into a politically correct, free-milk-and-cookies, European-style social democracy where every kid (and adult, too) gets a trophy just for showing up.

What particularly frustrates me about this line is that this country sounds great! I love milk and cookies! I love trophies! What, exactly, do you hate about this? It’s such a nothing essay that takes understanding of its code as a given.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:40 PM on June 30, 2016 [14 favorites]

I don't think it's possible to overestimate how much of Trump's appeal is lol libs epic troll u mad
posted by theodolite at 4:41 PM on June 30, 2016 [30 favorites]

Biden: I’ve talked with Bernie Sanders, and he’s going to endorse Hillary Clinton
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:43 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

Going to Maine, it's a dogwhistle for I GOT MINE SO FUCK YOU
posted by Sara C. at 4:44 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

"One thing I know for sure is that in the race of primaries, we had a lot really good God guys in there," Barton said.

This was true, but not in the way he thinks. I know I said "good God" a LOT during the GOP primary campaign.
posted by infinitewindow at 4:48 PM on June 30, 2016 [16 favorites]

That man just plain has issues with everyone born after 1975. His column is the 2016 version of Lee J. Cobb's shouting breakdown in 12 Angry Men.
posted by Countess Elena at 4:58 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

Biden: I’ve talked with Bernie Sanders, and he’s going to endorse Hillary Clinton

Joe Biden: I want you to eat, I want you to rest well and a month from now this socialist big shot’s gonna give you what you want.

Hillary Clinton: Too late. The convention starts in three weeks.

Joe Biden: I’m gonna make him an offer he won’t refuse. Now just go outside and enjoy yourself. Forget all this nonsense. Listen, I want you to leave it all to me.

posted by Atom Eyes at 4:59 PM on June 30, 2016 [23 favorites]

Maybe God's message was "vote democrat?"
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:02 PM on June 30, 2016 [14 favorites]

Alternately, having tied his career to the worst possible presidential candidate in history, after the election he will be obliterated from the party without a trace

Yeah, that result is easily 50/50 in Miller's case. Maybe 60/40, if you ask me. (Alternately, he's the first Presidential candidate to run on the Anti-Reptiloid/Pro-Gimp ticket.)

I don't think it's possible to overestimate how much of Trump's appeal is lol libs epic troll u mad

Honestly, I don't think it's possible to overestimate the appeal of "lol u mad" behind modern politics everywhere.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:04 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

150 Years After Its Founding, KKK Says US Politics Are Going Its Way
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:16 PM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]

Sanders just told Chris Hayes: "I hope it happens." in regard to endorsing Clinton.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:23 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sanders just told Chris Hayes: "I hope it happens." in regard to endorsing Clinton.

Jesus. I'm so over him, I'm sorry.
posted by Salieri at 5:30 PM on June 30, 2016 [24 favorites]

I think Bernie Sanders just invented the future subjunctive passive voice.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:30 PM on June 30, 2016 [61 favorites]

Chris Hayes is killing it this season.
posted by zutalors! at 5:34 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

"Bobby, are you going to brush your teeth tonight?"

"I hope it happens mom."
posted by zachlipton at 5:35 PM on June 30, 2016 [23 favorites]

Sanders just told Chris Hayes: "I hope it happens." in regard to endorsing Clinton.

I, too, hope that Sanders is visited by the Endorsement Fairy.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:41 PM on June 30, 2016 [21 favorites]

Trump is leading with white man and is likely to get the white male vote, just like Romney and McCain did. That blows my mind for some reason.

Oddly, the latest polls show Trump with a bit more Hispanic support than Romney or McCain. The polls I looked at didn't break that down by gender, I would love to know how Trump polls with Hispanic males.
posted by cell divide at 5:43 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Joe Biden: I’m gonna make him an offer he won’t refuse.

Two days later, Sanders finds the head of a statue of FDR in his bed.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:45 PM on June 30, 2016 [6 favorites]

Isn't Biden the guy who says things and then they happen?

"I'm fine with same sex marriage. We'll endorse."
"I'm psyched for a female nominee. we'll endorse."
"Sanders will endorse Clinton"

he's usually not wrong, just early.
posted by zutalors! at 5:51 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

Two days later, Sanders finds the head of a statue of FDR in his bed.

No, I think it'd be the steering-wheel of a 1983 Trans Am. That's when you know Joe means business.

(I dug Joe in 1988 and I wish he'd gotten another shot at the Big Chair.)
posted by octobersurprise at 6:00 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

Two days later, Sanders finds the head of a statue of FDR in his bed.

Hillary as the Godfather rings perhaps truer than you'd want.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:04 PM on June 30, 2016

Hillary as the Godfather rings perhaps truer than you'd want.

If Vince Foster killed himself today there'd be photoshopped memes of that scene at the end with Mike and Tessio.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:06 PM on June 30, 2016

Hillary as the Godfather rings perhaps truer than you'd want.

Hmm, funny, doesn't ring true to me at all! She just seems like a very dedicated lifelong public servant to me.
posted by zutalors! at 6:08 PM on June 30, 2016 [32 favorites]

We’re not uneducated, uninformed, unemployed or low-income zealots. We’re affluent, well-educated, gainfully employed and successfully retired. Some of us even own our own business, or did before we retired, creating not only our own job but also employment for others. While we’re fiscally conservative, we’re not tea partyers. And on certain social issues, many of us even have some leftward leanings sexist as all get out.

No point in beating around the bush.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:12 PM on June 30, 2016 [11 favorites]

Hillary as the Godfather rings perhaps truer than you'd want.

If you've been listening to 25 years of right-wing lies about her and started thinking "well, there must be something"...
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:16 PM on June 30, 2016 [13 favorites]

Biden: I’ve talked with Bernie Sanders, and he’s going to endorse Hillary Clinton

Biden: "The night of the endorsement, you may feel a slight sting. That's pride fucking with you. Fuck pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps."
posted by happyroach at 6:28 PM on June 30, 2016 [19 favorites]

YOU'RE A SENTIENT ANAL ABSCESS DONNY

Oh come now. Sentient?
posted by um at 6:29 PM on June 30, 2016 [8 favorites]

Oy.

Members of this new silent majority, many of us front-wave baby boomers, value hard work and love the United States the way it was. We long for a bygone era when you didn’t need “safe spaces” on college campuses to shelter students from the atrocity of dissenting opinions, lest their sensibilities be offended. We have the reckless notion that college is the one place where sensibilities are supposed to be challenged and debated. Silly us.

No, you long for a bygone era when college campuses WERE unsafe because the National Guard might stop by to shoot a few of you, or the FBI might wage campaigns against Subversive Youth, or the Governor of California (some asshole named Ronnie something or other, luckily nothing ever became of him) might rage about Student Radicals and Filthy Speech Advocates and Sex Perverts and send in cops to break heads and shoot people in the name of Reclaiming Moral Order from Communist Sympathizers.

You have nostalgia for an age that you never experienced because it never existed. May your asshole swell shut for a month.
posted by delfin at 6:36 PM on June 30, 2016 [30 favorites]

European-style social democracy where every kid (and adult, too) gets a trophy just for showing up.

-Doesn't want to give someone a trophy for just showing up
-Values hard work.

Decides to vote for Trump. Someone that's not qualified at all to be president, who was helped through life by his rich dad, and who's "billions" are probably just a mirage. And he doesn't even like Trump. SO, basically he's voting for Trump because he fucking shows up on his ballot.

BRILLIANT reasoning!
posted by FJT at 6:39 PM on June 30, 2016 [22 favorites]

"One thing I know for sure is that in the race of primaries, we had a lot really good God guys in there," Barton said.

Really Good God Guys is a great band name just there for taking, folks.
posted by msalt at 6:43 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

Wait, wait, just wait a second. Trump now thinks the Mexicans are going to use AIRPLANES to come over here and cause trouble?

Okay, okay, let's see. How would they do that? I'm going to assume the most capable airplanes Mexico has are the ones in its Air Force. According to some quick Internet research, the Mexican Air Force doesn't have an awful lot of combat aircraft, and most of the ones they do have are propeller driven. Swiss Pilatus PC-7s and PC-9s mainly, and some Beechcraft Texans. All of these are intended as trainers, but they're listed separately from the trainers, so I guess the Mexicans have converted some of them to a light attack role.

But the most capable aircraft in the Mexican Air Force would be the Northrop F-5, a supersonic multi-role jet fighter made in the U.S. and sold around the world. The Mexicans have six of them. The flight ceiling of the F-5 turns out to be a fairly impressive 51,800 feet which means...

That's going to have to be one serious motherfucker of a wall.
posted by Naberius at 6:46 PM on June 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

She just seems like a very dedicated lifelong public servant to me.

Especially the public on Wall Street, yes.

Yes, real people work on Wall Street! People who need healthcare, women's rights, equal pay, children's rights, LGBT rights, reproductive services, etc. Those needs expand to all the other streets in New York City, the state, and the whole country.
posted by zutalors! at 6:49 PM on June 30, 2016 [15 favorites]

msalt: Really Good God Guys is a great band name just there for taking, folks.

Christian Dad-rock band.
posted by Superplin at 6:49 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

Members of this new silent majority, many of us front-wave baby boomers, value hard work and love the United States the way it was

Tell it to Huntley-Brinkley. This is the political equivalent of "the music just isn't real these days, you know, man?"

I was actually dining with some friends last weekend and while we were getting loose and talking about getting old, I articulated my own philosophy. "I'm determined not to let the little bastards future shock me."
posted by octobersurprise at 6:55 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

Looking nostalgically at the days when college campuses were safe for serial rapists... well, more safe.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:56 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

Wait, wait, just wait a second. Trump now thinks the Mexicans are going to use AIRPLANES to come over here and cause trouble?

We're gonna need a bigger wall.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:45 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Man, his kickbacks from construction contracts just keep piling up.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:52 PM on June 30, 2016

We're gonna need a bigger wall.

Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but it almost sounds like setup for what he'd say if he were to win and fail to build the wall. "We were gonna build a wall, but they'd just fly over it. Let me interest you in this other anti-Mexican project instead."
posted by mordax at 7:55 PM on June 30, 2016 [2 favorites]

I articulated my own philosophy. "I'm determined not to let the little bastards future shock me."

I interviewed a guy with a face tattoo, and not one of the artistic, engaging ones. He really knew his shit, so we won't hire him, as the Jamaican we also interviewed explained how he was fixing shit as he fixed it during the "ride-along" part of the interview. It wasn't that Face-Tattoo had a Face-Tattoo. It's that immigrant dude was a stone cold killer in our little corner of tech, and we're really bummed as we won't have another slot until the fall, and there is no way Face-Tattoo will be unemployed that long.

I myself have a salt-and-pepper Van Dyke '90s facial hair thing going on, and it's very thick and luxurious and wavy now that I am a 40-something and not a sparsely chin-fuzzed twenty-something, and it creeps out the full-beard-or-go-home hipsters. I stroke the beard to a sharp little point and curl the mustache ends sometimes when I'm feeling villainous.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:58 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

In other news, Dreamworks Animation is premiering the movie "Trolls" the weekend before the election... and the Trolls in this one are the good guys. It's the last Dreamworks movie to be released by Fox (Rupert Murdoch) before the cartoon studio is formally acquired by Universal, a division of Comcast (whose other division, NBC, aired Trump's Apprentice show). The plot is all about the happy, lovable Trolls being attacked by Big Bad Outsiders. Coincidence? I think not. Basically, the Right Wing Media Conspiracy is going to try to teach us to love Trolls, right before we get to vote for one.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:26 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Shart imititates life, I suppose.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:30 PM on June 30, 2016 [5 favorites]

Members of this new silent majority, many of us front-wave baby boomers, value hard work and love the United States the way it was. We long for a bygone era when you didn’t need “safe spaces” on college campuses to shelter students from the atrocity of dissenting opinions, lest their sensibilities be offended. We have the reckless notion that college is the one place where sensibilities are supposed to be challenged and debated.

I honestly can't figure out if this is supposed to be a satire of the thought process behind supporting Trump, or whether it is a weird bit of honesty from a person who authentically thinks this way.

I mean, yes, the Democrats are the progressive (well, progressiveish) party. And coddling in college is one of the typical stereotypes attached to "bleeding-heart" liberals. But how does Hillary Clinton end up being a metonym for that particular constellation of liberal values? It's not her thing, not her issue. It's a seemingly irrelevant get-off-my-lawn rant attached to a non-sequitur "And that's why I'm voting for Donald Trump".
posted by jackbishop at 9:15 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

Source: Trump campaign fired its latest digital guru after he leaked news of his hiring
posted by kirkaracha at 9:24 PM on June 30, 2016

I propose that "And that's why I'm voting for Donald Trump" be the new punchline to The Aristocrats.
posted by murphy slaw at 9:25 PM on June 30, 2016 [27 favorites]

We were gonna build a wall, but they'd just fly over it. Let me interest you in this other anti-Mexican project instead.

Michael Braun, the former chief of operations for the D.E.A., told me a story about the construction of a high-tech fence along a stretch of border in Arizona. “They erect this fence,” he said, “only to go out there a few days later and discover that these guys have a catapult, and they’re flinging hundred-pound bales of marijuana over to the other side.” He paused and looked at me for a second. “A catapult,” he repeated. “We’ve got the best fence money can buy, and they counter us with a 2,500-year-old technology.”

posted by kirkaracha at 9:32 PM on June 30, 2016 [29 favorites]

Fences aren't exactly new technology.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:42 PM on June 30, 2016 [9 favorites]

“We’ve got the best fence money can buy, and they counter us with a 2,500-year-old technology.”

Oh, I remember that story, but since it's a thing that actually happened, I imagine Trump wouldn't know. Therefore: airplanes.
posted by mordax at 9:53 PM on June 30, 2016

What particularly frustrates me about this line is that this country sounds great! I love milk and cookies! I love trophies! What, exactly, do you hate about this?

No drug glands. No orgies. Pretty shit vision of the future if you ask me.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:54 PM on June 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

Bernie has cut Hillary's lead in California to 399K, but there are only 350K ballots left to count. So at this point he may pick off a few more delegates, but he's not going to win.

What I'm not understanding, though, is this meme about Bernie not winning because of voter fraud in California. As in, I've tried to understand the argument, but I can't get a straight one that makes any sense.
posted by dw at 10:01 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump is the antithesis of a Mind, in any case.
posted by stolyarova at 10:02 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

What I'm not understanding, though, is this meme about Bernie not winning because of voter fraud in California. As in, I've tried to understand the argument, but I can't get a straight one that makes any sense.

Don't bother. Ignore it. It doesn't even slightly matter. The very loud but very very few who are still beating this particular conspiracy drum are the kind of nutjobs who were never going to vote rationally in the general anyway, and can pretty safely be discounted.
posted by dersins at 10:09 PM on June 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

msalt-------> Really Good God Guys is a great band name just there for taking, folks.
superplin---> Christian Dad-rock band.

Naw, I'm think super decadent drugged-out hipsters, preferably 75% or more female.
posted by msalt at 11:00 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

But how does Hillary Clinton end up being a metonym for that particular constellation of liberal values?

Because if you vote for a girl, political correctness wins.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:57 PM on June 30, 2016 [14 favorites]

What you're not factoring in, dw, is how badly people want Sanders to win. That's worth another 400,000 votes right there, see?

I watched one of the videos from folks claiming it proved Clinton had stolen the primary. It is JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS SHEEPLE level stuff and I don't think there is any chance of convincing the people who believe it of much of anything.
posted by Justinian at 1:02 AM on July 1, 2016

The big "argument" I keep seeing on twitter is that Bernie Sanders had so many more people at his rallies, which is similar to what Trump says about his poll numbers. Which is, of course, faulty reasoning.
posted by drezdn at 4:09 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm guessing that a lot of Sanders supporters are too young to have been involved in a losing campaign before and hadn't really considered the possibility.
posted by octothorpe at 4:58 AM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]

Anecdata here but I've got a few (read: 2) friends that are in the Bernie conspiracy group that are 28 and 32 respectivly. So take that as you will.
posted by Twain Device at 5:03 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Trump: I Was Asked To Speak On All Three Convention Nights

I TOLD YOU
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:09 AM on July 1, 2016 [10 favorites]

I interviewed a guy with a face tattoo, and not one of the artistic, engaging ones. He really knew his shit, so we won't hire him, as the Jamaican we also interviewed explained how he was fixing shit as he fixed it during the "ride-along" part of the interview. It wasn't that Face-Tattoo had a Face-Tattoo. It's that immigrant dude was a stone cold killer in our little corner of tech, and we're really bummed as we won't have another slot until the fall, and there is no way Face-Tattoo will be unemployed that long.

I don't know what any of these words mean. Is this a tech job? What?
posted by zutalors! at 5:12 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]

Justinian, yes, it's true, there's a conspiracy-minded fringe of Bernie supporters. You can find them if you look. I can find you Hilary supporters too who swore up and up and down that Bernie has ties to right-wing militias and was trying to get to recruit white supremists and neo-Nazis to infiltrate the Democratic Party. I also don't think nut-balls like that are remotely the bulk of Hilary supporters.

Most Bernie supporters started out with the assumption that it was almost impossible for him to win the nomination. We supported him anyway, with the assumption that we'd probably be voting for Clinton in November. The campaign was important as a way to build a movement within the Democratic Party to support socially liberal and social democratic values. And a way to remind the Democratic Party establishment that we're here.

That's were we still are. We did better in the primaries than most of us were expecting. We made some mistakes, too. Hopefully we can learn from them. We're still voting for Clinton in the fall. I hope the movement we've built (minus the fringe) can be a positive force in the future and help get progressive candidates elected.

Remember, we're about 40% or so of the Democratic primary electorate. Back during the primaries, over 70% of Sanders supporters said they'd be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination. A similar percentage of Clinton supporters said the same thing about a potential Sanders win. 80% of Sanders supporters plan on voting for Clinton this fall. (And I know, anecdotally, from volunteering for the campaign, that a lot of people who canvassed for Sanders this spring plan doing the same for Clinton's GOTV effort in the general this fall.)
posted by nangar at 5:12 AM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]

"And by the way, speaking of unvetted, we’re going to take care of our vets. Just remember that.”

Hi, folks, I'm Swamp Thing.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:23 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

Nangar, I think most of us know that's true, but the shouty Bernie folks have had a real impact on social media, while the shouty Hillary conspiracy nuts I haven't heard a peep from. Part of that is gender, part is who's been winning all along, but it's always been true that those who talk loudest get a bigger say in setting the agenda. That has always sucked, and it continues to suck. (See, loudest GOP candidate.)
posted by rikschell at 5:26 AM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]

I just wish that Bernie supporters would stop doing shit like sending marauding bands of white dudes to take over the minority caucuses at the Nebraska Democratic State Convention. It caused a lot of consternation among Latino Democrats, whose longtime leader the mostly-white Bernie supporters temporarily succeeded in ousting, and that's really a group whom one would hope not to alienate. Nebraska splits its presidential delegates by congressional district, and there is one swing district. It went to Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012 and elected a Democratic congressman in 2014. It could go either way in this election. And the swing district has a significant Latino population. High Latino turnout could make a difference in a close race, and it's stupid, as well as morally wrong, to disrespect those voters and to claim that you know how to conduct their affairs better than they do.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:31 AM on July 1, 2016 [33 favorites]

I TOLD YOU

> explaining his worry that it would make him seem egocentric

Ha, this is the textbook Trump move: Make up sad, sad bullshit for no real personal gain other than to try to make yourself look both important and humble. I have visions of the end of this man's life in a nursing home, surrounded by patronizing nurses and orderlies who reassure him of how important he is to make feeding times easier.

On the bright side, it is reassuring how many Americans are tired of Hillary's lies.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:31 AM on July 1, 2016

Nursing home Trump: "You know I was the real President. Hillary was just ceremonial. She knew she wasn't smart enough, so she always asked me to make the real decisions. Behind the scenes, though, and I kept it discreet because I'm the most discreet guy there is. She mostly planned White House dinners. I killed all the leaders of ISIS in a secret raid. Couldn't talk about that, either."
posted by clawsoon at 5:51 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]

David Fahrenthold: Donald Trump used money donated for charity to buy himself a Tim Tebow-signed football helmet

Four years ago, at a charity fundraiser in Palm Beach, Donald Trump got into a bidding war at the evening's live auction. The items up for sale: A Denver Broncos helmet, autographed by then-star quarterback Tim Tebow, and a Tebow jersey.

Trump won, eventually, with a bid of $12,000. Afterward, he posed with the helmet. His purchase made gossip-column news: a flourish of generosity, by a mogul with money to burn. "The Donald giveth, and The Donald payeth," wrote the Palm Beach Daily News. "Blessed be the name of The Donald."

But Trump didn't actually pay with his own money.

Instead, the Susan G. Komen organization -- the breast-cancer nonprofit that hosted the party -- got a $12,000 payment from another nonprofit , the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

Trump himself sent no money (In fact, a Komen spokesperson said, Trump has never given a personal gift of cash to the Komen organization). He paid the bill with money from a charity he founded in 1987, but which is largely stocked with other people's money. Trump is the foundation's president. But, at the time of the auction, Trump had given none of his own money to the foundation for three years running.

posted by zombieflanders at 6:17 AM on July 1, 2016 [21 favorites]

Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry

The Justice Department had been moving toward such an arrangement for months — officials said in April that it was being considered — but a private meeting between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton this week set off a political furor and made the decision all but inevitable.

posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:24 AM on July 1, 2016

"Government official says s/he will continue to follow normal bureaucratic procedure" is the epitome of a non-story.
posted by dersins at 6:29 AM on July 1, 2016 [13 favorites]

Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch was incredibly stupid. Regardless of the substance or non-substance of their interaction, it looks bad, and he of all people should know that. I often get the impression that, at subconsciously, Bill doesn't want Hillary to become President.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:34 AM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]

I hate to say this, because I have deep respect for Lynch, but it was just as stupid on her part.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:39 AM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]

I don't understand why Bill hasn't yet been put on unofficial house arrest yet by either the campaign or Hillary herself. It's like he's physically incapable of doing or saying dangerously stupid shit. Four years ago, I didn't imagine I would be dreading the possibility that he's been given a prime speaking spot (or any at all) at the convention, but that's where I am by now. And Lynch is the goddamn Attorney General. She should have had him physically barred from coming within 50 yards of her plane, not welcomed him in.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:39 AM on July 1, 2016 [11 favorites]

David Fahrenthold: Donald Trump used money donated for charity to buy himself a Tim Tebow-signed football helmet

Tim Tebow? Is the man lacking all decency?
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 6:43 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

haiku warrior: Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch was incredibly stupid.

I was, like, what's wrong with, and then I was, like, oh, wait...
posted by clawsoon at 6:43 AM on July 1, 2016

Ha, this is the textbook Trump move: Make up sad, sad bullshit for no real personal gain other than to try to make yourself look both important and humble. I have visions of the end of this man's life in a nursing home, surrounded by patronizing nurses and orderlies who reassure him of how important he is to make feeding times easier.

On the bright side, it is reassuring how many Americans are tired of Hillary's lies.

Ooooooh and you were this close to a favorite.

From the Trump: I Was Asked To Speak On All Three Convention Nights link posted above:

Back-to-back-to-back speeches are not the only convention idea Trump claims to have shunned. He shut down plans to have him arrive in Cleveland by train, arguing that it’s been done before, and he decided against delivering his convention-closing speech at a larger, outdoor stadium over concerns that it would cost too much. He did tell the Times that he was tempted by the outdoor stadium though, because it would have afforded him the chance to arrive via helicopter. (Unveiling the convention stage earlier this week, Republican National Convention CEO Jeff Larson confirmed that Trump’s acceptance speech will happen inside Cleveland’s Quicken Loans Arena.)

Trump: I could hold my acceptance speech in a giant arena. Tens of thousands will come. The Greatest Sports Winners of ALL Time will be there. And Me, I'll be the Greatest of the Greats. The Winningest of the winners.

Sports Greats: Nope

Sports Has Beens: Nope

Sports Not Too Well Known Guys: Nope

Trump: I could fly in by helicopter. It will be the Greatest Entrance in the History of All Political Events Ever

Bank Balance: Nope
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:04 AM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]

“I don’t want people to think I’m grandstanding, which I’m not,” he said. “But it would get high ratings.”

*eyeroll*
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 7:09 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

Hillary Clinton: A note on The Toast

This is not a joke. Hillary’s team had talked to me a few weeks back about doing something, but I didn’t want to do, like, a “If Hillary Were Your President” type thing, and then they got in touch on Wednesday and said she wanted to write something HERSELF (it seems her people show her Two Monks or what-have-you on long campaign days) and I said only if it was funny and they said “she was thinking more heartfelt?” and here we are. – Nicole

posted by zombieflanders at 7:10 AM on July 1, 2016 [40 favorites]

A note on The Toast on the day of its closing.

Holy shit.
posted by rewil at 7:12 AM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]

Clinton, though? All the blame. He should never have initiated that meeting;

Excepting GWB, is there another two-term President who can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like Bill can? I can't think of one right now.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:12 AM on July 1, 2016

Speak your opinion more fervently in your classes if you’re a student, or at meetings in your workplace. Proudly take credit for your ideas. Have confidence in the value of your contributions. And if the space you’re in doesn’t have room for your voice, don’t be afraid to carve out a space of your own.

Wow. Well done. Put it on a campaign shirt.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:15 AM on July 1, 2016 [16 favorites]

Excepting GWB, is there another two-term President who can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like Bill can?

Nixon.
posted by Etrigan at 7:18 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

ArbitraryandCapricious, unfortunately, I have to agree with you.

Perhaps Lynch knows where the FBI inquiry is going and that there would be no need to go against any FBI recommendations. (AG Holder opted for bringing misdemeanor charges for Gen. Petraeus rather than felony charges recommended by the the FBI.) So she saw no harm in meeting with Clinton. One can only hope.

Regardless, Lynch has the integrity of the Office of the Attorney General to consider, and she made a big mistake.
posted by haiku warrior at 7:18 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

To bring the two bits of recent news together in my head, I'm imagining Hillary reading "If John Cho Were Your Boyfriend" and alternately laughing and sighing .
posted by zombieflanders at 7:20 AM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]

He did tell the Times that he was tempted by the outdoor stadium though, because it would have afforded him the chance to arrive via helicopter.

You can't be Elizabeth Windsor, Donny. You don't have the range.
posted by Etrigan at 7:20 AM on July 1, 2016

That signature had my eyes misty, perpetual bedhead that I am.

Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady, senator, and Secretary of State, and is currently running for President. She thinks your hair looks great exactly as it is.

posted by stolyarova at 7:22 AM on July 1, 2016 [33 favorites]

Hillary Clinton: A note on The Toast

Nicole Cliffe in the comments: Asking if Hillary wanted to receive her fifty dollar freelancing payment via check or PayPal was one of the best moments of my life.
posted by dersins at 7:22 AM on July 1, 2016 [29 favorites]

This means we can refer to The Whelk and Hillary as basically co-workers, right?
posted by rewil at 7:24 AM on July 1, 2016 [28 favorites]

The Toast article is somewhere you should read the comments.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:25 AM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]

The Toast article is somewhere you should read the comments.

Indeed. My other favorite:

I HAVE NEVER BEEN PANDERED TO SO EFFECTIVELY BEFORE
posted by dersins at 7:27 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]

When I arrived in the Senate in 2001, I was one of just 13 women, and I remember how thankful I was for my female colleagues on both sides of the aisle. My friend Barbara Mikulski famously started a tradition of dinner parties for all the women of the Senate. Over a glass of wine — okay, maybe three — we’d give each other support, advice, and highly relevant tips to navigate being in such an extreme minority.

Tomorrow's WaPo opeds will surely include HILLARY LOSES MORMON, MUSLIM VOTE
posted by phearlez at 7:30 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

I HAVE NEVER BEEN PANDERED TO SO EFFECTIVELY BEFORE

I've seen this attitude before and it puzzles me. The panderer (campaign staffer writing the article, in this case) sees their target as a rube, easily moved by cheap and vacuous signaling. One should be upset, not pleased, to be so disrespected.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 7:42 AM on July 1, 2016

That's really firmly in "everything Clinton does is proof of her perfidy" territory there
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:45 AM on July 1, 2016 [43 favorites]

Please internets don't make being a Toast Truther into a thing somehow.
posted by rewil at 7:49 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]

why on Earth would it be hard to believe Hillary Clinton wrote that for the Toast? So many of her public facing campaign staff is Toastie demographic, and her celebrity surrogates (Poehler, Dunham etc) are big on side projects that empower women.

Like what
posted by zutalors! at 7:50 AM on July 1, 2016 [15 favorites]

The Toast article is somewhere you should read the comments.

It's pretty much this
posted by zutalors! at 7:52 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

You know, I know some Hillary campaign staffers, and they're pretty awesome people with whom I enjoy hanging out and whom I am proud to know. I think it's a good thing that Hillary hires people who know how to speak effectively to people with me, but then, I don't agree with some other candidates that people like me are non-entities whose votes and voices don't matter. So even if it was written by a staffer who was trying to appeal to me, I don't see that as a problem.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:59 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]

I would see it as a problem given that they are explicitly saying she wrote it, and then in the comments they explain that they are not sure if she wrote the bio part though.

But like, politicians write their own op eds etc all the time. There is no reason to just assume the staffer definitely wrote it. Why, Hillary Clinton can't write or something? The experience of being one of an extreme minority of women Senators is something she is somehow unable to articulate?
posted by zutalors! at 8:05 AM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]

And if the space you’re in doesn’t have room for your voice, don’t be afraid to carve out a space of your own.

Paraphrasing Shirley Chisholm, who said, "If they don't give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair."

This is on a post-it at my desk.
posted by Sophie1 at 8:18 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]

Where's the video proof, guys?! When Sanders thanked the great redditors who led to his primary victory, he used a video. What is Clinton trying to hide?
posted by defenestration at 8:19 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

Dude "just asks questions" about women expressing their feelings about how other women talk to them, film at 11.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:22 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]

If it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic.
posted by defenestration at 8:24 AM on July 1, 2016

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I wasn't referring to you.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:26 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

POE'S LAW OVERLOAD: DEPLOY HAMBURGERS
posted by murphy slaw at 8:30 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump & Me by Mark Singer, review: 'an extremely funny profile'
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:34 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

save alive nothing that breatheth: "I've seen this attitude before and it puzzles me."

I assumed that that comment was at least 50% tongue-in-cheek.

In any case, I'm not usually a weepy kind of person but I legit teared up reading that this morning. And again on my drive to work thinking about it. And maybe again at my desk rereading it. Some of it was because it's The Toast's last day. Some of it was thinking of Nicole and Mallory and all of them and how they would have reacted to getting a note from the Clinton campaign and then from Clinton herself. Some of it was Clinton's message itself and then thinking about how different the world is that the Toasties (and I guess all of us, but mainly them) are living in now than the world that Clinton grew up in (I've been trying to read more about her early biography). So, even though I'm not a woman or even an American citizen eligible to vote, you can also consider me effectively pandered to.
posted by mhum at 8:37 AM on July 1, 2016 [12 favorites]

Who politicians pander to when they're running for office often tells you a lot about who they're going to try to keep satisfied with actual policies once they're in office. Many of the crappy things legislators and presidents have done, they did to throw a bone to crappy people. So when they instead throw a bone to nice people I call it a good sign.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:41 AM on July 1, 2016 [24 favorites]

It's the idea of God as grand puppet master that gets to me. Like humans have no freewill.

Can't fight Predestination: literally, metaphorically, or rhetorically.
posted by absalom at 8:42 AM on July 1, 2016

I've seen this attitude before and it puzzles me. The panderer (campaign staffer writing the article, in this case) sees their target as a rube, easily moved by cheap and vacuous signaling. One should be upset, not pleased, to be so disrespected.

I've encountered this attitude, too, and I am also puzzled by it. Because beneath the cry of superficiality as a way of signaling hard-nosed cynicism lies an obvious dismay at not being pandered to enough. "How dare you not give me what I really wanted!" might as well be the name of this electoral season.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:51 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

> If it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic.

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I wasn't referring to you.

Aww...c'mon guys, group hug!
posted by happyroach at 8:53 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

Bernie has cut Hillary's lead in California to 399K, but there are only 350K ballots left to count. So at this point he may pick off a few more delegates, but he's not going to win.

He was never going to win. Hillary took CA by a landslide. There would have to be voter fraud on an inconceivable scale for the California primary to have been "stolen". A scale that is just not possible for human beings to carry out, or to pass off as legitimate to the CA Secretary of State's office.

My taking having voted in CA and watching some of the conspiracy theories play out among friends here is that it's mainly a problem of people who are bad at math and don't know how politics works. For example you went to a Sanders rally and there were a lot of people there. And you don't know anyone in your social circle who is (admitting to) supporting Hillary. And then you went to vote and maybe there was some minor irregularity with your ballot (you were asked to surrender your mail-in ballot to vote in person, for example), and, therefore, STOLEN ELECTION OBVIOUSLY.

California has this new cool thing where you can actually go online to find out if your ballot was counted. Since so many Bernie supporters don't understand that calling an election isn't the same thing as counting all the votes and certifying it, a lot of my Bernie supporting friends cited the fact that they checked online ON ELECTION DAY and their votes hadn't been counted as evidence of voter fraud on a massive scale.

Head, please feel free to say hello to Desk whenever you're ready...
posted by Sara C. at 9:02 AM on July 1, 2016 [23 favorites]

We have the reckless notion that college is the one place where sensibilities are supposed to be challenged and debated.

This did make me wonder what happened to people who challenged sensibilities by, say, being visibly queer or being a woman who wanted to major in physics or being a black student who wanted to attend a flagship public university in the South. What he's not saying is that this is not about challenging sensibilities. It's about whose sensibilities are thought to matter. He just doesn't quite have the courage to say that he supports Trump because he wants a return to the days when straight white men could assume that their sensibilities would dominate.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:02 AM on July 1, 2016 [24 favorites]

He was never going to win. Hillary took CA by a landslide.

Not only that, even if he won, it wouldn't have mattered since CA he would still only have gotten a proportional number of the total delegates.
posted by octothorpe at 9:05 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

The word "pander" to me has a connotation of disingenuousness on the part of the speaker. To say this is pandering is to say that not only does Clinton not believe what is written here (whether actually written by a staffer or not) but that the implied attitude towards policy as it relates to the place of women in society is also false.

To me it doesn't have to be false, just laid on much thicker than the speaker believes the situation actually warrants. The classic example is a candidate telling a group of supporters that they're going to address that group's signature issue "on day one." Even assuming that they actually agree on that issue and plan to do something about it, the idea that it's actually their absolute first priority once in office is transparently ludicrous.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:08 AM on July 1, 2016

He was never going to win. Hillary took CA by a landslide. There would have to be voter fraud on an inconceivable scale for the California primary to have been "stolen". A scale that is just not possible for human beings to carry out, or to pass off as legitimate to the CA Secretary of State's office.

Perhaps the fantasy is that if they just keep ranting about it enough, at the Convention Hillary is going to pull a Sideshow Bob and whip out a bunch of notebooks labeled "Hillary's Fraud Log vol. X."

The point is only I could have executed such a masterpiece of electoral fraud and I have the records to prove it! Just look at these!
posted by Existential Dread at 9:09 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]

California and the Email server stuff just highlight the fact that among a certain group of individuals there is no acceptance of the fact that Hillary will quite likely be the next President of the USA. There is just endless hoping that some scandal or another will finally wrench back the covers on some global conspiracy being run by the Clintons since the 80s or something.

And there is a whole ecosystem dedicated to fanning the flames of doubt and increasingly the line is blurring between right wing conspiracy nuts and left wing conspiracy nuts.

Personally my advice is to do what 95% of the world does and just ignore them.
posted by vuron at 9:15 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Host: We are asking about the tone of the campaign, not only the people who go to rallies and campaign events, but between the candidates themselves. Let's go to Mary in Birmingham, Michigan. Republican line. Go ahead.

Caller: Thank you. Actually, I think his tone was dead on correct in response to Mrs.Clinton, who actually she did not yesterday in her speech, she was supposed to lay out her foreign policy. She said nothing about foreign policy. All she did was shoot arrows at him. At least he has said what he plans to do. He has laid it out. You know every time I hear him speak I am so grateful that he is running. I am disgusted with the way that the police did not protect people, but we are just going to hear him speak. That is what our forefathers put together, freedom of speech, number one. They were taking that away from the people that were going to hear him, and to be pelted with garage and have their car lights kicked out, but the police were doing nothing. But they were burning American flags.

Host: Mary is talking about the rally in San Jose, California. This is Redding, California. Donald Trump just finished up his comments. Those comments from Hillary Clinton yesterday in San Diego are available at our website C-SPAN.org. Democrats line. Peggy in Decatur, Georgia.

Caller: I think someone should cut out his tongue. I think they should cut out his tongue and stick it up his ass.

Host: The tone of the campaign, Jeremy. What do you think of it?

Caller: Prophecy is coming to pass. You can bet on it. Every word in the bible is coming to pass soon. Do not forget this. This is happening right now.

Host: Norman, Santa Barbara, California, on the independent line -- on the democrats line. go ahead ...

Previous link not actually worth watching, just something that made me laugh so is provided as proof of existance ... here is a fun one that is, 13 mins of The Senate at its Senatiest. The bill is called "Act to Reauthorize and Amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act and Other Purposes", but is dealing with GMO labeling (Sen. Pat Roberts amendment (voluntary but with national standards sort of compromise)) that is titled "Defund Planned Parenthood act of 2015". Sausage!

(spoiler, it passed 68 / 29 or there abouts). I don't think the House will be able to reintroduce the original language under the title and another bill to amend the title will be sent to the House as well, so when it emerges all the pieces might align.
posted by phoque at 9:18 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

The classic example is a candidate telling a group of supporters that they're going to address that group's signature issue "on day one."

This is a thing that actually happens with the POTUS, though. One of the things that made me feel like we got what we voted for with Obama is that, in his first week in office, he overturned the Mexico City Policy.

Because there are so many executive orders and executive branch approaches to policy that the President is responsible for, there really ARE a lot of issues voters care about that end up being addressed on day one, or close to it.

So, like, I guess "President immediately reverses previous President's executive order that was doing a thing you hate" is pandering, if government running in a democratic manner in general constitutes pandering?

I don't really love the idea that if a politician says anything good, or WORSE! actually does anything good (especially with haste!), therefore it's all a ploy to lure in a bunch of stupid rubes. If you feel that way, why don't we just have an absolute monarchy?
posted by Sara C. at 9:20 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

I just wish that Bernie supporters would stop doing shit like sending marauding bands of white dudes to take over the minority caucuses at the Nebraska Democratic State Convention. It caused a lot of consternation among Latino Democrats, whose longtime leader the mostly-white Bernie supporters temporarily succeeded in ousting, and that's really a group whom one would hope not to alienate. Nebraska splits its presidential delegates by congressional district, and there is one swing district. It went to Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012 and elected a Democratic congressman in 2014. It could go either way in this election. And the swing district has a significant Latino population. High Latino turnout could make a difference in a close race, and it's stupid, as well as morally wrong, to disrespect those voters and to claim that you know how to conduct their affairs better than they do.

This story is really worth a read, because it is so exactly emblematic of the problem I have with a lot of young, fired-up Sanders supporters - they have so much disdain for 'the political machine' that they have no interest in actually understanding it before they rip it down and try to build something new. That is so incredibly irresponsible and frankly dangerous.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:21 AM on July 1, 2016 [29 favorites]

also racist
posted by Sara C. at 9:23 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]

Not only that, even if he won, it wouldn't have mattered since CA he would still only have gotten a proportional number of the total delegates.

The idea was that if Bernie won California by an appreciable margin it would indicate a groundswell of support and that it provided legitimacy to go into a contested convention and that superdelegates would recognize the situation on the ground and start to flip.

But that mandate never materialized and we went into presumptive nominee mode.
posted by Talez at 9:24 AM on July 1, 2016

This is a thing that actually happens with the POTUS, though. One of the things that made me feel like we got what we voted for with Obama is that, in his first week in office, he overturned the Mexico City Policy.

Yeah, but even that was Day Three (Jan. 23, 2009, and may that be the last date on its tombstone). The specific language of a first-day policy agenda, as opposed to first-week or "as soon as I can responsibly get something out the door" is an oft-invoked campaign promise that is always overpromising.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:27 AM on July 1, 2016

(To emphasize, I'm not doubting that the candidates really want to do those things, it's the idea that it's so important to them that they will forsake all other responsibilities and ceremony to do them as soon as they're sworn in that strikes me as pandering)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:29 AM on July 1, 2016

Yeah, but even that was Day Three (Jan. 23, 2009, and may that be the last date on its tombstone). The specific language of a first-day policy agenda, as opposed to first-week or "as soon as I can responsibly get something out the door" is an oft-invoked campaign promise that is always overpromising.

I don't think anyone thinks that first day is literally the first day unless they're being intellectually dishonest or deliberately obtuse. The first day is the freaking inauguration and the second is recovering from the hangover so I don't think anyone is expecting the president to sit there signing executive orders while U2 are playing.

It's an emphatic euphemism like "in a second" doesn't mean in literally one second. Unless someone is that kind of literal jackass who says "it's been a second" one second later.
posted by Talez at 9:31 AM on July 1, 2016 [13 favorites]

What particularly frustrates me about this line is that this country sounds great! I love milk and cookies! I love trophies! What, exactly, do you hate about this? It’s such a nothing essay that takes understanding of its code as a given.

I got your milk and cookies for the kids right here. Or here, if you liked that and want to see what's going on.

And coddling in college is one of the typical stereotypes attached to "bleeding-heart" liberals. But how does Hillary Clinton end up being a metonym for that particular constellation of liberal values? It's not her thing, not her issue. It's a seemingly irrelevant get-off-my-lawn rant attached to a non-sequitur "And that's why I'm voting for Donald Trump".

Okay, look. I am basically the target audience for this article, so I can kind of explain how that works: it's because that attitude is right now attached to the idea of 'SJW' stuff, and Hillary Clinton uses a lot of what pings as SJW language. Like, I am reasonably amenable to the idea that a Hillary Clinton presidency will involve modeling less 'competitive spirit' and more 'cooperation and tolerance'.

But here's the thing. It doesn't matter when the opposite is literally fascism. Like I am ready and fist pumping for all the 'get off my lawn millenials' rants and STILL DOES NOT JUSTIFY FASCISM. Like, I'm sympathetic to the problem, but FASCISM IS NOT THE SOLUTION. If you are thinking of fascism as a reasonable solution to this problem, YOU MAY BE AN ASSHOLE.
posted by corb at 9:34 AM on July 1, 2016 [28 favorites]

A deep dive into the news media’s role in the rise of Donald J. Trump
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:43 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

I have never previously agreed with corb on a single issue in a political thread, but I have to admit the fact that someone as diametrically opposed to me on most issues as she is sees Trump as a bridge too far (and has made a priority of stopping him) has been a welcome note of encouragement in what has otherwise been an extremely disheartening political season.
posted by murphy slaw at 9:52 AM on July 1, 2016 [26 favorites]

Guys, I think something might be wrong, I am getting where I agree with corb on more and more things. Not sure if that's because I'm becoming a conservative or if the existential threat of Trump to the Republican Party (not to mention the US) has gotten us all to the point where we are going 'ehh we can get back to arguing like cats and dogs later but first we gotta join forces to stop the crazy asshole who has hijacked democracy".

If any of you ever get to know more about corb, and I do encourage it, you should know that the closest description of corb I can give is what Republicans fantasize as the ideal citizen that would make their plans actually work. And it's the one reason why I can accept that corb is both a good person and hold her beliefs. She doesn't seem to hold those beliefs because she wants to further some evil Republican agenda, she seems to hold those beliefs because she's undergoing the exact actions among her community, putting in the hard work that would make those beliefs actually work and turn them into something better for society as a whole.
posted by Talez at 9:54 AM on July 1, 2016 [30 favorites]

Guys I am trying really hard not to just break into Hamilton here but you are MAKING IT HARD.

would you say we have fought on like seventy-five different fronts DAMMIT I TRIED
posted by corb at 10:08 AM on July 1, 2016 [26 favorites]

In seriousness, though - I think the real answer is that Trump is just a horrible existential threat to us all, of the sort that I did not think we would see in our lifetimes. And we have to join together to stop it, because all of our differences - while important, I'm not saying they're trivial at all on a normal day - melt beyond this.

I truly believe that if the monster were coming from your party somehow, that a lot of you guys would be fighting as hard as you could to stop it too. Because that's just what you do. You can't not do it. Fundamentally as an American, I feel like somewhere down deep you're obligated to fight against something like this.
posted by corb at 10:15 AM on July 1, 2016 [41 favorites]

Also, kids' sports are so vastly, stratospherically more competitive than they were when I was a kid, let alone when my parents were kids. Everyone may get a trophy, but you'd better be going to before-school swim practice as well as after-school swim practice and spending hundreds of dollars on special swim suits, or else you're not going to shave that tenth of a second off of your time and swim fast enough to make the special select traveling team for 12-year-olds. It's insane. I am really not seeing a lack of competition in the world of youth sports these days.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:32 AM on July 1, 2016 [12 favorites]

I just don't get the complaint against participation trophies. It just feels like a backdoor for people to criticize each other for parenting wrong. And those same people are probably the same ones that criticize tiger parenting. So parents can't win.
posted by FJT at 10:43 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

I truly believe that if the monster were coming from your party somehow, that a lot of you guys would be fighting as hard as you could to stop it too.

Now I find myself wondering who our monster would be. Not that I think the Democrats are intrinsically immune to a know-nothing authoritarian populist with a cult of personality, but I don't think there's anyone over on on our side who comes even close to presenting that kind of threat. You'd need, I dunno, the lovechild of Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher with Stalin's DNA spliced in, or something.
posted by jackbishop at 10:43 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

I doubt it would be somebody we think of currently as "on our side," any more than the GOP would have considered Trump to be really one of them four years ago. Jenny McCarthy would be a good starting point, though -- the anti-vax craziness feels like the most fertile ground for an analogous leftist horrorshow.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:55 AM on July 1, 2016 [11 favorites]

Part of what makes Trump uniquely awful is the explicit racism which is a hard thing to foreground as a Democratic candidate in 2016. Not to say the party doesn't have problems with sub rosa racism but that's why it's so hard to come up with an analogous candidate in a flip-the-script scenario, I think

Trump could have easily run as a Democratic candidate as much as a Republican. Hell, up until 2009 Trump was a cog in the Democratic party. People aren't averse to flipping the script as we found out with the Southern Strategy. What probably was the decision to hitch to the Republicans is that they don't have a superdelegate safety valve like Democrats. If Trump tried to run then superdelegates would all come out saying "fuck no" and that would be that.
posted by Talez at 10:56 AM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]

I feel like if John Edwards could have gotten to a Trump-ish place if he'd come along a little later and started in in politics differently. He certainly has the required narcissism, lack of principles, and craving for attention.
posted by Copronymus at 10:58 AM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]

You guys are clearly forgetting Barack Hussein Obama, a Islamofascist who took all of our guns away and ushered in the Great Race War of 2009, and made us a vassal state of Kenya and the United Nations. Evil and unqualified, his celebrity magnetism and silver tongue allowed him to steal the Presidency twice.

Merely the latest in a long line of Democrat monsters posing existential threats to our freedoms.
posted by nom de poop at 10:59 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]

When all is said and all is done
Corb has beliefs.
Trump has none.

When the Associated Press asked Trump to clarify how he would identify muslims, Trump emailed a statement in response. “You figure it out!” it said in part.

posted by persona at 11:04 AM on July 1, 2016 [13 favorites]

I think the real answer is that Trump is just a horrible existential threat to us all,

Wait until Election 2020.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:04 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Guys I am trying really hard not to just break into Hamilton here but you are MAKING IT HARD.

I have the honor to be your obedient servant,
D. Trump
posted by dw at 11:07 AM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]

(It's quiet upthread.)
posted by dw at 11:07 AM on July 1, 2016 [19 favorites]

I just don't get the complaint against participation trophies.

I kind of do, but I also think they're like welfare cheats -- they exist, but nowhere near enough to pose the kind of threat to our nation's fabric that conservatives complain that they do. Plus, such complainers don't take into account the pressures of college admissions, which are increasingly perceived as key to survival in an America full of grade inflation and degree inflation. College admissions need extracurriculars, extracurriculars get crowded, kids need qualifications . . . it starts early. And the kids never built this world.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:07 AM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]

Now I find myself wondering who our monster would be. Not that I think the Democrats are intrinsically immune to a know-nothing authoritarian populist with a cult of personality, but I don't think there's anyone over on on our side who comes even close to presenting that kind of threat. You'd need, I dunno, the lovechild of Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher with Stalin's DNA spliced in, or something.

But would anyone on the right have really expected Trump to rise up? Sure, William F. Buckley mentioned him as an example of a substanceless horrorshow, but that was a pretty general case, especially since Trump has also danced around on the left. I would assume that the populist candidate wouldn’t really be someone we expect either. Kanye is my go-to example - not a partisan figure, exactly, but certainly accomplished, a POC, and very willing to say overtly controversial-but-popular things. (“George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”) The key difference is that Trump’s accomplishments are largely a sham while Kanye has done some legitimately amazing things - but I’d still want him a million miles from the white house.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:09 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Stassa Edwards: Trump Campaign Hires 'Gender Gap' Expert Kellyanne Conway, Who Touts 'Femininity, Not Feminism'

To get a sense of Conway’s perspective on gender and the “gender gap,” take the speech (video above) she gave to the Conservative Women’s Network in 2011, an event co-sponsored by the very conservative Clare Boothe Luce Foundation and Heritage Foundation. In the speech, Conway bemoans feminism as “gloom and doom,” and argues that “femininity is replacing feminism as a leading attribute for American women.” She then continues with some familiar talking points for conservative women, namely that hating men (“the revulsion towards men in your life”) is “part and parcel of the feminist movement.” She also shares some helpful fashion tips like, “If women want to be taken seriously in the workforce, looking feminine is a good place to start.”

Conway has a long history advising male candidates on how to appeal to women and, given her client roster, it’s hard to tell if she’s very bad at her job or was hired by some of the most irredeemably sexist men in politics. Her resume includes work for Newt Gingrich and Indiana Governor Mike Pence, as well as President of Keep the Promise, a single candidate PAC that supported Ted Cruz. According to its website, the PAC sought to “restore America’s standing in the world as a shining city on a hill.”

Perhaps her most famous client was Todd Akin, the 2012 Missouri Senate candidate whose legacy is the phrase “legitimate rape.” According to Politico, in 2013, Conway was paid by House Republicans for doling out the following advice:
Conway said rape is a “four-letter word,” and Republicans simply need to stop talking about it in their races for office.

posted by zombieflanders at 11:16 AM on July 1, 2016 [13 favorites]

> Conway has a long history advising male candidates on how to appeal to women and, given her client roster, it’s hard to tell if she’s very bad at her job or was hired by some of the most irredeemably sexist men in politics.

Okay, that's legitimately funny. Her client list is really a who's who of sexist misogynistic assholes, though - Newt, Todd Akin, and now Trump. With a resume like that...
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:21 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump and Palin are in Denver today. In the recent thread about local journalism, someone recommended the Denverite so I've been following their coverage.

I both want and don't want to know what exactly was going on here: "[Palin] made a distasteful gesture as she thanked Colorado Republicans for putting up with what they have to put up with 'inside the tent' and said she’s glad the tent is getting bigger."
posted by rewil at 11:25 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

I feel like the Democratic Trump would be Oprah. Brain Trust composed of Indigo children, Dr. Oz as Surgeon General, unleashing shipping containers of bees on unsuspecting crowds, etc.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:28 AM on July 1, 2016 [12 favorites]

Remember those members of foreign governments being hit up for donations to the Trump campaign? Now they are being hit up by a Trump Super PAC
posted by nubs at 11:29 AM on July 1, 2016

I don't get the problem with participation trophies either. Participating, as in committing to something and sticking it out through a full season and going when you don't feel like it and telling your mom it's your week to bring the juice boxes and doughnut holes for snack is actually an achievement for young kids. I don't care in the slightest if there's a physical trophy to represent that or not, but acknowledging and celebrating that achievement regardless of how much the team stank (and I played on some damn stanky soccer teams as a kid) is an appropriate thing to do.

How does this worldview actually work? Do they think that if a toddler is praised for using the potty he'll grow up to expect a marching band every time he takes a dump when he's 30? Do they think that if parents put a preschooler's scribbles on the fridge, he'll wind up ruined for life when his high school art teacher critiques his work?
posted by zachlipton at 11:30 AM on July 1, 2016 [13 favorites]

Conway said rape is a “four-letter word,” and Republicans simply need to stop talking about it in their races for office.

And there we have the Republican plan to address rape: banish it from the English language. If only rapists could so easily be convinced.
posted by zachlipton at 11:32 AM on July 1, 2016

Wow, Kellyanne Conway seems to have made a career out of charging incredibly high fees to tell powerful men what they want to hear. Sounds like a growth industry!
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:32 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]

It's often called the oldest profession.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:34 AM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]

I don't get the problem with participation trophies either. Participating, as in committing to something and sticking it out through a full season and going when you don't feel like it and telling your mom it's your week to bring the juice boxes and doughnut holes for snack is actually an achievement for young kids.

Trophies are for extraordinary achievement, not showing up. That bar is extremely low. More broadly, conservatives lean toward rewards for individual achievement (vs. egalitarian even distribution regardless of success or work level). History has plenty of evidence favoring the conservative side of that equation. You see this in other issues like teacher evaluations. I get that politics is a big problem in these evaluations, but it's not crazy to say that the best teachers should be rewarded, and/or the worst should be less rewarded or fired.

How does this worldview actually work? Do they think that if a toddler is praised for using the potty he'll grow up to expect a marching band every time he takes a dump when he's 30?

That's pretty much the stereotype of Millenials. Lots of business articles have been written along those lines.
posted by msalt at 11:36 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

You see this in other issues like teacher evaluations. I get that politics is a big problem in these evaluations, but it's not crazy to say that the best teachers should be rewarded, and/or the worst should be less rewarded or fired.

Define "best" and "worst" in a manner that can be assessed in a consistent manner.

Show your work.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:40 AM on July 1, 2016 [11 favorites]

How does this worldview actually work? Do they think that if a toddler is praised for using the potty he'll grow up to expect a marching band every time he takes a dump when he's 30?

Also, in the old days, didn't you used to get a gold watch when you'd been at your company for 20 years? Or at least a raise? I feel like we actually did, as a society, once reward some grownups for showing up, and that's part of the whole thing that we're supposed to feel nostalgic about.

(I got a star-shaped doohicky when I had been at my current job for five years. I wasn't sure what to do with it. It's on a shelf in my office. It's a participation trophy for grownups!)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:45 AM on July 1, 2016 [22 favorites]

I'm in education and I just don't see this kind of entitlement in the students I work with. I've spoken to my colleagues at other schools locally and our experience is that the current generation of kids seems to be leaning now towards a kind of existential panic that they're going to go to college, emerge in debt and never find a job that will allow them to pay the debt off. Furthermore because going to college is a demand of their parents, they see no easy to avoid this.

To whit, not only don't they seem to expect to be rewarded, they fully expect to be demolished.

I always read these "millennial expect rewards" articles in the same way I read "how dare these new hires expect to be paid for their work they're so lucky to just have a job" articles.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:45 AM on July 1, 2016 [43 favorites]

rewil: "[Palin] made a distasteful gesture as she thanked Colorado Republicans for putting up with what they have to put up with 'inside the tent' and said she’s glad the tent is getting bigger."

I want sooooo much to know what the "distasteful gesture" was, especially since she was in the midst of thanking people. I'm guessing she mimed a growing erection as she was talking about the tent getting bigger, maybe? But can you imagine if she did the jack-off motion? Or shot them the double birds or a hearty vaffanculo? Or even that thing where you're miming something going into your mouth and pushing your tongue against the inside of your cheek to make it look like the imaginary thing going into your mouth is pressing against your cheek? It probably wasn't any of those but at this point in the campaign season, anything's possible.
posted by mhum at 11:46 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]

(Obviously YMMV for interactions with "kids these days")
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:46 AM on July 1, 2016

As a kid I got plenty of cheap Party City ribbons for showing up to a thing at school. And I always threw them right in the trash, because children are not idiots and they know perfectly well that participation trophies are meaningless.

Also, frankly a lot of those articles are barely-coded "damn kids these days expect not to be exploited, how dare they fail to know their place! Why, some of them even complain when they're bullied and harassed at work, the weenies!"
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:49 AM on July 1, 2016 [14 favorites]

Also, frankly a lot of those articles are barely-coded "damn kids these days expect not to be exploited, how dare they fail to know their place! Why, some of them even complain when they're bullied and harassed at work, the weenies!"

The Economist just did a piece on millennials not buying diamonds that frankly read as "why aren't millennials getting suckered by the con that suckered us?"
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:55 AM on July 1, 2016 [21 favorites]

The best response to the diamonds article on Twitter was a person who commented with "I work at a grocery store"
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:59 AM on July 1, 2016 [27 favorites]

That's pretty much the stereotype of Millenials. Lots of business articles have been written along those lines.

Yes, and nonsense about "snake people expect their boss to wipe their ass for them" when Millennials actually want good jobs is the sort of thing I come to MeFi to avoid.
posted by zachlipton at 12:04 PM on July 1, 2016 [15 favorites]

> You'd need, I dunno, the lovechild of Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher with Stalin's DNA spliced in, or something.

Damn, I can feel my anarchism melting away.... BRING IT ON, I WANT TO VOTE FOR IT!!
posted by languagehat at 12:10 PM on July 1, 2016

Lynch Admits Meeting With Bill Clinton 'Cast A Shadow' Over Emails Probe
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:10 PM on July 1, 2016

Lynch Admits Meeting With Bill Clinton 'Cast A Shadow' Over Emails Probe

/r/SFP is flipping their shit over it.
posted by Talez at 12:13 PM on July 1, 2016

How does this worldview actually work? Do they think that if a toddler is praised for using the potty he'll grow up to expect a marching band every time he takes a dump when he's 30?

Speaking only for self - I think I found, at least, that growing up/coming of age in the 80s had a lot of cultural expectation of work and competition being front and center in our lives. I remember teachers saying that we had to work hard because if we didn't, the guy who worked harder than us would get the job and we wouldn't. I remember my dad constantly talking about work as the "rat race", how they were all fighting for the cheese. I remember very vividly the idea being present in my mind, that if I wasn't good enough, I would fail and suffer and die in poverty. That I would only get into college if I was the best of the best and fortunate enough to find a pot of money.

I do not think that these things are part of the zeitgeist for the generation who came behind me. I could be wrong - but I just don't see that sense of the necessity of struggle, that everything is going to be hard and hellish suffering and you might die anyway in failure for a tiny mistake. Which is darkly, morbidly, funny, almost, because I think if anything, those things apply more to them than to those of us who came into jobs in the nineties and early 00's. But they just don't have that attitude. They came into the plenty that either we or another generation provided for them - desperately, as measures of their success - and the idea that that our success, meager as it may be, was hard won does not really seem present in them. It's certainly not present in my daughter, a fact which drives me to despair on the regular.

When I put food on the table for my daughter, I expect her - every time, ridiculously - to be grateful that she's eating, because I saw people of my generation starving. Because I myself have starved. Even if it's rice and beans, I expect her to be grateful. I remember the gnawing feeling of hunger and I am grateful every time I can put a meal together. Even though this is not really a deep concern on a daily basis, I still feel it. And she's not grateful. And she's not in part because I've been very careful not to let her starve, and others of my generation have been really careful not to let their kids starve, and societally we've been careful not to let people starve. And that's even a good thing! But I look out on the society she's growing up into and think - but what will she do? How will she eat if she wants everything to be fancy and nice?

And so when you have this clash - this clash that I truly believe started with us, the hell that we have made out of the best of intentions - it's really tempting to try to find a Reason for it. Why are they so confident in success? Why don't they struggle with existential despair the way we do? Why are they willing to turn down jobs until they get the right one, when we suffered through shit jobs and felt lucky to do so?

And participation trophies are the easy target. Because they say 'everyone is valuable!' and that is not a lesson we grew up valuing or believing in. And the shit economy, in many ways, is reinforcing that for us - is telling us that we were right to fear collapse at a single wrong turn.
posted by corb at 12:14 PM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]

Why are they so confident in success? Why don't they struggle with existential despair the way we do? Why are they willing to turn down jobs until they get the right one, when we suffered through shit jobs and felt lucky to do so?

Have you...ever met a Millennial/young person? They are mostly laughing at dog memes to keep themselves from imploding with despair and hopelessness.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:21 PM on July 1, 2016 [41 favorites]

Jesus fucking christ, Bill! What were you thinking!?!?
posted by Sophie1 at 12:23 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

The most fervent Sanders supporter in my Facebook feed posted something implying Hillary Clinton had someone murdered this week.

Nothing surprises me about Hillary Clinton

Turns out there's nothing you can accuse Hillary Clinton of ("she sent a Linked In request to Osama Bin Laden") that people won't believe.

(I do sometimes feel bad for the people making fools of themselves in Jimmy Kimmel's man on the street segments, but the footage wouldn't air unless they signed a waiver to allow it, so).
posted by pocketfullofrye at 12:24 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

Oh, and corb, I’ll just say: I grew up in a house where we had food, but it wasn’t fancy and it was always homemade (cheaper that way) and we could afford to get pizza maybe twice a year. And as a child, it probably seemed to my parents like I took that for granted, and expected to get things I wanted, because I was a child.

But looking back on my perspective from that time as an adult, I was painfully aware of my family’s financial struggles. I was acutely aware of how much poorer my family was compared to many of my more middle-class friends. It shaped my whole life. My parents probably couldn’t see it in my daily behavior, and I certainly didn’t talk about it, and I whined for treats and toys periodically, because I was a child that’s just where I was during that phase of my life. But the fact that children act like children during their years of childhood indicates very little about their future outlook on existence and what they are owed.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:25 PM on July 1, 2016 [14 favorites]

is the thought here that Lynch was the only thing standing between HRC and an indictment for violating Email Law? because give me a break.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:28 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Trophies are for extraordinary achievement, not showing up. That bar is extremely low.

I get that people think this, but just restating it isn't an explanation.

I just read this great book by the guy that can be described as one of the world's leading experts on being REALLY good at something. One of the things that he stresses repeated is that early on in developing a skill, getting praised for doing something is a huge motivator to keep working to get better at it, even if you don't start off as well as others might. The idea that other people getting consideration in addition to just the lucky few that happen to get off to better starts is somehow a bad thing is genuinely weird to me.

On the other hand, I can see how if you're one of those people that succeeded from the get go it's easy to look at other people who weren't and say "well, I earned what I got, I'm not sharing". Especially if the advantages you had (like being an older\bigger\slightly faster developing kid in your age group in some sort of competition, or having parents that can teach you how do something better, or being able to get enough sleep at night) are largely invisible to you. And yeah, it can feel like people getting praised for doing things worse than you did can be detracting from what you did. It's like how people argue that privilege can't exist because they worked hard, so they deserve it. The thing is, privilege isn't saying you didn't work hard, it's saying that other people had more work to do.

Anyway, I actually get how you go from "trophies for everyone is bad" to "I'm going to vote for Trump." This idea that you (generic) earned everything and other people didn't is where a lot of Trump's rhetoric lives. I mean, just think of how many things bigots say that boil down to "My people built this country, and now this other group wants the same things we have. They didn't work hard like we did, why should they get it?".
posted by Gygesringtone at 12:36 PM on July 1, 2016 [15 favorites]

I mean, just think of how many things bigots say that boil down to "My people built this country, and now this other group wants the same things we have. They didn't work hard like we did, why should they get it?".

I think that's a big component to a lot of politics, group identity, that I just don't really understand. "My people" is a group of about a half dozen. My people were not big on group identity. I'm baffled that anyone thinks I have some relationship to them because we're both white guys, I don't know who the fuck you are buddy.
posted by bongo_x at 12:47 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

That's really interesting, corb, because I actually perceive that things are harder for kids now in a lot of ways than they were when I was a kid. (I think we're probably about the same age.) There are some big improvements. Specifically, I think kids are physically safer now. The US was a much more violent country when I was a kid. But I think today's kids are probably more likely to go hungry, because I came of age just before welfare reform, which has increased child poverty quite a bit in the US. It's a lot harder to get into college now than it was when I was applying. That's partly demographics: I was born at the depth of the Baby Bust, and kids now are part of the echo Baby Boom. College is more expensive in real terms. The economy was pretty shitty when I graduated from high school, but it rebounded, and it was fine when I graduated from college. I think that the factors that are causing problems for today's young job seekers are more structural and aren't going to be easily fixed.

I work with college students, and there are things about them that I find annoying. But I think a lot of those things are symptoms of economic insecurity, not of them being spoiled brats who got too many trophies.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:51 PM on July 1, 2016 [20 favorites]

I earned plenty of badges for participating as a child in the 60's-- in Girl Scouts you got a badge for every camp or sports day you showed up to. I'm pretty sure I also got certificates for participating in things like acting workshops and Glee club competitions. OK technically they weren't trophies, but they were recognition for just showing up. But I don't want to talk about that I want to talk about....

The Bands Booked For The GOP Convention!!!!

Separately, third-party groups have booked musicians to perform at venues throughout Cleveland during the July 18-21 convention: the quintessential 1960s-era surfer band The Beach Boys; 1970s-era rock band Journey; Bret Michaels, the frontman of the 1980s-era metal band Poison; 80s hitmaker Rick Springfield: country singer Martina McBride, who rose to stardom in the 1990s; country band Rascal Flatts, who formed in Ohio in 1999; and The Band Perry, a siblings trio known for country pop songs.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:52 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

the quintessential 1960s-era surfer band The Beach Boys

Another reason not to love Mike Love.

Also, don't the Beach Boys attract the wrong element? /jameswatt
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:58 PM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]

the quintessential 1960s-era surfer band The Beach Boys

I bet it's the Mike Love and Bruce Johnston side because they're complete douchebags.
posted by Talez at 12:59 PM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]

Never fear, the good part of The Beach Boys have reformed and are making great music again.
posted by Talez at 1:00 PM on July 1, 2016

it doesn't sound like any of these bands are connected with the RNC or Trump, they just seem to be booked to play in Cleveland while the convention is going on.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:00 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

The anger about the 'trophies for showing up' thing always irks me. It's like, do they think the kids organized that? Who put the event together and bought the trophies? The parents, duh. Get mad at your own damn selves for handing out trophies, older folks!

My mom posts annoying memes about participation trophies etc. on Facebook all the time, and it INFURIATES ME because she went out of her way to send us to special snowflake private schools and sign us up for rec sports teams that gave out literal participation trophies. That she paid for and likely at times ordered and doled out on behalf of our various teams. Like, if you hate that shit so much, why did you spend literally decades of your life participating in it?

Also, do you really hate how your own children turned out so badly that you're going to share "ugh entitled millennials" memes on Facebook?

Not to mention that I'm 35 and am definitively part of the "participation trophy" generation. While I guess I'm borderline Millennial, this is not a recent thing or something we can catastrophize via nebulous THE SKY IS FALLING predictions. We've had 20+ years watching people who got participation trophies grow up and get into college and join the workforce and have children of our own. And yet the planet is still on its orbit.
posted by Sara C. at 1:01 PM on July 1, 2016 [22 favorites]

it doesn't sound like any of these bands are connected with the RNC or Trump, they just seem to be booked to play in Cleveland while the convention is going on.

Bruce Johnston is a country club Republican through and through and Mike Love literally sang "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." on stage for McCain.
posted by Talez at 1:01 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

Like, if you hate that shit so much, why did you spend literally decades of your life participating in it?

there's nothing we hate so much as the mistakes we made ourselves.

not to say that signing kids up for esteem-boosting activities is a mistake, but parental self-recrimination is a weird stew.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:04 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

it doesn't sound like any of these bands are connected with the RNC or Trump, they just seem to be booked to play in Cleveland while the convention is going on.

Well that's something! There's some sort of nebulous "Rock Cleveland" welcome ceremony that I am equally dreading being an actual, RNC-chosen rock band, or possibly some sort of 'Because we're so excited about political speeches yeeeeeeah!' WHO KNOWS.
posted by corb at 1:04 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

there's nothing we hate so much as the mistakes we made ourselves.

By any conceivable metric (except maybe bank account or winning an actual Emmy) I am an incredibly successful adult with a fantastic life. It just seems weird that my mother is looking at the result of all those participation trophies and thinking she obviously raised me all wrong.
posted by Sara C. at 1:08 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Trump doubles down on support for war crimes

On Thursday night in New Hampshire, Trump reiterated his belief that America should hold itself to the same standard as a fascist death cult. Asked by local station NH1 to respond to Senator John McCain's claim that torture is "not the American way," Trump replied:

Well it’s not the American way to have heads chopped off and have people drowning in steel cages ... And so we can have our disagreements, but we’re going to have to get much tougher as a country. We’re going to have to be a lot sharper and we’re going to have to do things that are unthinkable almost.

I think Trump didn't grow up watching American movies the way I did. In WWII movies they always made a big point about how Americans weren't like the Germans. American soldiers were always the good guys and never did mean things. Sometimes a crazy-eyed Private who just saw his best friend being blown up would slap a German captive but he would be pulled aside by the Captain and told "Don't stoop to their level, son."

I really believed Melania when she said about her husband, "If you hit Donald he will punch back ten times harder." I think it is all bully swagger but I have no doubt he has made it his business to be as cruel and vindictive as possible because he has some idea this makes him Top Dog. Maybe he learned that in Military School.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:09 PM on July 1, 2016 [10 favorites]

Josh Marshall at TPM, on the fundraising emails being received continuously (yeah, it's ongoing) by foreign legislators:

We know for a fact that [the Trump campaign] has and continues to spam members of Parliament in the UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland and Iceland and possibly others. So one of these completely preposterous set of facts has to be true. And here's where we get to coordination, which is a big no no. Given what I've said above, the existence of this list almost has to originate in Trump Derpland. A virtual certainty. So how did the same list end up in the hands of a Trump SuperPac?

Best hysterical detail: as of their last filing, the total budget of the "Crippled America PAC" was $40, total.
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:14 PM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]

murphy slaw: ...a welcome note of encouragement in what has otherwise been an extremely disheartening political season.

I peruse a couple of conservative sites during Presidential election season (National Review and Hedgehog Report, mostly), and I've never seen "our candidate is a bad man" in previous elections. This year, though, it's a persistent refrain. It's not just "he's imperfect, but we have to support him," it's, "you people supporting Trump are supporting a bad man, and I cannot join you."
posted by clawsoon at 1:23 PM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]

There's an MST3K short from the 50s, Junior Rodeo Daredevils or something like that, where the kids participate in a rodeo. What do they get in the end? "Prizes for winnin', and prizes for tryin'." Participation trophies are as old as humanity. Kids aren't any more coddled or any more entitled than kids of any other generation.
posted by dirigibleman at 1:26 PM on July 1, 2016 [17 favorites]

Election 2016: one of these completely preposterous set of facts has to be true
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:27 PM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]

Trump: Bill Clinton 'opened up a Pandora's box'

Bill Clinton "opened up a Pandora's box" when he met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch earlier this week on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport, Donald Trump said Friday [snip]"And as you know, Hillary is so guilty. She’s so guilty, I mean you can read ‘em off right here. And how that’s not being pursued properly and I think that he really — I think he really opened it up. He opened up a Pandora’s box, and it shows what’s going on, and it shows what’s happening with our laws and with our government," Trump continued. "But if you think that he just happened to be at the airport because nobody really — and he may have, honestly, he may have left and gone someplace, but it seems like he was talking about golf and grandchildren,"

OK I don't think he fully grasps the idea of a Pandora's box-- it is a weird analogy to use in this instance but what struck me was how he goes on to say

"I love my grandchildren so much. But if I talk about ‘em for more than nine or ten seconds, what are we? I love my grandchildren. I love that one, I love that one, I love, love, love that one," Trump said, mimicking pointing out individual grandchildren. "And look at the beautiful — I love these kids. After that, what are you going to say? Right? I love those kids. They’re the great — hey. I love my children. I love my children.”

Right there? That is proof he is not a Grandfather who loves his grandkids, rather he is a Narcissist who loves only what his grandkids can do for him. I know plenty of Grandparents who love their grandchildren and given a chance they will tell you anecdotes or wax lyrical about the latest achievement, etc. Narcissists on the other hand have no interest in kids as individuals but only in children as trophies or reflections. The only thing Trump can say about his grandkids is "I love that one and I really love that one." I feel sorry for those kids and for their parents. Growing up with a Narcissist is a terrible experience and damaging to the soul.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:27 PM on July 1, 2016 [33 favorites]

I do not think that these things are part of the zeitgeist for the generation who came behind me. I could be wrong - but I just don't see that sense of the necessity of struggle, that everything is going to be hard and hellish suffering and you might die anyway in failure for a tiny mistake. Which is darkly, morbidly, funny, almost, because I think if anything, those things apply more to them than to those of us who came into jobs in the nineties and early 00's. But they just don't have that attitude. They came into the plenty that either we or another generation provided for them - desperately, as measures of their success - and the idea that that our success, meager as it may be, was hard won does not really seem present in them. It's certainly not present in my daughter, a fact which drives me to despair on the regular.

I agree with this, and I feel like the message changed at some point, at least and especially for the middle class and above, from the "rat race" to something more like "yes, you absolutely need to work hard, but do that and you can get into a good college and get a decent job and you'll make it." It was "stay in school; get good grades" with a side order of "pursue your passions" and not "life is a bottomless pit of despair." And even then the low end of that threat was more like "or else you'll be working at McDonald's" and not "or you'll be sleeping in a refrigerator box on the street." And whether sending that message was a good idea or not is certainly debatable, but it's too late to go back on it now, and it seems unfair to blame millennials when we're the ones who were stupid enough to believe it, not the ones who spread it in the first place.

Because yes, people believed that message and acted accordingly. They got decent grades in high school, applied to a dozen colleges, took out several new cars worth of student loans, majored in something that seemed interesting, and find themselves at 25 still living in their parents' house with a massive amount of debt. And of course, when they ask why they seem to be getting a raw deal, they're told they're whiny entitled brats and don't deserve anything just for being born. And while that's a valid worldview too, it's not the one people were raised on, and that really only hits you when you're in tears comparing and contrasting the Sesame Street of your youth with the more crushing realism of Avenue Q.

And that's where the generational tension comes in. Because it becomes easy for young folks to start looking around and start resenting an older generation. An older generation who won't retire to make room for anybody else (yes, yes, I get it, your retirement accounts were completely shot to hell in the recession. And then we respond by asking what does the retirement account of the average 28-year-old look like, and the discussion goes nowhere); who younger workers pay an enormous amount in taxes to keep in house and health (yep, you earned that and are entitled to it too, I fully agree. Which is why I get more than a little ticked off every time a politician stands up and announces that younger workers can't have the same deal); who vote overwhelmingly for things like Brexit and tax cuts for the wealthy that young people don't want (yes, older voters have just as right to vote as anybody else, but the consequences are different for different people); who are so frequently a drag on the kinds of equality and civil rights that young people generally think should be a given (yes, not all boomers, I know); who seem to suck up all the wealth in western countries; who are suddenly concerned about massive government deficits we didn't run up in the first place.

And are all of those complaints fair? Not really. But to the extent there is some validity behind them, having the same older people responsible for the situation we're in spend most of their time calling millennials names instead of acknowledging the system they built, born as it was out of the dreams and optimism of the counterculture and the protests, and the ways in which it has not fulfilled its promises to their children and grandchildren is a rather big slap in the face.

And participation trophies are the easy target. Because they say 'everyone is valuable!' and that is not a lesson we grew up valuing or believing in. And the shit economy, in many ways, is reinforcing that for us - is telling us that we were right to fear collapse at a single wrong turn.

And I think this is where we get the two different worldviews. Because a lot of people were raised to believe that "everyone is valuable." Not in a ridiculous "everyone should be able to walk into any company and be made the CEO by lunchtime" sense, but in the sense that everyone has an inherent dignity and that, in one of the wealthiest countries on earth, people shouldn't starve or be left on the streets with untreated festering wounds. And yes, on the flipside, that everyone is able to contribute something to society as well. And that gets down to the weird feelings Americans have about charity, that the community should theoretically take care of each other, but that people should feel suitably bad about being helped, lest they look entitled.

So I'm not sure. Could attacking participation trophies really just be a more polite way of attacking allegedly lazy people on food stamps or Medicaid? Because at the end of the day, it does come back to a difference in what we believe people are entitled to.
posted by zachlipton at 1:28 PM on July 1, 2016 [24 favorites]

The specific language of a first-day policy agenda, as opposed to first-week or "as soon as I can responsibly get something out the door" is an oft-invoked campaign promise that is always overpromising.

You can doubt all you want, but I know, I know that on her very first day in office Clinton will completely fund the National Institute of The Toast. Just as she promised.

She did promise, right? Right? Hello?
posted by happyroach at 1:28 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Two things that have always amazed me about this anti-participation trophy rant people are on:

1. Many of them are near my age. And we got participation trophies (and ribbons) in the late 70s/early 80s. Or even participation ribbons. So if this is such a problem for kids, isn't it our generation that's the damaged one?

2. Many of them do these anti-participation rants while accepting whatever swag they get from the 5k they ran last weekend, including the t-shirt showing they participated. You know, an award for showing up and rambling through 5000 meters but probably finishing 2500th out of a 4000 person race.
posted by dw at 1:34 PM on July 1, 2016 [24 favorites]

DNC Platform Draft
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:34 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

The most fervent Sanders supporter in my Facebook feed
Am I the only one who is tired of hearing the latest from everyone else's BernieBro friends?
posted by soelo at 1:37 PM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]

I'm certainly tired of hearing from my BernieBro friends, which is why I unfollowed almost all of them.
posted by dersins at 1:39 PM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]

Varsity letters—being worn proudly on jackets, in the sepia constructed memories of when America was Great—are mere participation awards.

Also, some percentage of the function of most participation awards is so that you have something to prove to your parents you were actually At The Thing In Question, and didn't just sneak off to smoke cigarettes and throw rocks at the backs of buildings.

A lot of people are brought up to believe in the mercilessness of the world. It's interesting, though, how so many conservatives actually need it to exist. They worked 'so hard' to win the rat race; if the losers don't suffer, then what was it all for?
posted by nom de poop at 1:45 PM on July 1, 2016 [17 favorites]

Hillary Clinton is the victim of a 25-year campaign to impugn her character. Donald Trump is the beneficiary of a 40-year PR campaign on his behalf. (There is no greater example of someone who got all the trophies for just showing up than Child of the 50s Donald J. Trump, but that was also a benefit of daddy's money) In spite of that, Donald's negatives are still worse than Hillary's. As much as I admire corb's courage, I have to wish her no success in trying to wrest control of the GOP from the Trumpster Fire; recent polls show that if Kasich or Ryan were to replace him as nominee, Clinton would be at best running neck-and-neck. On the other hand, if Hillary were replaced by Generic Democrat Working the Same Platform, the lack of baggage would give him (if it's a him) a good shot at a 50-state sweep, and her (if it's a her) at least a more comfortable lead.

And I hate to tell some of you this, but if you're looking for "who would be the equivalent of Trump for the Democrats", in the last month, Bernie has turned himself into something WAY TOO close. But also remember, Kanye West has declared his intent to run in 2020. Now I consider Kant-ye to be highly overrated, but he has some identifiable talent at some things, so even he is not a perfect match.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:47 PM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]

Hey guys maybe when Trump says he likes waterboarding he means this but he's so confused and inarticulate he can't remember what it's called.
posted by stolyarova at 1:57 PM on July 1, 2016

Our Sovereign Father, Donald Trump

At the heart of liberal democracy lies a central paradox: to be a free individual, a free citizen, a constitutive part of the people, requires an act or process of subjection in order to be constituted as a subject. Subjection always resides, in some capacity, in the concept of sovereignty, yet it always seems repressed in the elision of democracy, popular sovereignty, and freedom. Why does Donald Trump seem to effectively embody this repressed sovereign authority now? If rational engagement with the Trump phenomenon yields little results, it might well be because his appeal lives in registers beyond the rational, beyond the conscious. It may just be that Trump figures himself as the primal father, “a violent and jealous father,” as Freud put it in Totem and Taboo, “who keeps all the females for himself and drives away his sons as they grow up.” Trump’s appeal to the populace lies not in rationality but in a desire to be subjected — a masochistic attachment to an arbitrary, narcissistic, sovereign father.

In defending his policies, as he did after Orlando, Trump likes to say, “We have no choice.” He’s wrong. - "Trump has invoked choicelessness to explain everything from why he will build a wall on the border with Mexico to why he talked about his anatomy during a Republican primary debate. The phrase is a dismissal of rational discussion and an intimation of the doom that awaits if Trump is not heeded. In his recent book, “Crippled America,” he said of his decision to run for the White House, “I had no choice. I see what’s happening to our country; it’s going to hell.”"
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:00 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

I don't think he fully grasps the idea of a Pandora's box-- it is a weird analogy to use in this instance

Oh absolutely 100% chance he overheard someone using the phrase "Pandora's box" probably in re: Brexit and thought "ooh sounds scary will use it next time I talk about a Clinton".
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:08 PM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]

I realize Kanye has made some noise about running for president but it'd be cool to not draft him as the stand-in for Trump of the Left unless/until he starts advocating for torture, war crimes, and turning huge categories of his fellow Americans into second-class citizens
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:09 PM on July 1, 2016 [13 favorites]

DNC Platform Draft

Interesting language highlights for me:

We believe that Americans should earn at least $15 an hour and have the right to form or join a union
...
These are the standards Democrats believe must be applied to any future trade agreements. On
the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), there are a diversity of views in the party. Many Democrats
are on record stating that the agreement does not meet the standards set out in this platform;
other Democrats have expressed support for the agreement. But all Democrats believe that any
trade agreement must protect workers and the environment and not undermine access to
critically-needed prescription drugs.
....
LGBT kids continue to be bullied at school, a restaurant can refuse to serve a transgender person, and a same-sex couple is at risk of being evicted from their home. That is unacceptable and must change.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:10 PM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]

“I had no choice. I see what’s happening to our country; it’s going to hell.”

tl;dr: "The woman made me do it."
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:16 PM on July 1, 2016

So in Interesting Facts From The RNC, we are being told that delegates who "refuse to support the nominee" after a nominee is selected will be decredentialed. I'm hoping for a win, of course, but also prepping in case we're all thrown out to Trump's Brownshirts early. THIS ELECTION YOU GUYS.
posted by corb at 2:44 PM on July 1, 2016 [29 favorites]

Is there anything required of a delegate after the nominee is selected? Or is this about not booing/protesting?
posted by soelo at 2:51 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

corb: So in Interesting Facts From The RNC, we are being told that delegates who "refuse to support the nominee" after a nominee is selected will be decredentialed.

Since you're all there together anyway, how about just, y'know, starting a new party right then and there?
posted by clawsoon at 2:56 PM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]

But the Republican National Committee, in its infinite ethical confusion, threatens at the party’s national convention this month to count delegate abstentions as if they are votes for Donald Trump.

This convention gonna be crazy.
posted by clawsoon at 3:03 PM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]

Is there anything required of a delegate after the nominee is selected? Or is this about not booing/protesting?

Little of column A, a little of column B. Remember, no one is bound on the VP vote. Delegates could in theory block votes until the convention ran out of time.
posted by corb at 3:21 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

Bring an extra battery pack and a charger for your phone and wear something cool and very comfortable (from state convention experience). It'll be hot, it'll be loud, and there will never be enough outlets.
posted by stolyarova at 3:23 PM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]

Delegates could in theory block votes until the convention ran out of time.

That would be ironic.
posted by clawsoon at 3:23 PM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]

Could attacking participation trophies really just be a more polite way of attacking allegedly lazy people on food stamps or Medicaid?

I think a lot of what we're seeing this election year is the discomfort of many white people and many men confronting the possibility that no, they didn't hit a triple, they were born on third.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 3:28 PM on July 1, 2016 [24 favorites]

In other OTHER hilarious RNC news, I just got some hate mail that starts "You ignorant fuckheads will be what destroys the repugnant party" and includes a reference to having "voted repugnant all my life" before moving on to the usual threats.

Yeah, buddy, if Trump is any example, I'm kind of sure you have!
posted by corb at 3:38 PM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]

Actually, I have to say - you know, I think I've been insulated from a lot of these Republicans, as have many others of my ilk, and that's why I thought the party was more civil and welcoming. Turns out a goodly number were just waiting for us to step outside the lines before telling us we would "have to go back." Even if we do defeat Trump, I think there is going to need to be a reckoning in the Republican Party. I don't know if I'll have the heart to lead it after this fight, but if it doesn't get done, I think a lot of us are going to quietly walk.
posted by corb at 3:43 PM on July 1, 2016 [26 favorites]

When I put food on the table for my daughter, I expect her - every time, ridiculously - to be grateful that she's eating, because I saw people of my generation starving. Because I myself have starved. Even if it's rice and beans, I expect her to be grateful. I remember the gnawing feeling of hunger and I am grateful every time I can put a meal together. Even though this is not really a deep concern on a daily basis, I still feel it. And she's not grateful. And she's not in part because I've been very careful not to let her starve, and others of my generation have been really careful not to let their kids starve, and societally we've been careful not to let people starve. And that's even a good thing! But I look out on the society she's growing up into and think - but what will she do? How will she eat if she wants everything to be fancy and nice?

I want to come back to this because I think it's significant. Someone who grew up with hunger and is now doing much better for themselves, gone on to have a family and kids and all the hopes and dreams for their future that come along with that, can seemingly take away two different lessons from that experience, or perhaps both at the same time:

Let's work together as a society so people don't have to starve, whether or not they "deserve" help or whatever led them to the place they're in
I struggled and that helped make me who I am, so people now are ungrateful if they don't starve

Maybe I'm mischaracterizing #2, because that's honestly not really my life, and I am, in a general sense, grateful for that. But it feels likes we hear variants of #2 a lot more than #1. Why is the inherent reaction to "people of my generation [were] starving" not "and now I want something better for the next generation, so we're going to try to organize better ways to make sure that doesn't happen anymore?" And it's not just hunger of course; we can ask the same questions about access to education or health care too. And the funny thing is that we see an awful lot of people espousing views like #2 who didn't necessarily struggle like that, many who were born with a number of advantages and/or simply got lucky.

To put it another way, you look at your daughter and are worried about how she will grow up in a society where fewer people will starve, how not being grateful for not starving will lead to a different outlook than yours or an inability to compete in a harsh and competitive world. I look at her (well, not her, because that's creepy, but generic her) and wonder what she'll and her generation be able to achieve together in a society where fewer people will be starving.
posted by zachlipton at 3:48 PM on July 1, 2016 [14 favorites]

2. I struggled and that helped make me who I am, so people now are ungrateful if they don't starve

I think there can be quite a bit of "people need a fire under them to survive, we are doing them a great disservice by letting them become reliant on support systems they won't always be able to count on" in #2, if we're going to give it the full good-faith treatment.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:52 PM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]

In other election news: Meet the Two Trans Women Making History as First to Win Major-Party Primary Elections
posted by homunculus at 4:00 PM on July 1, 2016 [18 favorites]

I think there can be quite a bit of "people need a fire under them to survive, we are doing them a great disservice by letting them become reliant on support systems they won't always be able to count on" in #2, if we're going to give it the full good-faith treatment.

That's probably a better way of putting it. I don't want to be overly strawmanish, but it's also not a perspective I've particularly wrapped my head around, so it's hard for me to succinctly paraphrase.
posted by zachlipton at 4:03 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

So, from the Millennial perspective, I have to say that not only did I not starve (and was not expected to demonstrate gratitude for that), my parents -- who are typical American-born Boomers -- did not starve. And I've never noticed in them the idea that they are supremely grateful for that.

My grandparents, who were all children during the Depression, did know deprivation, and possibly hunger at times. And you know what? They also don't understand the concept of disposable cups and plates. I don't want to call them irrelevant, because they're my grandparents and I love them, but their experience certainly doesn't represent the mainstream of modern America.

I'm not sure that "literally starved during childhood" can be assumed to be a basic experience of most Americans except for those entitled Millennials with their snapchats and their selfie sticks.
posted by Sara C. at 4:03 PM on July 1, 2016 [14 favorites]

Yeah, I'm with Sara C.: my parents didn't have particularly privileged Boomer childhoods, but I don't think they ever actually went hungry. My grandparents did, but one set of them were the kind of people who voted Democrat until the day they died because FDR, and the other set were Revolutionary Socialists. I realize that my Revolutionary Socialist grandparents were outliers to US political culture in many ways, but I would actually be a little surprised if there were a positive correlation in the US electorate between the experience of childhood hunger and voting Republican.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:29 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

You guys: Dolly Parton has endorsed Hillary. I was having a bad day, but now it is perfect.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:35 PM on July 1, 2016 [34 favorites]

it doesn't sound like any of these bands are connected with the RNC or Trump, they just seem to be booked to play in Cleveland while the convention is going on.

Eh, I suspect most if not all of these are connected to the RNC - a quick poke at some of the bands' websites shows a distinct lack of public shows July 19-21, even if they're on tour on surrounding dates. "Third-party groups" most likely means big corporations paying big bucks for the acts to perform for various groups of delegates.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:35 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sara C.: And you know what? They also don't understand the concept of disposable cups and plates.

I remember the first time I saw disposable wet wipes. I was only a kid, but I knew that they were a ridiculous, over-the-top luxury.

Where you grow up poor makes a difference, I think, for a bunch of reasons. Going on strike, holding a protest march, having a sit-in - all the machinery of collective action - doesn't work very well in rural areas (other than mining and factory towns). You just can't get enough people together in one place.

And self-reliance is a much more directly important life skill in rural areas. If you're starving, there's not going to be a soup kitchen within walking distance. If you've hurt yourself, you need to know how to get home on your own; there's no crowd to see you stumble and fall and call an ambulance for you.

It's not that farmers have never been collectivist or socialist - here in Canada we've had the CCF, the various United Farmers governments, and movements going back to at least the Children of Peace - but there are features of rural life, especially homesteading life, which reward habits of self-reliance in a way that city life rarely does.

The red state/blue state maps obscure an obvious fact about U.S. politics: Cities are red, rural areas are blue, and suburbs are purple.
posted by clawsoon at 5:17 PM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]

I just think it's weird to assume everyone should grow up poor, and to always have enough is a bad thing that people should feel ashamed of.
posted by Sara C. at 5:23 PM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]

Cities are red, rural areas are blue, and suburbs are purple.

Wait - I think you mean Cities are blue, rural areas are red, right?
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:24 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Wait - I think you mean Cities are blue, rural areas are red, right?

Ah, yes. I was just automatically returning to the colour scheme that EVERYBODY ELSE HAS BEEN USING FOR TWO HUNDRED YEARS GODDAMMIT WHY DID YOU NEED TO CHANGE IT NOW?? Thanks for the correction.
posted by clawsoon at 5:31 PM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]

Liberals aren't reds, no matter what certain people would have you believe.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:40 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

They're red in Canada. :-P
posted by clawsoon at 5:48 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

They're red in Canada. :-P

In the US they used to alternate (Red was associated with communism, so the networks spread the pain) until the Bush/Gore election nailbiter cemented the color scheme in people's minds.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:25 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

Was it really that recent? I have a horrible memory etched into my brain of my first election as a voter (absentee, from college): the entire US map was red, with just a Minnesota-shaped blotch of blue in the upper middle.
So, that was a long time ago. I wasn't in the US again for an election until 2004, though, so I guess I missed all the in-between vacillations.
posted by Superplin at 6:41 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

the entire US map was red, with just a Minnesota-shaped blotch of blue in the upper middle.

Ah, '84. Apparently Republican operatives thought they could challenge that but Reagan shut them down, conceding Mondale his home state.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:59 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Speaking of Red/Blue, Marvel's latest version of their Avengers teams (how many have they had so far, 15? 20?) will be a VERY patriotic post "Civil War II" alliance called the U.S.Avengers, and will feature... Red Hulk (wearing white and blue shorts). So Red is now totally American (when properly accented). It also includes a more serious Squirrel Girl in red instead of brown (what? you never heard of red squirrels?), some 'multi-ethnic' heroes, at least one from the future when 'multi-ethnic' is not an issue, and its leader will be Roberto deCosta, a Brazilian-born naturalized American mutant billionaire (NOT kidding). The author is British but openly anti-Brexit and promises his U.S.Avengers will coordinate their efforts with the President, whoever it is (the comic's first issue is a month before the election, so expect an Obama cameo... like Marvel has done before). Anyway, the Red Hulk is now All-American (no word on She-Hulk).
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:55 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Hopefully the December issue will not feature The Incredible Trump
posted by ian1977 at 8:00 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

So, from the Pesky Whipper-Snapper perspective, I have to say that not only did I not starve (and was not expected to demonstrate gratitude for that), my parents -- who are typical American-born Boomers -- did not starve. And I've never noticed in them the idea that they are supremely grateful for that.

My boomer-age mom did starve growing up, and she very explicitly wanted me to grow up knowing that there would always be food on the table. I did. I've always known that I had support, that I had (not wealthy, but infinitely generous) parents. I was born unbelievably lucky, as as a child I never really viscerally knew that there were any other options. And you know what? I have a terminal degree in a technical field and am still literally terrified of student loans and not being able to find a job. The pesky whipper-snappers I know aren't reckless or entitled, we're utterly terrified. So, corb, your daughter's lack of gratitude might worry you now, but remember that she lives in a social world of utterly terrified peers, and she isn't going to glide blissfully into ruin. We never said thanks for feeding us, but we're deeply, deeply grateful for the years of real childhood we had the privilege of experiencing before we had to grow up and deal with this shitshow.
posted by you're a kitty! at 8:03 PM on July 1, 2016 [15 favorites]

And you know what? They also don't understand the concept of disposable cups and plates.

Me neither.
posted by bongo_x at 9:32 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

It's pretty simple really. It's a plate or cup (or even a bowl!) that's made out of paper or plastic and when you're done you Wad it up and cram it in in a dolphins blow hole. No fuss no muss. Super convenient.
posted by ian1977 at 10:09 PM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]

landfilling paper plates sequesters carbon, so it's green
posted by ryanrs at 10:37 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Well what do you do with the dolphins?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:49 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

landfilling dolphins also sequesters carbon
posted by ryanrs at 10:55 PM on July 1, 2016 [32 favorites]

landfilling dolphins also sequesters carbon

For some reason this reminds me of the joke about why elephants have flat feet.
posted by bardophile at 12:09 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

This article is well worth a read, imo:

Hillary Clinton was the force behind a little-known breakthrough in transgender rights. So why doesn’t she talk about it?

But five years before the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and President Obama lit up the White House in the colors of the rainbow, Hillary Clinton and her staff at the State Department made a change that for thousands of people was exactly that—revolutionary. Clinton enacted a new rule making it easier for transgender people to register their identities on their passports. Sexual reassignment surgery was no longer necessary; all that was required was a doctor’s note. At the time, this was the most pro-transgender action by the federal government ever, and—coming a full six years before the Pentagon announced transgender troops could serve openly—it stands as one of the most progressive things Clinton has ever done. In a single stroke, she made the passport the best way—for some, the only way—for American citizens to prove they were who they were. For transgender people, it was—according to recent conversations I have had with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender experts and advocates—“huge,” “enormous,” “monumental.”
posted by madamjujujive at 5:00 AM on July 2, 2016 [46 favorites]

Mark Salter, the former chief of staff to Sen. John McCain, endorses Hillary for president. Go read it, it's a great take down of the orange one.
posted by octothorpe at 5:31 AM on July 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

madamjujujive: That's a great piece. It really captures the tightrope walk she is constantly doing.
posted by bardophile at 5:55 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

octothorpe- omg that article writer says Obama is 'the worst foreign policy president in his lifetime.' I guess he must be less than eight years old.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:04 AM on July 2, 2016 [21 favorites]

I guess I skimmed over the part about Obama. Sorry.
posted by octothorpe at 6:13 AM on July 2, 2016

If ever a "don't read the comments" rule applied, it's on that Politico piece about Clinton's passport rule. Oof.
posted by Superplin at 6:49 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Don't apologize -- the point isn't that John McCain's campaign chief of staff agrees with metafilter on foreign policy, it's that intelligent people across the political spectrum are united in the belief that Donald Trump is a walking disaster.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:51 AM on July 2, 2016 [15 favorites]

Salter's piece reminds me that back when the field was a bit wider, I had a sort of mental ranking of the candidates not on desirability, but on bare competence. Not on the question of "how satisfactory would I find this person in their policies and practices?" but on the much simpler and at least theoretically nonpartisan one of "how suitable is this person, in experience and ability, to discharge the duties of the supreme executive position in the US?" There seemed to be basically 4 strata in my mind:

* Completely on top of things: Clinton. No two ways about it, she's seen the ins and outs of Washington from a lot of angles and knows how to work it. Of all the objections that have ever been raised about her, pretty much nobody has ever claimed that she doesn't know what she's doing or lacks the will or expertise to do it.

* Gets it pretty well: Kasich, Johnson, and if you want to be charitable Sanders. The former two have shown their mettle as government executives on a smaller scale, and Bernie's been around a lot.

* Could muddle their way through: Rubio, Sanders if you don't actually trust his experience, and Cruz if you're very charitable. They're all conversant with how the system works, although Cruz never seems to have quite wrapped his head about how to work within it.

* Would not really function at all: probably Cruz, definitely Fiorina, Carson, and Trump. Fiorina at least seems to give a damn about how government works, although she doesn't seem to have built any coherent plan about what she would do as part of that system. Carson and Trump seem to have an indomitably willful ignorance about what the President actually does, beyond get to sit in the Big Chair.

What I see of this in Salter's piece is its focus on competence. Heaven knows there are a lot of issues on which Trump has said things to alienate a lot of Americans, but subtract the issues and policies out and you've still got a problem and a half in that he straight up does not meet basic qualifications for the job, and in ways that should be evident regardless of where one stands ideologically.
posted by jackbishop at 7:13 AM on July 2, 2016 [24 favorites]

In fact, that's a good thing - he's saying that you can hold the standard-issue Republican view of Obama and still recognise Trump as a dangerous narcissist against whom Hillary is unquestionably the lesser of two evils. If he'd gone the full Pauline conversion, it'd be far easier for his natural allies to dismiss his stance altogether.

It's what's needed.
posted by Devonian at 7:16 AM on July 2, 2016 [12 favorites]

Obama would fall on tier 3 before being elected, though (not even one full term as Senator, some state legislative experience), so I'm not sure how useful that scale really is.
posted by indubitable at 7:28 AM on July 2, 2016

Why is there a Star of David?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:45 AM on July 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

Trump has a fascinating new anti-Hillary ad that is, no joke, a picture of Hillary against a background of dollar bills, accompanied by a star of David with the words "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!" on it. Twitter is going nuts.

I almost think he's deliberately trolling us.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:48 AM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

I think he's confusing dog whistle with the Wanamaker Organ.
posted by Devonian at 7:52 AM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

No, it's a sheriff's star; why do you people always bring race into these things. /s
posted by octothorpe at 8:57 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Holy shit, the antisemitism in that ad is palpable.

Short of putting a happy merchant meme character shaking hands with Clinton I don't know how you could get more antisemitic.

I mean maybe putting trump in front of a swastika.
posted by vuron at 9:00 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Welp, someone told him it was offensive.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:00 AM on July 2, 2016

Someone got word to Ivanka, who isn't checking Twitter today because it's Shabbat?

I actually think it's a really effective dog-whistle, in that it's going to be heard by antisemites and by people who are tuned in to antisemitism, but it might fly right over the heads of people who don't fall into either category. And those folks in the middle might think this is another case of the liberal media playing the whatever card again, so our outrage actually plays into Trump's hand.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:13 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Republican women organize to support Clinton

"We can put our differences aside to have a safer option that's better for the country as a whole," Milloy said. "The fear of Donald Trump is, to me, more than the fear of Hillary raising capital standards on banks."

posted by zakur at 9:14 AM on July 2, 2016 [14 favorites]

I do actually think it's possible that someone just used whatever star brush in Photoshop without putting a moment's thought into it. But even if you are generous and give them that, it's still astonishingly stupid for no one to have thought of or noticed the fact that it looks like a star of david. So even the best-case scenario here is pretty damn bad.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:21 AM on July 2, 2016 [9 favorites]

speaking of photoshop incompetence: "Good job ALMOST covering the points from the star, @realDonaldTrump!"
posted by twist my arm at 9:25 AM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

i mean i'd give a 0% chance to oblivious mistake, based on his past history, but even if you're going to be generous you'd have to dismiss the credibility of a candidate based just on the fact that a star of david is a literally terrible shape for a text bubble, practically speaking.
posted by you're a kitty! at 9:26 AM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

The Clinton campaign released a statement on her interview at FBI Headquarters this morning.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:27 AM on July 2, 2016

Also I feel like my response to a smiling hillary in front of lots of money is like, hell yeah we're kicking your ass at fundraising
posted by you're a kitty! at 9:27 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Given that it's a campaign built on race hate and backed heavily by anti-semitic alt-righters, he gets no leeway on this whatsoever.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:28 AM on July 2, 2016 [13 favorites]

So even the best-case scenario here is pretty damn bad.

Exactly. Even if it's not "Hi, I'm deliberately employing some awful antisemitic tropes," it's "Hi, I'm running for the highest office in the land and I don't have a team that is even halfway competent at their jobs."

No wonder so many Republicans are jumping ship and being vocal about it. The ones who would be okay with the dog whistles have no stomach for rank incompetence.
posted by Salieri at 9:29 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

It might just have been obliviousness but if it was, is just shows how totally inept Trump's campaign is. There's wasn't anyone in charge with enough of a clue to know how that was going to be interpreted? Or is there no one in charge at all?
posted by octothorpe at 9:32 AM on July 2, 2016

Earlier we discussed a Reuters article about the racial attitudes of the supporters of various presidential candates. (Trump's were of course the worse.)

I was bothered by the fact that, even though the story mentions polling Sanders supporters, they posted no results from them, even in the infographic. Upset enough that I tracked down the email address for feedback and sent them a note.

Amazingly, Reuters not only responded with an apologetic email within two days, they issued a new story with the Sanders supporters' opinions. (Spoiler: least racist of all candidates.)
posted by msalt at 9:35 AM on July 2, 2016 [8 favorites]

how is this not a major headline

jesus.
posted by you're a kitty! at 9:36 AM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

Because there's virtually no way to fair and balance it into acceptability?
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:45 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Remember when candidates had gaffes that news people would get upset about?
posted by octothorpe at 9:47 AM on July 2, 2016 [9 favorites]

Buzzfeed and some other MSM have picked it up now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:51 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Surely this...
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:54 AM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

Lets take the high road here for just a second. If it really was supposed to be a sheriff's badge then I'm not understanding the symbolism. Money background, Hillary Trump, "Most corrupt candidate ever!" inside a red "sheriff's star." That makes zero sense. Is the sheriff coming to arrest her? Is it a first place star for being most corrupt? Are sheriffs usually corrupt? I cannot make out the iconography unless it really is a star of David tied to money and corruption.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:15 AM on July 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

Good God. I mean, Good. God. I’m willing to assume that sometimes an anti-semitic dog-whistle is you being just that mother-effin’ stupid, especially with that campaign. But for there to be no apology? No acknowledgement? NOTHING? I just, I can’t, I just, I can’t.

Holy Lord.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:24 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

There really is no playing it off.

It's a completely transparent dog whistle aimed at presenting "Shillary" as being completely corrupt because of course "Jews are in charge of Wall Street "

Or some similar dog whistle about Jews and corruption. But I guess it generates free publicity and Trump seems to think all publicity is good publicity.

That and some on the right will go "look at the SJWs go crazy with political correctness again".

If Trump is running for president he is doing a shit job but if he's aiming to legitimize hate speech he seems to be successful to a degree.

This is pretty much what happens when you apparently outsource your operation to alt-right The_Donald types.

The sheer incompetence at hiding their dog whistles is astounding.
posted by vuron at 10:26 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Joey Michaels: Surely this...

It's interesting that Trump's Judge Curiel comments turned out to be the actual, honest-to-goodness "this" in the campaign. That was the "he really is a racist and I can't support him" moment for many of the Republican writers/bloggers/commenters I've been reading.

I guess they dismissed his earlier comments about Mexicans and Muslims as mere class-ism, or mere culture-ism. They gave him the benefit of the doubt, since "we're not racist, we just think their culture is bad" has been seen as a legitimate argument in conservative circles for a long time.

But Judge Curiel can't be dismissed by conservatives for his lesser culture, or his lesser class, or his lesser religion. It's as if Trump wanted to make his racism as clear as possible by ruling out any possible good faith reasoning they might've cared to apply.
posted by clawsoon at 10:29 AM on July 2, 2016 [7 favorites]

On the other hand, has Trump got a visual design staff, or an intern with PowerPoint who if asked would say that Shoah was an anime character?

It's impossible without other information to decide whether this was a grotesque bit of demagoguery or sheer incompetence caused by a complete lack of grown-ups.
posted by Devonian at 10:30 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

how is this not a major headline

Still early. Just give it time...

Trump sparks online firestorm with anti-Clinton tweet featuring Star of David

Donald Trump tweet with Star of David draws social media backlash

Trump tweets image depicting Clinton, cash and the Star of David
posted by zakur at 10:40 AM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

It's impossible without other information to decide whether this was a grotesque bit of demagoguery or sheer incompetence caused by a complete lack of grown-ups.

Yes, but incompetence at that level demands acknowledgement, not just deletion. A hundred times more so, given Trump’s past statements. We won’t get it, of course. But that lack should end his campaign. It won’t. But it should.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:41 AM on July 2, 2016

This is a cool article that will make you happy.

Mr. Love recalls getting an email after 1 a.m. after Mr. Obama saw a television report about students whose “bucket list” included meeting the president. Why had he not met them, the president asked Mr. Love.

“‘Someone decided it wasn’t a good idea,’ I said,” Mr. Love recalled. “He said, ‘Well, I’m the president and I think it’s a good idea.’”
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:45 AM on July 2, 2016 [21 favorites]

No you don't get to pal around with the alternative right which is incredibly infused with antisemitism and then go lol didn't know what we were doing.

Benefit of the doubt is something I will give to people who are generally well meaning and who just might not understand the poo that they might have just stepped into.

Trump is not remotely worthwhile giving the benefit of the doubt to.
posted by vuron at 10:47 AM on July 2, 2016 [10 favorites]

No you don't get to pal around with the alternative right which is incredibly infused with antisemitism and then go lol didn't know what we were doing.

If Trump addresses this forthrightly at all, he will deny anti-Semitism, and he will completely believe himself. Look at his daughter and son-in-law, he will say!

Nobody and nothing exists to someone like Trump except insofar as they serve his purposes. He talked happily about how he wanted guys in yarmulkes to count his money, because, as he was taught to believe, they are the best at it. He accepted a Jewish son-in-law, because his family is rich and powerful, and that is what he wants: wealth and power. Now what he wants is to win this election, so he's using the anti-Semitism of the people who have flocked to his banner, because they appear to be the key to what he wants.

This is absolutely and entirely as dangerous as being a true believer. Gasoline doesn't care whether you're lighting matches around it for fun or for arson.
posted by Countess Elena at 10:54 AM on July 2, 2016 [25 favorites]

Maybe he'll tweet a picture of himself eating lox on a bagel with cream cheese, subtitled "I love the Jews! The best Jews make my bagels at the Trump Grill!"
posted by stolyarova at 10:58 AM on July 2, 2016 [25 favorites]

I almost think he's deliberately trolling us.

This is the position of perhaps 10% of the Republican Party right now. Because how could anyone seriously be that bad without trying?
posted by corb at 11:01 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Maybe he'll tweet a picture of himself eating lox on a bagel with cream cheese, subtitled "I love the Jews! The best Jews make my bagels at the Trump Grill!"

If it was Trump it'd be bacon for sure.
posted by Talez at 11:02 AM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

A ham and cheese bagel breakfast sandwich. With a glass of milk on the side.
posted by stolyarova at 11:05 AM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

For reasons a lot of people have gone into, it's not clear that Trump actually wants to be president. But there've got to be less destructive ways of surreptitiously sabotaging your own campaign.
posted by jackbishop at 11:06 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

I have a horrible suspicion he's trying to chase a long tail into being a hero for the disaffected alt-right, such that they will buy whatever he sells and trust him, while he sits on a pile of minority-hating money and laughs.
posted by corb at 11:12 AM on July 2, 2016 [13 favorites]

"The Jews love me! I have Jew lawyer and a Jew accountant and a Jew son in law"

I expect the most tone deaf response seen since the 50s.
posted by vuron at 11:15 AM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

Yeah, of course Trump cannot say sorry, so it doesn't really matter what happened. Doubtless it'll be in a few post-election teardowns.

Can anyone point me at one aspect of the Trumpaign that's going well for him?
posted by Devonian at 11:20 AM on July 2, 2016

I don't think Trump wants to do the work of the Presidency. I just think he wants to win, to be the man who wins at winning and makes losers lose. It's possible he will weasel out of this election, as somebody mentioned, without compromising his winningness, but who can say?

The creepiest Trump ad I have personally seen was a simple Facebook picture of an ivory-pink newborn baby asleep on a rumpled American flag. It was a pixelated pic with a further pixelated Arial slogan atop it: VOTE TO SECURE MY FUTURE. TRUMP 2016.

The dogwhistle made my ears hurt. I continue to follow this person on Facebook, because she is kin to me. If I unfollow my relatives, or people who displease me, what is to prevent me from becoming that apocryphal NYC woman who said she didn't know how anyone could have voted for Nixon? (Of course I can't stop my Trump-loving relatives from dropping me. I'm mighty nice about it, but it seems I dropped one too many Snopes links for my esteemed cousin-german.)
posted by Countess Elena at 11:21 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Dang, I am firmly wedged between Hanlon's and Occam's razors on this one.

On the one hand, incompetence trumps (cough) malice.
On the other hand, the simplest explanation is malice.
posted by murphy slaw at 11:24 AM on July 2, 2016 [11 favorites]

Welp, someone told him it was offensive.

So he ditches the Star of David but adds an #Americafirst hashtag.

It's like he can't help himself, except it's almost certainly on purpose.
posted by dersins at 11:26 AM on July 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

The creepiest Trump ad I have personally seen was a simple Facebook picture of an ivory-pink newborn baby asleep on a rumpled American flag. It was a pixelated pic with a further pixelated Arial slogan atop it: VOTE TO SECURE MY FUTURE. TRUMP 2016.

Huh, usually that has 14 words.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:26 AM on July 2, 2016 [25 favorites]

Meanwhile, Hillary's interview with the FBI signals that the emails probe is nearly done.

Can anyone hep to these kinds of investigations estimate how long before they announce the decision? A week? Two weeks? A month?
posted by msalt at 11:29 AM on July 2, 2016

Yeah just like the cinco de mayo tweet. He knew. He knows. He's a troll.
posted by ian1977 at 11:30 AM on July 2, 2016

Huh, usually that has 14 words.

I had to use the googles to understand that reference.

And just when I thought I'd hit peak appalled. It's going to be a really fucking ugly four months.
posted by dersins at 11:30 AM on July 2, 2016 [17 favorites]

I am reminded of an episode of WKRP in Cincinnati called "Carlson for President." For reasons I can't recall, Mr. Carlson gets way ahead in an election and decides to throw the race by deliberately insulting voters. Unlike in reality, this succeeds in destroying his campaign.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:31 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

I just think he wants to win, to be the man who wins at winning and makes losers lose.

"We will have so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with the winning. Believe me, I agree, you'll never get bored with winning. We never get bored. We are going to turn this country around." - Donald Trump, noted crazy person, making a bold statement, then agreeing with his own statement, then contradicting it, all within two sentences
posted by zakur at 11:31 AM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

Trump must be the worst orator ever to win the nomination of a major party in the U.S., right? I mean, he must be.
posted by murphy slaw at 11:35 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

I dunno Murphy. I think he is the equivalent of oratory antimatter. He is like a Lewis Carrol character.
posted by ian1977 at 11:38 AM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

So he ditches the Star of David but adds an #Americafirst hashtag.

You can still see a few points of the star poking out from under the circle. I would call that a Photoshop fail, but something makes me think his campaign is using MS Paint.
posted by zakur at 11:41 AM on July 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

I am reminded of an episode of WKRP in Cincinnati called "Carlson for President." For reasons I can't recall, Mr. Carlson gets way ahead in an election and decides to throw the race by deliberately insulting voters. Unlike in reality, this succeeds in destroying his campaign.

Yeah, this is more of a 'The Producers' situation
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:43 AM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

Much of the time I dismiss Trump as laughable. But then stuff like this ad freaks me out and I start having anxiety attacks about the kind of America he is shaping for my little nieces and nephews.
posted by bardophile at 11:49 AM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

I would call that a Photoshop fail, but something makes me think his campaign is using MS Paint.

I like to think that the Trump campaign built out a $500,000 Flame suite to keep their quality compositing work in-house.
posted by dersins at 11:52 AM on July 2, 2016

oratory antimatter
This fits right in with my "Trump Is Secretly from Bizarro World" theory.

"Me unmake America worst again! No vote Me!"
posted by murphy slaw at 11:56 AM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

I would call that a Photoshop fail, but something makes me think his campaign is using MS Paint.

That is straight up PowerPoint. Beyond the casual anti-Semitism that is what most strikes me about this. The best they could come up with on staff was someone with meager PowerPoint skills and that's it.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:03 PM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

And purposefully left the star points in there. It's not a dog whistle it's a dog radio station.
posted by ian1977 at 12:06 PM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

What If Donald Trump Is Just An Elaborate Prank?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:07 PM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

I finally found that meme. I have to say I did get the wording wrong (it doesn't say "secure") but I sure as hell pick up the message anyway.
posted by Countess Elena at 12:10 PM on July 2, 2016

Based upon current polling and the fact that Clinton is apparently turning states like Arizona and Georgia into battleground and there is even polling that suggests she's within striking distance of Trump in Mississippi and South Carolina I'm becoming less and less concerned with a Trump Presidency which was always a long shot even if he was able to run a competent campaign (he's not).

It's just that he's emboldening a pretty numerous percentage of Americans to engage in all sorts of extremely destructive discourse in an open manner. Yeah it's nice to know who you need to remove from your Facebook feed because they are a fucking loon but it's a whole other issue to work in a workplace where instead of hiding the hatred behind faux gentility there are people that feel like they are free to engage in all sorts of hate speech because Trump is pushing back against PC.

I'm starting to get people that I thought we reasonably liberal or at least pro-labor start to spout all sorts of crazy right wing talking points about political correctness. This is contributing to my fears that the right will continue to work to divide people based upon race/religion/sexuality/gender/etc as a way to keep us operating in tribal states rather than using collective solidarity to advance civil rights and equal justice on a broad variety of issues. I see it increasingly in regards to people on the left that think everything boils down to economic issues despite evidence of differential outcomes based upon a host of other factors. But if you try to talk along the lines of intersectionality even some people on the left will engage in silencing tactics or they will stand by idly when you get smeared with labels of "SJW" or "tumblrite".
posted by vuron at 12:30 PM on July 2, 2016 [12 favorites]

> Speaking of Red/Blue, Marvel's latest version of their Avengers teams...

> Hopefully the December issue will not feature The Incredible Trump

Well, M.O.D.A.A.K. is an existing character...
posted by Fiberoptic Zebroid and The Hypnagogic Jerks at 12:40 PM on July 2, 2016

Oh, you can sit? Oh, that’s good. See, we supply chairs. How many people do that? Nobody else supplies chairs. Nobody else. Only Trump.
posted by zakur at 1:09 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Kasich is not going to the convention. Think about that. The republican governor of the state where the republican convention is being held, isn't invited.
posted by octothorpe at 1:25 PM on July 2, 2016 [19 favorites]

To be fair, when I went to the Bernie rally there were no chairs. We were promised free education, universal health care, but not a chair to be seen. After all the hours I waited in line, I think I might have switched to Trump if he was out on the sidewalk yelling "We've got chairs!"
posted by honestcoyote at 1:28 PM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

It's just that he's emboldening a pretty numerous percentage of Americans to engage in all sorts of extremely destructive discourse in an open manner. Yeah it's nice to know who you need to remove from your Facebook feed because they are a fucking loon but it's a whole other issue to work in a workplace where instead of hiding the hatred behind faux gentility there are people that feel like they are free to engage in all sorts of hate speech because Trump is pushing back against PC.

Trump is not some shocking new development. For some of us, the destructive discourse has been right out in the open all along. It's pretty disheartening that it takes this cartoonish level of bigotry to get everyone else to take their heads out of the sand.
posted by billyfleetwood at 1:32 PM on July 2, 2016 [15 favorites]

From Octothorpe's link:

It's highly unusual for the governor to skip a presidential nominating convention in his own state. But 2016 has been an unusual year. Kasich was one of the GOP candidates seeking the party's nomination. But Donald Trump is assured the title.

Kasich has declined to endorse Trump, whose statements on race, religion and immigration cut against the unifying message of Kasich's campaign. Trump has said he won't invite speakers who don't endorse him.

Boy Trump would make a great leader! I can see him now refusing to talk to the President of Mexico, uninviting the Prime Minister of Canada and telling the rest of the world leaders either they are for him or against him...and if they are against him...
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:34 PM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

Born on this day in 1951, transgender activist Sylvia Rivera was an early leader in the LGBT equality movement.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:55 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

first report from the volunteers for the DNC front:
I got an email reminding me that my training shift is scheduled for tomorrow at 2 AM.
Then I got an email saying that the shift is actually scheduled for 2 PM.
This is the end of my report.
posted by angrycat at 1:57 PM on July 2, 2016 [32 favorites]

Born on this day in 1951, transgender activist Sylvia Rivera was an early leader in the LGBT equality movement.

I see by the comments that the hate patrol's not taking the holiday weekend off.
posted by dersins at 1:57 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

From the comments: Terror happening everyday and this is what's she's worried about.

ACK Terror Terror Terror. We cannot possibly be concerned about the lives of American citizens and the struggles they face. We have to be on Terror Alert at All Times.

Jesus. It must be so frightening to be them.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:06 PM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

But 2016 has been an unusual year.

You don't say.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:52 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

So I caught part of Hillary's 5-minute plus interview on MSNBC. Then they went back into whatever random programming they have on weekends. And right toward the tail end of their interview (this was about 15 minutes ago) they were saying that the news is that there will likely be no charges filed against Hillary, and that there was some timeline for the decision or something. I figured they were going to discuss it more in detail, but they didn't. I don't see the interview online yet, or that news (though CNN has it as breaking news right now)
posted by cashman at 2:59 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm going to feel an extreme level of schadenfreude when no charges are recommended. The "FBI Primary" is what the deadender anti-Clintonites have been hanging their hats on for several months.
posted by Justinian at 3:08 PM on July 2, 2016

If no charges are recommended, that will just be further proof of the conspiracy. Also, what do we know about Hillary Clinton's birth certificate? Maybe that's why she killed Vince Foster!
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:11 PM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

I picture H.A. Goodman drinking alone in his basement apartment holding a framed picture of FBI Director James Comey in his hands, taking chugs of Thunderbird from the bottle and crying to himself. Why, Director Comey, why? You were our last hope!
posted by Justinian at 3:16 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

The email issue has always been a red herring.

Private email servers have been used since the Bush administration with most senior officials using dual email clients with the RNC accounts being preferred.

Of course after 2008 those servers got wiped but most reports indicate that proper data security processes were not followed.

Clinton shouldn't have used a private email server at all but it's also dumb to try to indict her according to rules in place after she left office.
posted by vuron at 3:57 PM on July 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm no conspiracy theorist. I usually give the benefit of the doubt to even the worst actors, but a star of David on a pile of hundreds? Makes me wonder who convinced him to leave off the horns.
posted by Sophie1 at 4:04 PM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

Mr. Love recalls getting an email after 1 a.m. after Mr. Obama saw a television report about students whose “bucket list” included meeting the president. Why had he not met them, the president asked Mr. Love. “‘Someone decided it wasn’t a good idea,’ I said,” Mr. Love recalled. “He said, ‘Well, I’m the president and I think it’s a good idea.’”

Then the two of them got into the car, drove to the Bethesda Holida Inn, and started knocking on doors. WAKE UP KIDS. YOU WANTED TO MEET THE PRESIDENT.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:09 PM on July 2, 2016 [21 favorites]

Clinton shouldn't have used a private email server at all but it's also dumb to try to indict her according to rules in place after she left office.

The rules regarding private server use relevant to this whole Clinton email thing were put in place when exactly? No snark, I haven't heard this brought up before and am curious.
posted by 3urypteris at 4:36 PM on July 2, 2016

Here is the interview MSNBC aired. 7:32 video.
posted by cashman at 4:55 PM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

November is a long ways off. Plenty of time for the Reublicans to invent a new Clinton scandal, or Trump to be relaunched.
posted by humanfont at 6:05 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Also plenty of time for Trump to be indicted for his career-long string of crimes. It will lose him many of this last honest "yeah, but..." supporters, but will assure that the Trump Riots will happen.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:12 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

November is a long ways off. Plenty of time for the Reublicans to invent a new Clinton scandal,

Oh, come on. Republicans making shit up in a series of frothing and fruitless attempts to smear Clinton is so 1992 - 2015.

Don't you know that's the left's job now?
posted by dersins at 6:17 PM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Theme tune of the Cleveland RNC?
posted by Devonian at 6:18 PM on July 2, 2016

Jeremy Diamond at CNN: “Trump deletes tweet after complaints of anti-Semitic imagery”
posted by Going To Maine at 6:22 PM on July 2, 2016

When do people realize that deleting tweets really doesn't delete them?

You fuck up on twitter and the only real answer is to explain your tweet. There are no do-overs and sanitizing your record especially as a public figure is next to impossible.
posted by vuron at 6:28 PM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

Trump has ~~bribed~~contributed to plenty of elected officials... including Bill & Hillary. I suspect her Ultimate Weapon against him will be to release some correspondence asking explicitly for some quid pro quo that she rejected (then again, how much did he pay them to attend his 3rd wedding?). But she's obviously saving that for later - if she destroys him too early, the Republicans would have time to nominate another candidate who could possibly defeat her.

Don't you know that's the left's job now?
The Bernie Bloc know that getting Trump elected is the one chance for them to take over the Democratic Party in 2020. Just as several cliques in the GOP are already using the Trump debacle as a jumping-off point for their own future plans (sadly, some of them are as fascist as The Donald, just more subtle and less 'cult of personality').

When do people realize that deleting tweets really doesn't delete them?
Some people have learned, but most of them are smart enough to have them vetted in the first place. Trump was never smart enough - any impression he could be was the creation his character on The Apprentice by Mark Burnett and NBC (and I'm never going to stop blaming them).
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:38 PM on July 2, 2016

Jeremy Diamond at CNN: “Trump deletes tweet after complaints of anti-Semitic imagery”

People need to hammer him on bowing to political correctness after his song and dance about it.
posted by Talez at 6:43 PM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

People need to hammer him on bowing to political correctness after his song and dance about it.

Yeah, the oddest thing about that was he didn't just double down. "It's a sheriff's badge. The best kind of badge. Sheriffs love me. They're great."
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:50 PM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

The Bernie Bloc know that getting Trump elected is the one chance for them to take over the Democratic Party in 2020.

That couldn't be more wrong. They're best chance is to become part of the Democratic Party.
posted by bongo_x at 6:56 PM on July 2, 2016 [7 favorites]

Yeah, the oddest thing about that was he didn't just double down. "It's a sheriff's badge. The best kind of badge. Sheriffs love me. They're great."
except they don't... he knows if he ever sees a sheriff's badge in real life, it'll be with a pair of handcuffs as he's about to do his long-overdue perp walk.

That couldn't be more wrong.
You're right, I said it wrong. "SOME OF The Bernie Bloc ~~know~~BELIEVE that getting Trump elected..."
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:00 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

That couldn't be more wrong. They're best chance is to become part of the Democratic Party.

Join a political party? If you want to change things you don't join a political party. You organize and work together!

Seriously though, Bernie Boosters, according to the shit that spews out of /r/SFP, "quit the party in disgust" the day after the primary.
posted by Talez at 7:02 PM on July 2, 2016

The Bernie Bloc know that getting Trump elected is the one chance for them to take over the Democratic Party in 2020.

Yeah, this is not a true thing. The children are the future.

You're right, I said it wrong. “SOME OF The Bernie Bloc knowBELIEVE that getting Trump elected...”

A fraction of Bernie’s voters will go for Trump because they dislike Hillary. A fraction of that fraction will be doing so because they expect that it will help them take over the Dems.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:04 PM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

I suspect her Ultimate Weapon against him will be to release some correspondence asking explicitly for some quid pro quo that she rejected

Donald Trump might be a crazy person. But the idea that he would run against someone TO WHOM HE OFFERED A BRIBE IN WRITING is beyond crazy.

(then again, how much did he pay them to attend his 3rd wedding?)

I… who cares? Who would care about this? The worst thing this could be for either one of them is tacky.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:11 PM on July 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

except they don't...

Since when has that mattered?

As a Bernie supporter, I'm upset to see a fifth of our ranks defect, but I get it. These are low information voters who are scrambling to signal their distress. Brexit may be more relevant in the States than you'd think.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:11 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

the idea that he would run against someone TO WHOM HE OFFERED A BRIBE IN WRITING is beyond crazy.
Not crazy, just stupid. Or believing he could use it against her more than vice versa (did I mention 'stupid'?) Or when he started his crusade for the GOP nomination, he wasn't thinking that far ahead. And if she accepted the campaign contribution first, and he asked for favors later, it can't be a Bribe, right? (did I mention 'stupid'?) Or maybe part of his crusade against Hillary is because she took his money and didn't give him any quid pro quo? And THAT is HIS standard for "corrupt"? (Have I mentioned that one of my biggest disappointments in America's legal system is that Donald ISN'T sharing a cell with Madoff? His treatment vs. that of wealthy celebrity felon Martha Stewart is also strong evidence for sexism in the system. But at least she got to star on The Apprentice after she got out.)
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:39 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

The Clintons are at Hamilton tonight.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:59 PM on July 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

So the Clintons managed to snag tickets to a Saturday evening Hamilton performance probably with the entire main cast.

But she promised that she was going to Hamilton with me!
posted by vuron at 8:06 PM on July 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

As a Bernie supporter, I'm upset to see a fifth of our ranks defect, but I get it. These are low information voters who are scrambling to signal their distress. Brexit may be more relevant in the States than you'd think.

hmm, if only someone could inform these low information voters. Perhaps there could even be a person who Bernie supporters, by definition, er, support. That person could travel the country with a message of populism and discourage people from supporting a fascist nincompoop at the same time. They could tell said low information voters how best to achieve some of what they want now, and encourage them to press for more in the future. It would have to be someone many voters already look up to, perhaps a runner-up in the party's nominating contest? And probably not that O'Malley guy.

It's too bad nobody like that exists.
posted by zachlipton at 8:08 PM on July 2, 2016 [46 favorites]

but she was supposed to go with meeeeeeeee
posted by you're a kitty! at 8:09 PM on July 2, 2016

What I would not pay to see Hillary Clinton and Leslie Odom Jr perform a duet of "Wait for It" and "Room Where It Happens."
posted by zachlipton at 8:12 PM on July 2, 2016 [8 favorites]

This is an interesting set of graphics from the Wall Street Journal breaking down the demographics of the Clinton-Sanders race.

I obviously can't vouch for the completeness or accuracy of the Wall Street Journal's data, but it looks like Clinton outperformed Sanders in almost every age/race/income category, with the obvious and notable exceptions of under-30 voters (whom she lost by a bigger margin than she did to Obama in 2008), and independents.

Looks like Sanders performed his best--though generally not better than Clinton--with voters in the following categories:

Under 30
White
Very liberal
Independent
Some college or a college degree (but not a postgraduate degree)
Income between 50K and 100K
Living in or around a college town

This tracks pretty precisely with what I would have suspected, but it's interesting to see it corroborated.
posted by dersins at 8:39 PM on July 2, 2016 [12 favorites]

I'm not thrilled with Lynch's decision. Not because I think Clinton did anything significantly wrong, but because I do not underestimate the Republican willingness to shamelessly manipulate investigations to destroy Democrats; I lived through the 90s. And Comey is a Republican, and I bet so are a lot of the other FBI officials involved in the investigation. And the way this has dragged on is evidence to me that it's already being used for political purposes.

Of course, it may make no practical difference, since it's not like the recommendation wouldn't be leaked in a microsecond if she turned it down, and then that would be the scandal.
posted by tavella at 9:02 PM on July 2, 2016

Director of the FBI and FBI investigating agent are non-partisan positions. Once we start going down the road of believing that such positions cannot be performed relatively objectively we're basically lost. I don't believe Comey will recommend an indictment because he's a Republican in the same way that I don't believe a Democrat in his position would recommend against an indictment because he or she was a Democrat.
posted by Justinian at 9:15 PM on July 2, 2016 [10 favorites]

Special prosecutor was supposed to be a non-partisan position too. I saw how well *that* was hewed to. I no longer believe that there are any limits to what Republican officials will do, sorry.
posted by tavella at 9:32 PM on July 2, 2016 [8 favorites]

I think I just don't think there's any circumstances in which the people involved in the investigation aren't aware of how it has political implications. Hell, I think she did something wrong, and I might be like "nope Secretary Clinton was totally innocent", and I'm a Republican. This year is just impossible.
posted by corb at 10:09 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Assuming that the inside buzz referenced above is true and no charges are filed in the email non-scandal, what is the next bullshit accusation against Clinton that will take root? I want to know what words I should start adding "gate" or "ghazi" to so I can block them in advance.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:13 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

the next bullshit accusation

My money's on Googleghazi or something along those lines.
posted by dersins at 1:24 AM on July 3, 2016

Several comments deleted. Seriously, how many times do we have to say "don't make it personal," "cut out the personal insults," etc.? Justinian, take the day off.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:58 AM on July 3, 2016

Hillary has beliefs. Trump has none.
posted by rikschell at 4:21 AM on July 3, 2016 [8 favorites]

right. why is the NRA running ads tying HRC to Benghazi.

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGHHHHHHH DIE DIE DIE DIE
posted by angrycat at 5:28 AM on July 3, 2016

why is the NRA running ads tying HRC to Benghazi.

Desperation.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:30 AM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

I was shocked to learn yesterday that my mother and one of my sisters believe that Hillary is a liar and there's something to the Benghazi accusations because 'where there's smoke, there's fire', and they couldn't keep saying it if there wasn't some truth there. They will vote for her because they truly believe she is competent and the best choice but the years of throwing that shit against the wall takes its toll.

She has been the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy but the fact that she voiced this fact makes it a lie. Quite the conundrum.
posted by readery at 6:50 AM on July 3, 2016 [8 favorites]

Donald Trump's "Star of David" Hillary Clinton Meme Was Created by White Supremacists
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:06 AM on July 3, 2016 [10 favorites]

God I hate the "where there is smoke there is fire" idea. It's such a tortured idiom. Sometimes all the rumor and innuendo does reveal a concealed truth but just as often the rumor and innuendo are based around false accusations created to harm the intended target.

Having seen the maturity level of some Republican leaders it seems like about 90% of the smears directed at Clinton seem to be roughly high school level in maturity.

She's either a hyper-competent manipulator or a totally inept individual riding the coattails of her husband. There is never any in between, every mistake is proof she's unfit to lead and every success is proof she's the antichrist.
posted by vuron at 7:13 AM on July 3, 2016 [10 favorites]

Seriously outsourcing your photoshoppery to /pol/?

That shows a level of incompetence and malfeasance that is shocking in scope.

I mean /pol/ is more technically capable than Stormfront but it's basically the same thing.
posted by vuron at 8:03 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

I've read it said that where there's smoke, there might be fire, or there might be fresh horseshit.
posted by Countess Elena at 8:10 AM on July 3, 2016

what have you been feeding your horse
posted by murphy slaw at 8:30 AM on July 3, 2016 [21 favorites]

Donald Trump's "Star of David" Hillary Clinton Meme Was Created by White Supremacists

this is my surprised face
posted by dersins at 8:31 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

okay, so The Donald is outsourcing his campaign to /pol/. have we drifted far enough into the worst timeline that weev as his running mate is not out of the question?
posted by murphy slaw at 8:38 AM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]

Weev is too young, thankfully.
posted by dw at 8:47 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think "Where there's smoke there are mirrors" would be a more apt idiom in this case.
posted by double block and bleed at 8:47 AM on July 3, 2016 [14 favorites]

THEY FOUND IT ON 4CHAN AND JUST REPOSTED IT?!?!?!?!

I'm sorry but like my brain literally is shutting down about this
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:50 AM on July 3, 2016 [11 favorites]

Why pay someone to do something someone else has already done for free?
posted by double block and bleed at 8:53 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

It was on 8chan's /pol/, not 4chan's.
posted by Small Dollar at 8:57 AM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

I mean, both are reprehensible but 4chan probably wouldn't sticky a post disparaging Elie Wiesel.
posted by Small Dollar at 8:59 AM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

Worrying about any smoke emanating from the Clinton campaign while giving Donald Trump a pass is like fretting over your neighbour burning a few leaves in the backyard while ignoring the giant tire yard fire across the street.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:59 AM on July 3, 2016 [11 favorites]

It was on 8chan's /pol/, not 4chan's.

This just gets better and better, by which I mean way worse.
posted by murphy slaw at 9:10 AM on July 3, 2016

"Where there's hate-fueled conspiracy fever-dreams amongst misogynists, there's fire"
but I guess that's just a bit too wordy to fit on a bumper sticker.
posted by blueberry at 9:18 AM on July 3, 2016 [6 favorites]

Yuck, 4chan is full of edgy teenagers trying out ironic racism. Yeah it still does damage and should be condemned but 8chan is a festering pile of shit full of alternative right true believers that by all rights should be nuked from orbit and then salting the earth so no microbes can survive.

It's hard to imagine a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Pretty sure that Milo is a potential running mate based on this insight. Yes he is a UK citizen but rules don't apply to Trump. I mean he is soliciting foreign contributions openly.
posted by vuron at 9:28 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

So here's President Obama carrying on in the tradition started by FLOTUS Hillary Clinton in 1996.
posted by bardophile at 9:39 AM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

I remember that first time. It really validated my sense of being truly American.
posted by bardophile at 9:40 AM on July 3, 2016

Blergh. It seems the video is from Thanksgiving, not the iftar dinner...
posted by bardophile at 9:51 AM on July 3, 2016

I'm actually secretly glad, because I was like "they couldn't at least have used real serving plates?" Images from actual White House Iftar dinners look more appropriately formal.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:59 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

Wasn't there some sort of study about how our mind has difficulty appropriately scaling? So people see the dumpster fire of Trump and are like "oh sure a lying terrible politician, like them all" rather than seeing he is orders of magnitude worse?
posted by corb at 10:12 AM on July 3, 2016 [6 favorites]

So this was the week we learned the Trump campaign really is run by neo-Nazis, and the worst thing about the news is that no one is particularly surprised.
posted by yhbc at 10:30 AM on July 3, 2016 [8 favorites]

> Yeah, the oddest thing about that was he didn't just double down. "It's a sheriff's badge. The best kind of badge. Sheriffs love me. They're great."

Wow, you called it: "Lewandowski claimed the image was meant to evoke law enforcement. 'This is the same star that sheriff's departments all over the country use to represent law enforcement,' he said."
posted by peeedro at 10:31 AM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]

Humans are generally horrible about assessing risks in the modern world (we simply haven't advanced out brains to keep pace with technology) but a really important part of the issue is that humans can't separate risk assessment from value judgements.

So if you've made a value judgement that the Republican party best represents your concerns and your values it's very difficult to break with the party when they nominate someone who represents a major risk. This prevents a lot of voters from being willing to cross the aisle because their value judgement conflicts with their risk assessment. What is really interesting is that because he's masquerading as a good Republican many on the right are willing to ignore the large number of areas that he deviates from the right. So people like Corb face an uphill climb in getting converts because everything that Trump says that agrees with Republican orthodoxy is seen as confirming the selection and anything that shows a heterodox approach gets rejected.

On the opposite side there is a tendency on the left to view every potential Republican nominee as awful because there is a fundamental disconnect between what are perceived core values. So we view all of the Republicans as similarly awful even though some were demonstrably worse than others. It also prevents us from accurately assessing the actual risk of Trump because our moral values are so diametrically opposed we tend to see Trump as a sign of the apocalypse.

Even after Trump inevitably crashes and burns there will be a desire to go right back to the well with more conservative candidates rather than being willing to accept that a large percentage of the US no longer shares core values of Republicans.
posted by vuron at 10:31 AM on July 3, 2016 [7 favorites]

Maybe it's because he's less "magnitudes worse" and more "about as bad" as, say, almost every single Congressional Republican:

Tuesday, Democrats blocked the bill (as near as we can tell, on its way to the conference committee where differences between the Senate and House versions would be ironed out) on a procedural vote. They weren’t willing to accept cost shifting from other programs or cuts to family planning, not to mention the other fun stuff the House threw into the bill, like cuts to the Affordable Care Act — yes, let’s fight a disease by cutting health care — and weakening environmental restrictions on pesticide use. Not so much to allow wider use of pesticides against mosquitos, mind you, which could be spun as a necessary step to fight the disease, but just plain tossing out some sanctions on violations of the Clean Water Act, so pesticide spills wouldn’t be punished. Fun, huh?

Since the Zika funding is attached to the annual bill funding military construction and veterans affairs, the House added in a vital measure that will help The Vets and fight Zika, somehow: They added language reversing a previously passed law restricting the display of the Confederate flag in federal cemeteries. Because dammit, what good is a House majority if you can’t use it to add something monumentally dickish to a bill that absolutely has to be passed?
[...]
Needless to say, since Democrats aren’t willing to go along with a few necessary compromises — like slavery flags, cuts to funding for the ACA, allowing pesticide dumping, and insane cuts to family planning clinics when condoms would help slow the spread of the disease — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is shocked, shocked at the sudden outbreak of partisan obstructionism:
We have a public health crisis descending on our country … Pregnant women all across America are looking at this with dismay, utter dismay, as we sit here in a partisan gridlock manufactured by the other side.

posted by zombieflanders at 10:37 AM on July 3, 2016 [18 favorites]

The fact that Trump is in bed with neo-nazis, alt-right kooks, and white nationalists has been apparent for ages. Many of these groups have made public statements about how much Trump's candidacy has helped them just from the idea of making their viewpoints more politically acceptable.

I think what people are surprised is not that the Trump campaign has apparently joined forces with the forces of hate because he's always been a craven opportunist and white nationalism is apparently an untapped market it's just that he's been so inept at hiding his association.

But it's pretty clear that a big part of Trump's support base seems to be coming from the paleoconservative right and all the retrograde opinions common in those groups.
posted by vuron at 10:42 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

NBC: "My sources say Trump wants his own Ed McMahon 'yes' man" as VP, says @KatyTurNBC on @MeetThePress with @ChuckTodd #MTP

posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:43 AM on July 3, 2016

Chris Christie, come on down.
posted by TwoStride at 10:45 AM on July 3, 2016 [12 favorites]

So Chris "Blink Twice if you are okay" Christie isn't enough of a yes man for Trump?

Is he going to nominate a ventriloquist dummy to the VP slot so he can double up on free media exposure?
posted by vuron at 10:47 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

Jerry Mahoney, come on down!
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:49 AM on July 3, 2016

Maybe it's because he's less "magnitudes worse" and more "about as bad" as, say, almost every single Congressional Republican:

This is neither a particularly true nor particularly useful thing to say. While, yes, there a metric fuckton of super shitty Republicans in congress, the overwhelmingly vast majority of them are not literal, actual racebaiting, antisemitic fascists.

To claim Trump is no worse is to fall into precisely the trap that corb and vuron elucidated above.
posted by dersins at 11:04 AM on July 3, 2016 [14 favorites]

Ed McMahon's dead, but Linda McMahon might be available.
posted by box at 11:08 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm thinking Vince.
posted by dersins at 11:09 AM on July 3, 2016

While, yes, there a metric fuckton of super shitty Republicans in congress, the overwhelmingly vast majority of them are not literal, actual racebaiting, antisemitic fascists.

Right, they just dig the Confederacy and want to go against all the advice from public health experts to take health care away from the exact people who need it. I mean, the Confederate flag thing is race-baity as fuck, but at least it's not explicitly anti-Semitic, so I guess they get those points back. The blatant misogyny and supervillain-y disregard for the lives of millions seems like it would more than take up the slack, though.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:11 AM on July 3, 2016 [6 favorites]

And lbr, just because their evil isn't on display quite as much as Trump's is, we shouldn't give them a pass.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:12 AM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

rather than being willing to accept that a large percentage of the US no longer shares core values of Republicans.

I've talked about this before, but one thing that's really, really hard to understand, but is a fundamental split, is that by each party's standards, they represent a majority of the US - correctly. Nobody is wrong, they are both just measuring different things.

Cities are blue. Overwhelmingly blue! Tha vast majority of large cities vote Democrat, and have values in line with Democratic values - collaboration rather than individualism, large protective state rather than rugged pioneer, etc. And cities are where the majority of the population of the US is held. The Democrats are not wrong, looking at population, to see and say "We are the majority in the US and will only continue to be so."

But rural areas are red. Overwhelmingly red! And there is, by virtue of the US being one of the largest countries in the world with a concentrated population, much more physical red landmass - more regions that are red - than there are blue. If you look at a map of the United States, you see concentrations of blue on the coasts and in cities, and broad swaths of the rest of the country that are red. The Republicans are not wrong, looking at area, to see and say "The majority of the US believes like we do. We just need to free them from those cities that are skewing things."

And it's important to remember, from time to time, that the United States started as a group of colonies, who had an abundance of land area, but a comparatively low population. Populations are hard to estimate because they are pre-census, but conservative estimates of the colonies during the Revolutionary War are around 2 million, with England having about 8 million - so the colonies only about 20% of the population, with a much greater proportion of landmass. Even if the colonies had had representatives, they would have been outvoted on nearly every matter.

We generally think the colonists were correct to say "The rules that govern England are not the rules that should govern us, England is across the sea and has no interest in our lives or ideals."

I am not saying that the red areas of the country should secede. Far from it! But I think that eventually, we will have to figure out a way to govern that acknowledges that the rules that govern large, population dense cities, are not the way to govern small towns - and vice versa. Otherwise we're going to have a lot of pain brought about by smart people on both sides making correct assessments within their values that they are being held back by "the other guys", who are in their ideology, the minority.
posted by corb at 11:27 AM on July 3, 2016 [21 favorites]

The tl;dr, I suppose, is that "Why should a tiny island across the sea / regulate the price of tea" applies both then and now, and since revolutions are messy we should probably figure that shit out.
posted by corb at 11:29 AM on July 3, 2016 [9 favorites]

> Rural areas are red. Overwhelmingly red! And there is much more physical red landmass ... The Republicans are not wrong, looking at area, to see and say "The majority of the US believes like we do. We just need to free them from those cities that are skewing things."

I agree with most of what you said, but this "belief" simply flies in the face of reality. I mean, we decided that it's people that get to vote, not acres of land. Otherwise, Alaska would be setting policy for the rest of the country, rather than California driving emission standards.
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:52 AM on July 3, 2016 [20 favorites]

And the less-populated, more "Individualistic" Red States consistently take more tax money from the Federal Government than they give. Can you say "Blatant Hypocrisy", boys and girls?

we decided that it's people that get to vote, not acres of land.
...the obvious error that Republican Gerrymandering is fixing.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:55 AM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]

The Republicans are not wrong, looking at area, to see and say "The majority of the US believes like we do. We just need to free them from those cities that are skewing things."

Of course they're wrong, they're only using maps that distort electoral reality.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:57 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

Urbanization in the United States: "In 1790, only about one out of every twenty Americans (on average) lived in urban areas (cities), but this ratio had dramatically changed to one out of four by 1870, one out of two by 1920, two out of three in the 1960s, and four out of five in the 2000s."

But then who will speak for the gas and oil fields? Need I remind you that they take up much more land than lowly islands like Manhattan.

The Senate already prioritizes rural states, that's how the Constitution planned it. Then the Senate went ahead and further prioritized rural rights by entrenching the filibuster. Fine. Then, because every state has to have at least one, and because we've capped the total number of Representatives, the House further entrenched rural interests. The percent of the vote that you own in Congress merely by dint of being a resident of a rural Western state is completely disproportionate. Add in the fact that we can't make D.C. a state and that most Republicans have gerrymandered most states to the edge of legality, and that the Senate (the Senate that is intentionally skewed toward rural interests) refuses to seat a member of the third branch of government (which branch singlehandedly elected a president in 2000 because the electoral college, another institution skewed towards rural interests, couldn't resolve itself despite the clear majority of the country voting for the guy who lost), and the notion that rural voters don't have enough of a voice at the federal level is one of the most absurd things I've read in any of the election threads.
posted by one_bean at 12:00 PM on July 3, 2016 [33 favorites]

Chilling article about rape allegations against Trump: Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored.
posted by chaiminda at 12:04 PM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]

Ok, again: the Republican party largely represents suburban people, not rural people. Rural people are only the majority in a few states, and a couple of them (Vermont and Maine, for instance) aren't reliably Republican.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:05 PM on July 3, 2016

Also, a lot of the landmass that the Republicans claim as "red," and almost all of it in the western US, is actually taken up by federally-owned lands.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:07 PM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]

The reality is that there are structures in place that limit the tyranny of the majority (if majority is reflected by total population).

The US federal system has a distinct bias towards empowering rural agrarian interests by virtue of the Senate which gives all states equal representation regardless of population. The Senate of course used to be even less democratic than it currently is because Senators were selected by State legislatures rather than direct democracy.

The Electoral College is also to a degree designed to represent the will of agrarian states due to the electors being decided by total number of representatives and senators. If there were only 435 electors (DC of course being utterly screwed as always) you could argue that many of the recent elections would be much less close than they would otherwise be. 2000 of course would've gone completely differently.

And that's before we even get into the number of powers that the Constitution deliberately defers to the individual states. Within the current system we have 50 different laboratories that voters can select between by voting with their feet.

Overall I don't mind the impacts of the Jeffersonian-Hamiltonian compromise as the current Federal system tends to avoid most of the mob rule issues that have haunted some other Democracies. However where I think we have essentially run into problems is that rather than maintaining a culture of compromise where elected officials try to best represent the needs of their constituents we've created a very dysfunctional party system where ideological purity is a fundamental requirement and there is no punishment for being an absolutist.

In these cases Representatives and Senators (particularly on the Right) have basically come to the conclusion that they have to represent the viewpoints of the majority of their district (lest they be primaried) rather than try to represent voters across the spectrum. The result is within voting districts we are developing a functional tyranny of the masses where the opposition simply gets discounted.
posted by vuron at 12:16 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

Wow, you called it: "Lewandowski claimed the image was meant to evoke law enforcement. 'This is the same star that sheriff's departments all over the country use to represent law enforcement,' he said."

Wait… what? Didn't the Trump campaign fire him?
posted by indubitable at 12:36 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

Lewandowski's now working as a "news analyst" at CNN... just another way Trump is outsourcing the expenses of his campaign (and how the 'liberal media' is subsidizing him)
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:41 PM on July 3, 2016 [12 favorites]

So, just this week alone, Donald Trump has broken federal law by soliciting campaign donations from foreign elected officials, produced a canonically antisemitic campaign ad, AND was accused of raping a child during his decades-long friendship with convicted rapist Jeffrey Epstein. And yet somehow this man is still the leading candidate for a major political party. Jesus wept.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:44 PM on July 3, 2016 [24 favorites]

Existential Dread: So, just this week alone, Donald Trump has broken federal law by soliciting campaign donations from foreign elected officials, produced a canonically antisemitic campaign ad, AND was accused of raping a child during his decades-long friendship with convicted rapist Jeffrey Epstein.

Surely this...
posted by Superplin at 12:46 PM on July 3, 2016 [6 favorites]

Jonathan Rauch: How American Politics Went Insane

So Americans developed a second, unwritten constitution. Beginning in the 1790s, politicians sorted themselves into parties. In the 1830s, under Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, the parties established patronage machines and grass-roots bases. The machines and parties used rewards and the occasional punishment to encourage politicians to work together.

posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:49 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

Surely this...
...will bring the ratings of TV News to new highs!!
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:51 PM on July 3, 2016

a "news analyst" at CNN

There should definitely be a different title for that job--one that involves neither the word "news" nor the word "analyst." Preferably this title would highlight the tendency of people in that position to be loud, biased, substantially less informed and intelligent than they believe themselves to be, and male.

Perhaps, given that politics is looking more gladiatorial every day, news networks could take a page from their sports broadcasting counterparts and call people like Lewandowski color commentators.

Or maybe just mansplainers.
posted by dersins at 12:54 PM on July 3, 2016

Where there's smoke, there may be arson.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:59 PM on July 3, 2016 [17 favorites]

I think that I'm not terribly convinced by any analysis of American voting patterns that divides people into "urban" and "non-urban." Those just seem like really blunt categories to me. For instance, a lot of Republican voters live in suburbs, rather than rural areas or small towns. And not all cities are big cities.

There are exceptions. Tulsa and Arlington, TX, are very Republican despite being among the 50 largest cities. You're seeing suburbs in expensive cities fill up with lower class PoC that typically vote Democratic.

That said, it's still pretty rare in this country to see concentrations of Democrats in rural areas or Republicans in urban areas. And much of it stems from the GOP's unwillingness to treat cities as a positive thing during the days of gang wars and the crack epidemic. When cities became the hot thing, they stayed in the burbs.
posted by dw at 1:26 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

The big exception being Phoenix, because AZ has to be weird. Most of the smaller cities and even towns are more liberal. The state votes Republican because of Phoenix, but Phoenix is mostly suburb anyway.
posted by bongo_x at 1:31 PM on July 3, 2016

Does Phoenix have a large retiree population? Would that explain it?
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:41 PM on July 3, 2016

It does.
posted by dersins at 1:43 PM on July 3, 2016

Or, rather, the metro area does.
posted by dersins at 1:44 PM on July 3, 2016

We do have a large retiree population, and in the suburbs, a large Mormon population (something that came as a surprise to me when I moved out here).

Central Phoenix is actually quite liberal, and we've had a Democratic mayor since 2004 (Phil Gordon until 2011, now Greg Stanton).
The metro area includes the more conservative East Valley (Scottsdale, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, etc.) and West Valley (Glendale, Peoria, etc.) suburbs. So we're like a constellation of cities/suburbs, many of which do tend to be staunchly Republican.
posted by Superplin at 1:46 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

Oh, I forgot to include Tempe, which is a "university town" (ASU actually has four campuses throughout the Valley, but it began and is still administratively seated in Tempe). As a result, it tends to also be more liberal than its other East Valley neighbors.
posted by Superplin at 1:48 PM on July 3, 2016

That said, it's still pretty rare in this country to see concentrations of Democrats in rural areas or Republicans in urban areas.

Right, but I'm saying that it's too simple to divide the country into urban areas and rural areas. Democrats do well in big cities. Republicans typically do well in rural areas. But you can't really generalize about suburbs: it depends on the suburb. And my guess is that more Americans live in suburbs than live in either urban or rural areas.

Here'a an interesting article from fivethirtyeight on how government stats divide everything into urban and rural, and that underestimates the percentage of people who are actually suburban.

Nationally, 26 percent of Americans described where they live as urban, 53 percent said suburban and 21 percent said rural.

posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:54 PM on July 3, 2016

The rural-urban thing was illustrated most clearly for me in the most recent election in Alberta - not the U.S., I know, though it's sometimes called the Texas of Canada - in which there were two conservative parties. The socialist-ish party got the cities; the "moderate" conservative party got the towns; and the "pure" conservative party got the rural areas. If you zoomed in, even places with a collection of only three or four streets were likely to be islands of "moderate" conservatism in a sea of rural conservative purity.

The exceptions were the rural areas with large First Nations populations.
posted by clawsoon at 1:56 PM on July 3, 2016

From LRB (Linked in the Brexit thread)

But it also isn’t a coincidence that the two places where truly destabilising populist politics have been let off the leash are Britain and the United States. Looking at what we have allowed to happen, Trump must be licking his lips. Under winner-take-all systems, people who are happy to gamble away their nation’s security only have to get lucky once.

posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:06 PM on July 3, 2016

Under winner-take-all systems, people who are happy to gamble away their nation’s security only have to get lucky once.

I'm pretty sure a rank choice Brexit vote would have had the same results...
posted by one_bean at 2:39 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

From LRB (Linked in the Brexit thread)
But it also isn’t a coincidence that the two places where truly destabilising populist politics have been let off the leash are Britain and the United States. Looking at what we have allowed to happen, Trump must be licking his lips. Under winner-take-all systems, people who are happy to gamble away their nation’s security only have to get lucky once.
That's a weird paragraph. The author strongly implies that Britain and the US have something inherent in common, and that thing--not "coincidence"--is what has led to the rise in Leave voters and Trump voters in their respective countries.

But whatever that something might be (which is totally not coincidence, no, really, he swears), the author never names or describes it, or even attempts to make any real connection between the political climates of the two countries beyond the assertion that there is one.

On the whole, this makes me suspect he may not have any idea what he's talking about, and may in fact just be making shit up as he goes along because he thinks it sounds vaguely insightful.
posted by dersins at 2:40 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

"The Republican Jewish Coalition also did not respond to a request for comment."

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was ~~not~~ a Jew that valued bigots over my own people.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:08 PM on July 3, 2016 [9 favorites]

(And, yes, I do realize that the final sentence of my last comment describes like 97% of all punditry.)
posted by dersins at 3:09 PM on July 3, 2016

Besides retirees and Mormons, Phoenix is very much all business all the time. Couldn't be more different than other AZ cities and towns, which are mostly not much business most of the time, unless maybe we're not busy, maybe next week, is that cool?

Most of my friends here are artists of some sort(s), or arts-adjacent, so that describes the bulk of Phoenix people I know, too.
posted by Superplin at 3:15 PM on July 3, 2016

I'm pretty sure a rank choice Brexit vote would have had the same results...

His point is a proportional representation government wouldn't have proposed it
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:34 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

How American Politics Went Insane

There's been a disturbing trend of discussion in this election that maybe the problems facing democracy around the world is that there's just too much of it -- that voters should have less say in the running of politics and political parties and that politicians themselves, being personally and professionally interested, should have final say over what goes on in the halls of power.

Political atomization and dysfunction isn't the fault of democracy. Middle class and elite antipathy for democracy is not a solution.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:53 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump doesn't even need to get elected to cause harm. A Muslim doctor walking to his mosque was assaulted and shot by three assailants in Houston this morning before being rushed to the hospital. There were children playing outside the mosque at the time of the shooting. Fortunately, he is likely to survive. However, the police seem uncooperative:

Police say there is no indication this is a hate crime... Eyewitnesses told police the three suspects ran off again on foot after the attack, and we have yet to get a good description of the suspects from police.

Right. So that's how it is.
posted by stolyarova at 4:06 PM on July 3, 2016 [23 favorites]

the police seem uncooperative
Considering the victim, quite unsurprising in America these days. In Houston, even less so. A 'hate crime' designation just means (1) a lot more paperwork and (2) a higher likelihood the perps are friends of cops.

Trump's campaign isn't the problem; it's a symptom. (And I still feel it's not based on his own racism... after all, he has total disdain for everyone who is NOT him... but he's going to keep riding the horse he came this far on and totally ignore that it's regularly kicking other people in the face)
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:20 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

A Muslim doctor walking to his mosque was assaulted and shot by three assailants in Houston this morning

As usual, don't read the comments.
posted by zachlipton at 4:26 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

The comments we shouldn't read are evidence that bigotry, ignorance ad assholery from America's Majority/Dominant Group is the biggest threat to our society. But on the bright side, most of the scumbags are writing hateful comments and NOT bothering to go out and shoot people they don't like (and in many cases, not even bothering to vote).

Meanwhile, Marvel Comics has just put things all in perspective, in the alternate Earth-65, where the superhero with Spider Powers is Gwen Stacy (Spider-Gwen!) and a certain 'real-life' political celebrity has been re-imagined as MODAAK (Mental Organism Designed As America’s King). Considering MODOK has always been one of Marvel's lamest supervillains (there has been an annual photoshop contest called March MODOK Madness that I have made contributions to), this is the biggest diss the Mighty Marvel Marching Society could bestow on the real-life stuporvillain.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:46 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

Surveillance Video Shows Two Youths Viciously Beaten Outside A Brooklyn Mosque
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:05 PM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]

After repeated calls from BuzzFeed News on Sunday, a police spokesperson eventually confirmed the incident occurred and described it as a “non-bias incident.”

*angry breathing*
posted by stolyarova at 5:08 PM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]

The attacker allegedly shouted “You fucking terrorist”
Actually, he shouted "You fucking lame terrorist - THIS is how you do terrorism!"
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:18 PM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]

I definitely would not be in favor of less democracy as I think there is almost always a group of individuals that feel like they are best suited towards making decisions for the unwashed masses, while in theory it could work well the reality is that the number of truly selfless enlightened despots is vanishingly small and self interest almost always results in elites becoming dicks to the plebs.

The solution isn't necessarily to push everything through a plebiscite either as few people tend to bother to educate themselves about every nuance of government policy and an uninformed or misinformed populace can enact policies that definitely aren't in their favor (see Brexit and about 3 dozen California referendums).

So less democracy isn't ideal and more democracy has issues so perhaps the solution is to assume that on big macro level issues the electorate tends to vote according to their values but that we need representative democracy and trained professional bureaucrats to put the broad strokes into action.

Reducing the impact of campaign giving on candidates would be ideal but requires a change in the composition of the SCOTUS. I'm hesitant to create term limits on congress because I'm not sure that it would be the best result but it seems like it would undermine the current tendency to re-elect incumbents and might encourage more bipartisanship because you really won't be able to make a career of congress.

Anything to do with trying to improve the engagement of voters would be beneficial but anything that would disqualify people from voting because of X would be horrifically stupid.
posted by vuron at 5:36 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

Seriously NYPD? What is the possible motivation for seeking to minimize what was quite likely a hate crime?

Is it too hard to say "The NYPD is treating this incident seriously and investigating the possibility that it could be racially or religiously motivated but until we conduct more interviews we don't want to assume anything because catching the perpetrator is our top priority".

Or some sort of bland PR version of that. Don't minimize, don't confirm without additional evidence but simply be open to all possibilities.
posted by vuron at 5:44 PM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]

When has the NYPD ever needed a motivation to act like racist assholes?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:09 PM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]

It kinda sounds like maybe there's a little more to the story than what's in the Buzzfeed article. That doesn't excuse the asshole-and-possible-racist who committed the (quite likely hate-) crime, or the asshole-and-possible-racist NYPD who denied at first it even took place, but there are enough little hints in that story that this may have been something else , either in addition to, or instead of, "racist randomly attacks two muslim teens."

It was 1am in a neighborhood known for drugs and prostitution, the fancy parked car with tinted windows contained a woman who was dressed "provocatively" and was owned by the attacker who was immediately recognized as a local, known to members of the congregation.

Something's going on there. (Though that doesn't mean it wasn't a hate crime, just that there may be something in addition to it being a hate crime.)
posted by dersins at 6:25 PM on July 3, 2016

It kinda sounds like maybe there's a little more to the story than what's in the Buzzfeed article.

Fine! Likely, even. But unless there's overwhelming evidence that it wasn't a hate crime, maybe treat it like it might have been a hate crime?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:32 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

the number of truly selfless enlightened despots is vanishingly small
...while the number of truly evil despots who rose to power either by being directly elected is fairly high; and most of the rest were overwhelmingly-popular leaders of supposedly enlightened movements who could've won fair elections if they needed to.

It kinda sounds like maybe there's a little more to the story than what's in the Buzzfeed article.
Remember the big-headline story of the guy who shot down his two Muslim neighbors over what investigators later determined was "a parking dispute". Yeah, he was witnessed shouting a lot of hateful shit at them in the months before, but if it was just about parking, the police and prosecutors saved themselves some paperwork. (And saved themselves having to screen out jurors who were PRO-hate-crimes)
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:57 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

Heh. I thought about linking the story about the Houston doctor last night, but then decided there wasn't sufficient info in the story to judge whether it was a hate crime. When I read it, they were suggesting it was a mugging.
posted by bardophile at 9:34 PM on July 3, 2016

And the less-populated, more "Individualistic" Red States consistently take more tax money from the Federal Government than they give. Can you say "Blatant Hypocrisy", boys and girls?

Dismissing it as "hypocrisy" misses the more important question: why is it happening? I find this answer from an article about Brexit quite compelling:

While it may be one thing for an investment banker to understand that they ‘benefit from the EU’ in regulatory terms, it is quite another to encourage poor and culturally marginalised people to feel grateful towards the elites that sustain them through handouts, month by month. Resentment develops not in spite of this generosity, but arguably because of it. [...]

In this context, the slogan ‘take back control’ was a piece of political genius. It worked on every level between the macroeconomic and the psychoanalytic. Think of what it means on an individual level to rediscover control. To be a person without control (for instance to suffer incontinence or a facial tick) is to be the butt of cruel jokes, to be potentially embarrassed in public. It potentially reduces one’s independence. What was so clever about the language of the Leave campaign was that it spoke directly to this feeling of inadequacy and embarrassment, then promised to eradicate it. The promise had nothing to do with economics or policy, but everything to do with the psychological allure of autonomy and self-respect.

posted by galaxy rise at 9:44 PM on July 3, 2016 [9 favorites]

Meanwhile, I can't wait to hear the spin that Trump and/or his supporters are going to put on this homemade fireworks explosion in Central Park. Tweets already leaving me battered. I may just completely stop looking at Twitter.
posted by bardophile at 9:56 PM on July 3, 2016

I don't know if I agree or not, but Jonathan Rauch over at the Atlantic is driving me to despair, and possibly drink.
posted by corb at 10:13 PM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]

It's amazing that guy wrote all those paragraphs without acknowledging that when he talks about "strengthening parties and middlemen", he's not talking about American political parties in general, but two very specific ones. The fact that the current as well as the former state of the political system he pines for are based on having two enormous entrenched monolithic political power blocs seems kind of pertinent to examining the question of why everything would go haywire when the public starts insisting on the elimination of the middlemen and cronyism and under-the-table dealing he's not only saying is all necessary but (with a ludicrous degree of earnestness) is analogizing to a well-functioning immune system.

I'd feel a whole lot better about political parties governing themselves internally in whatever crazy and non-democratic-looking fashion they like, and being all "Private organization! You don't get to complain!" if there were actually a selection of them and voters on the left or the right could feasibly vote a different party in to represent their views. Yeah, that would require substantial changes, but when the author's talking about re-establishing middlemen and smoky rooms and pork-barrel favor-trading anyways...
posted by XMLicious at 3:04 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

There's been a disturbing trend of discussion in this election that maybe the problems facing democracy around the world is that there's just too much of it

This is why Rauch spends time talking about Hibbing and Thiess-Morse. There are things I don't like about their work -- it's really dependent on focus groups, which seems pretty squiffy -- but the overall conclusions are somewhere between scary and terrifying. By and large, Americans basically just don't like democracy. Don't seem to really accept the idea that people have different preferences and values. Really really don't like it when people with different preferences and values publicly disagree about what to do about something. Really really REALLY don't like it when that conflict ends up in some sort of deal where nobody gets everything they want. If you accept their conclusions, what Americans mostly want is for someone to just be the decider; whether they do it democratically doesn't seem to be very important.

It would be less scary if it didn't line up with other examples of mass opposition to the foundations of American democracy. Like the large majorities that favor stripping whoever they don't like of most any political rights that show up in every tolerance study ever.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:53 AM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]

Well, I mean... this is why America doesn't have direct democracy. We DO pick people to decide things for us so that we don't have to, and we always have.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:28 AM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]

If anything, we're much more democratic than the country was originally designed. The forefathers didn't seem to have a whole lot of interest in direct democracy and set up the country to have many layers between the people and the decision making process.

Universal suffrage wasn't implemented until the country was 150 years old and it obviously still has issues. We didn't have direct elections of senators until 1913. Party primaries didn't start until the 20th Century and weren't binding until the seventies and of course we don't even directly elect the president. We elect delegates who elect the president. Direct referendums are fairly modern and only binding in less than half the states.

I'd say that we're much more democratic than we used to be and I'd also say that the results have been mixed. Just look at some of the ballot initiatives that California has passed to see how the public can be pretty spectacularly wrong-headed. I'm not even remotely happy with the state of congress right now and with the effect of corporate money on elections but I still like the idea of some buffer from the tyranny of the masses.
posted by octothorpe at 8:04 AM on July 4, 2016 [12 favorites]

...It was a great campaign destined to come up short but that shouldn’t take away from its power. Bernie himself managed to do that by his actions and statements since the primaries ended. He alone is diminishing the chances to accomplish what all those millions of people who donated their $27 to him sought to do. Success and accomplishment in politics are an art. One part is the ability to get elected, something Sanders has been able to do for the past thirty-three years, and for a short time it even looked as if he would come close this year. But the art and finesse needed to get something done after the campaign apparently still escape him.

He had the chance to be a hero and a mensch at the same time. He should have taken a cue from how Hillary handled her loss to Obama in 2008 when she came away looking like a star, and a star with power. Instead he frittered away his chances, rather whining his way close to irrelevance.

Bernie Manages To Turn A Win Into A Loss
posted by y2karl at 8:10 AM on July 4, 2016 [5 favorites]

Frederick Douglass' "What to a slave is the 4th of July?" feels especially appropriate this year:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.
[...]
One is struck with the difference between the attitude of the American church towards the anti-slavery movement, and that occupied by the churches in England towards a similar movement in that country. There, the church, true to its mission of ameliorating, elevating, and improving the condition of mankind, came forward promptly, bound up the wounds of the West Indian slave, and restored him to his liberty. There, the question of emancipation was a high religious question. It was demanded, in the name of humanity, and according to the law of the living God. The Sharps, the Clarksons, the Wilberforces, the Buxtons, and Burchells and the Knibbs, were alike famous for their piety, and for their philanthropy. The anti-slavery movement there was not an anti-church movement, for the reason that the church took its full share in prosecuting that movement: and the anti-slavery movement in this country will cease to be an anti-church movement, when the church of this country shall assume a favorable, instead of a hostile position towards that movement. Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the two great political parties), is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of your countrymen.

posted by zombieflanders at 8:22 AM on July 4, 2016 [20 favorites]

George Saunders goes to Trump rallies for The New Yorker
posted by box at 8:52 AM on July 4, 2016 [10 favorites]

All of the news agencies have picked up the story on the neo-nazi origins of Trump's "Sheriff's Badge" tweet. So far his only response has been to tweet: Dishonest media is trying their absolute best to depict a star in a tweet as the Star of David rather than a Sheriff's Star, or plain star! I find it hard to believe that the Donald himself authorized the star of David tweet himself because I believe he loves and respects and relys on Ivanka but someone in his campaign did this with or without Trump's stamp of approval. He better make a big show of firing someone.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:56 AM on July 4, 2016

He better make a big show of firing someone.

Admit a mistake, anywhere in the organization? Ain't gonna happen.
posted by yhbc at 9:11 AM on July 4, 2016 [3 favorites]

That would also require admitting that the Twitter account isn't All His Own Work, which is something that it's always played very hard on -- that it's pure unfiltered Trump, nobody pulls his strings. That, or at least the commonly-agreed pretense of that, has worked very well for Trump so far; but it's also going to make it harder for him to distance himself from the obnoxious things that it retweets.

All moot anyway because of course he's going to stick to the "it was a sheriff's star" lie no matter how utterly implausible it sounds.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 9:23 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

The George Saunders article that box posted is great. I feel like trying to understand the anxieties driving Trump supporters is the perfect subject for Saunders.
posted by aka burlap at 9:39 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

Ahem.
I don't know whether it was planned or not, but I think the "sheriff star" is just a distraction.
There are really tons of things that you can hammer him with (such as the constant lying, the glib grandiosity, the disrespect of large swaths of the population the utter disregard of decency, the danger of having this sorry excuse for a human being the representative of your country, and the obvious unfitness to be president), that this is just an unimportant sideshow.

Look at it this way: Who has never insulted or been insensitive to someone due to slip of tongue, heat of the moment or even sheer ignorance? Now, who do you think most people will sympathize with, the person who slipped up or the zealots who keep hammering the issue for news cycle after news cycle?

Let it go, people, and concentrate on the really important stuff.
posted by sour cream at 9:47 AM on July 4, 2016

Nope. This wasn't a "slip of tongue"; it was deliberate. Antisemitism is "disrespect of large swaths of the population."

This shouldn't be let go. This is a Presidential candidate openly embracing fascism. And that is goddamn significant and should not be quietly ignored.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 9:59 AM on July 4, 2016 [27 favorites]

Don't worry. Trump is more than happy to provide new outrages.
posted by double block and bleed at 10:01 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

Who has never insulted or been insensitive to someone due to slip of tongue,

This was a deliberate choice to use imagery that seems to have been acquired from a white supremacist (not "white supremacist" in the systemic, critical race theory sense, but in the overt Klan / Stormfront sense) source.

Suggesting this was a "slip of the tongue" is like telling someone who just got punched in the face "Gee I guess his hand must have slipped. It accidentally formed itself into a fist and then just slipped onto your nose. Could have happened to anyone though, right?"

And then oops it happens again.

And again.

And again.
posted by dersins at 10:14 AM on July 4, 2016 [22 favorites]

Donald Trump to meet with Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, a possible running mate.

The Christie and Gingrich rumors seem like a feint to me. Trump likes to make news and those are the most boring possible selections. Besides, the fakeout is another great way to torture Christie.
posted by msalt at 10:22 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

Ernst is perfect. She's Michele Bachmann minus the crazy-eyes and plus fatigues. I'm trying to imagine why I didn't think of her before.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 10:37 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah, I think Ernst is a real possibility. She doesn't have a very high profile, even in Iowa, and I think she'd be a net neutral for Trump, which is probably the best he can do. She definitely wouldn't overshadow him. I'd like to think that being associated with him would be bad for her reputation and make it more likely that she's be defeated in 2020, but I'm pretty sure that's wishful thinking.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:44 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

I thought they said they weren't going to "pander" by choosing a woman. Oh yeah here it is;

That's certainly the implication of what Trump campaign chair and chief strategist Paul Manafort told the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman in an article published Wednesday:

The campaign probably won’t choose a woman or a member of a minority group, he said. "In fact, that would be viewed as pandering, I think."

Of course that was all the way back in May so I'm sure by now Manafort has forgotten he ever said anything like that-- the Trump campaign has the memory span of a toddler stuffed with birthday cake.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:57 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

I had never heard of her before, but her views are pretty extreme even for a Republican.

Ernst has proposed eliminating the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Education, and the Environmental Protection Agency as a means of cutting federal spending. She has advocated eliminating the Department of Education.

Ernst opposes the federal minimum wage, and instead argues that states should have sole authority to set their own minimum wages.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:59 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

There doesn't look like there's a single issues of hers that I agree with. Conservatives will love her.
posted by octothorpe at 11:11 AM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]

Thirding the excellence of that New Yorker piece. Thank you for the wonderful morning read.
posted by stolyarova at 11:36 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

In gratitude and in keeping with the date, here's James Earl Jones reading Frederick Douglass's 1852 "The Meaning of July 4th for the Negro" via boingboing.net.
posted by stolyarova at 11:39 AM on July 4, 2016

Thirding the excellence of that New Yorker piece.

Yeah, this is as good a description of Trump's demeanor as I have ever read:

"His trademark double-eye squint evokes that group of beanie-hatted street-tough Munchkin kids; you expect him to kick gruffly at an imaginary stone. In person, his autocratic streak is presentationally complicated by a Ralph Kramdenesque vulnerability. He’s a man who has just dropped a can opener into his wife’s freshly baked pie. He’s not about to start grovelling about it, and yet he’s sorry—but, come on, it was an accident. He’s sorry, he’s sorry, O.K., but do you expect him to say it? He’s a good guy. Anyway, he didn’t do it."

posted by dersins at 12:10 PM on July 4, 2016 [7 favorites]

...When he flew to Scotland the day after the vote, unaware that Scottish voters overwhelmingly wished to remain in the European Union, he tweeted, “Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!”

Actually, for Trump it is all a game, one in which, though this seems an odd way to characterize it, he has outsmarted himself fatally. He famously sleeps only four hours a night—sufficient, one assumes, to squeeze in a recurring nightmare of November 9th headlines screaming “loser!!” Vast evidence suggests that such a scenario is what he has dreaded most throughout his life. Still, the voters who support him will not be going anywhere. The resentment that he has exploited to win their votes will remain and grow, as it will among like-minded populists in Europe who feel overwhelmed by globalization and, especially, immigration. At some point, it will hit his followers that they’ve been sold out by a huckster who coveted their votes only for the sake of his colossal self-regard. And that, all along, he had nothing real to offer.

Trump, the Man and the Image
posted by y2karl at 12:24 PM on July 4, 2016 [3 favorites]

Hillary for America Statement on Trump's Use of Anti-Semitic Imagery, aka I'm gonna crack open my grandkids' history textbooks and see the heading 'The Twitter Election'
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:29 PM on July 4, 2016 [6 favorites]

There are a lot of people online arguing that it's just a silly old sheriff star while simultaneously using outrageous antisemitic slurs. They know it's a preposterous defense and they don't care - in fact, its transparency is part of the abuse. It's the "I'm not toooouching you" game.
posted by theodolite at 1:39 PM on July 4, 2016 [10 favorites]

[Sheriff Woody voice] Somebody's poisoned the discourse!
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:59 PM on July 4, 2016 [9 favorites]

There are a lot of people online arguing that it's just a silly old sheriff star while simultaneously using outrageous antisemitic slurs.
~~~
Man with racial slur as his screen name explains to me that Donald Trump isn't racist.
posted by sandswipe at 1:59 PM on July 4, 2016 [15 favorites]

Let it go, people, and concentrate on the really important stuff.

It is really important that the social media operation of the Republican campaign for the presidency of the United States of America has a nonzero population of Nazis.
posted by multics at 2:06 PM on July 4, 2016 [27 favorites]

On the one hand, I think it's really important. On the other hand, I think that anyone who cares at all is probably already not going to vote for Trump. And sadly, a lot of people don't seem to care at all.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:07 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

There are a lot of people online arguing that it's just a silly old sheriff star while simultaneously using outrageous antisemitic slurs. They know it's a preposterous defense and they don't care - in fact, its transparency is part of the abuse. It's the "I'm not toooouching you" game.

Yeah I'd say Donald Trump is pretty much in that category at this point too. The man has lost any right to the benefit of the doubt on racism and he certainly should have on antisemitism as well by now.

And the ridiculous thing is that it doesn't matter. If Trump apologized and forcefully condemned his antisemitic supporters, the stormfronters and /pol/ folks would just write it off as "oh well he had to do that; we all know what he really thinks." It's not like those people would go find another candidate to support. But he doesn't even have the decency to apologize, because never apologizing is part of his persona.
posted by zachlipton at 2:10 PM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

On the other hand, I think that anyone who cares at all is probably already not going to vote for Trump.

I don't think this is necessarily true. It might seem nuts to us, but most people just don't follow the elections all that closely until a few months out. There are probably plenty of people who usually vote Republican and know nothing about Trump besides "oh yeah, that business dude with the bad hair." But right around now is the time when people like that start paying attention.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:13 PM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]

Let it go, people, and concentrate on the really important stuff.

I don't think Laura Silverman (not Laura J Silverman the actor) will be able to let it go anytime soon. The people harassing her sure won't.

Or how about Erin Schrode, a 25-year-old who was making a longshot stab at running for Congress. Do you think she's inclined to let "Get to Israel where you belong. That or the oven. Take your pick" go?
posted by zachlipton at 2:27 PM on July 4, 2016 [10 favorites]

Donald Trump’s Complex Business Ties Could Set a New Precedent

“Trump’s empire would pose unprecedented conflicts of interest due to the size of its holdings, privately held nature of the family-run business, and concentration in one industry,” said Richard Painter, University of Minnesota law professor who was the White House’s chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush.

“A blind trust would never work in Trump’s case, because his assets are known, not blind, and children aren’t independent trustees,” he added, noting that other modern-era wealthy presidents, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, were “old-money with diversified holdings” that didn’t directly manage businesses the way Mr. Trump does.

No federal law would require Mr. Trump, famous for putting his name on his swath of enterprises, to remove himself from running his empire, ethics experts say.

But don't worry, Trump has assured us that “I’ll do whatever makes people comfortable. It’s very easy.” Well that puts all my fears to rest on that subject! Trump always strives to make people comfortable.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:16 PM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

Trump personally signing a giant stack of checks is bizarre and fits right in with the complaints of hundreds of vendors who say Trump has stiffed them. The idea that instead of having a budget and a finance staff and everything, he's sitting there going "do we really have to pay this guy $10,000 fuel?" speaks to a real control problem.
posted by zachlipton at 3:30 PM on July 4, 2016

A Terrifying Glimpse at What Donald Trump’s Mount Rushmore Would Look Like. One artist reimagines the national monument as anchored by the presidential aspirant.

Doughnut Time is offering the "Hair Dependence Day" doughnut: It's glazed, filled with peanut butter and jelly and like the man who inspired it, it's "topped with a fairy floss toupée," according to Doughnut Time's Facebook page.

The doughnut is only available in Australia on July 4.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:31 PM on July 4, 2016

Proposal: I was going through some old Beany & Cecil cartoons and noticed the character of Dishonest John, who mastered the villainous laugh - "nya-ha-ha!" - and coined the phrase "Dirty deeds done dirt cheap (Special rates for Sundays and holidays)" on his business card. And considering Trump's habit of dishing out insulting nicknames, I thought "Dishonest Don" would be alliterative perfection. Yes, there's no physical resemblance, but he's Don, not John, although John IS his middle name, so a variation of Cecil's frequent exasperated expression "D.J., you dirty guy!" could apply to him as "D.J.T., you dirty guy!" Because he really is.

Also, Les Savy Fav has a song titled "Dishonest Don" (with semi-appropriate lyrics: "You Know that isn't really true, The band makes up history for you"). And "Dishonest Don's" on Facebook is a fireworks dealer in Missouri.

In all my years on the internet, I've only created one 'meme' that went viral: "Neil Before Zod" (because he WAS), and I really really really want this to happen, so pass it on...
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:23 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sanders is running out of time to get a speaking slot at the convention. Is this really happening? He's gonna go all the way and forfeit a speaking slot?
posted by Justinian at 4:27 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

If he doesn't get one at Clinton's convention, I'm sure Trump will offer one at his; I hear he's having trouble filling slots.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:31 PM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]

DNC silencing and censorship is out of control. What don't they want us to hear? - that one guy on facebook, July 28, 2016
posted by theodolite at 4:52 PM on July 4, 2016 [3 favorites]

I was going through some old Beany & Cecil cartoons and noticed the character of Dishonest John, who mastered the villainous laugh - "nya-ha-ha!" - and coined the phrase "Dirty deeds done dirt cheap"

It's true. And the song is a tip of the hat to the cartoon Angus Young watched as a child.

(I've felt that "Dimwit Donnie" is a better nickname than "Dishonest Donnie," tho, because people are more tolerant of dishonesty than idiocy.)
posted by octobersurprise at 5:23 PM on July 4, 2016

Sanders is running out of time to get a speaking slot at the convention. Is this really happening? He's gonna go all the way and forfeit a speaking slot?

He has to. The Democratic party has to have a failsafe candidate the party can rally behind who is not connected to the Clinton campaign at all.

Hillary Clinton spent more than three hours speaking with the FBI on a Saturday on a long holiday weekend.The odds are it's just GOP bullshit conspiracy mongering, and by odds, betting on the Cleveland Browns winning the Superbowl would be a more certain thing than anything coming of it, but if, in the off chance, reaaaaaaally off chance the AG decides to indict, it will be before the convention. After then her veep pick can carry on the fight, and they will be brilliant, and endorsed by Sanders. Before then, a candidate with a groundswell of support is a nice thing to have on hand.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:30 PM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

That's a nice theory, but I think it's much more likely that he just doesn't want to cave and say nice things about Hillary Clinton.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:36 PM on July 4, 2016 [25 favorites]

Sanders at this point has no room to claim the nomination if Clinton were to drop out (she won't)

I'm pretty sure that if there are rules for replacing a nominee it would be based upon a floor vote and the idea of Sanders winning a contested convention are basically zero.

Warren would almost certainly be the consensus pick capable of winning a ballot.
posted by vuron at 5:38 PM on July 4, 2016 [5 favorites]

If in the very unlikely event Clinton were indicted, then Sanders "conceding" and "suspending his campaign" would matter literally nothing to how the national convention would pick a replacement nominee. They'd have to change the rules (starting in those highly contested rules committees) just to unbind the delegates so why would Sanders refusing to concede now matter? It has no practical meaning in this absurd scenario.
posted by R343L at 5:56 PM on July 4, 2016 [7 favorites]

the sanders people would claim that as runner up, he's more entitled to the nomination than person x - it would, according to them, be another nail in the coffin of democracy

i'm really hoping this scenario doesn't come to pass - the last thing we need is an unholy mess with BOTH parties
posted by pyramid termite at 6:02 PM on July 4, 2016

I'm trying to remember if these fantasies of someone other than the presumptive nominee coming out of the conventions as the winner happened in previous years. They're really kind of weird, and I've seen them for both parties this year. I don't recall them being around before, although I do remember bizarre theories that Sarah Palin was going to be replaced by a Secret White Guy as the VP candidate.
posted by kyrademon at 6:06 PM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

Oh, good god, that takes special pleading to a new level. Suspending his campaign would not in fact affect his delegate count, and he would be no more or less likely to be the convention's second choice. He's doing it because of ego, not some supersecret plan to Save the Democratic Party.
posted by tavella at 7:02 PM on July 4, 2016 [5 favorites]

Yep, it's entirely arrogance.

The chances that Clinton will be forced to drop out are extremely small (but not completely impossible) but the reality seems to be that if for some reason she was forced to withdrawal the candidates currently bound to her would need to be released in some way. Bernie doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win outright even if all the superdelegates suddenly shifted to him. I can't see any scenario where unbinding Clinton's delegates while keeping Sanders bound would ever happen so it seems like you'd have to unbind them all and then open the nomination process to a good old fashioned floor vote.

Based upon his current behavior Sanders would never win a floor fight. There are way too many Clinton supporters and let's be honest former Sanders supporters that have seen his immature side for him to ever be selected.

I'm sure he'd still get a sizable number of supporters as delegates gel around the various options but eventually unless the convention turns into a riot (not entirely impossible) you'll probably see a consensus gel around an acceptable compromise pick that would be acceptable to both Sanders and Clinton supporters and currently the person that would most easily accomplish that goal of being an olive branch to both factions would be Warren. In the old days you might've been able to get a mixed ticket with a Clinton ally as President and a Sanders ally as VP (or vice-versa) but I couldn't see a mixed ticket working particularly well.
posted by vuron at 7:24 PM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]

That's a nice theory, but I think it's much more likely that he just doesn't want to cave and say nice things about Hillary Clinton.

I think I've seen that "Littlest Pet Shop" episode! Spoiler alert - they become friends at the end.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:17 PM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]

I don't care what Bernie does anymore. And with the shrinking size of his base, combined with the increasing urgency of defeating Trump AND the continued drumbeat of a Liz Warren vice presidency, it feels every day like he's more and more irrelevant.

The worst he can do, at this point, is monkeywrench from the floor. And I would expect that he'll try.

He could run over and endorse Jill Stein. But Stein, as mentioned before, is a problematic candidate, and endorsing her means risking Trump swipes some swing states Stein is on the ballot in, which would probably mean political suicide for his Senate career.

At this point, he just doesn't seem relevant to the election narrative. He's pretty much dropped out of the news save getting on MSNBC or CNN once a week to remind us all he's still out there.
posted by dw at 8:25 PM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

folks, in the interests of clarity can we save the fan fiction until after the election
posted by murphy slaw at 8:46 PM on July 4, 2016 [10 favorites]

For him to drop out now would be a betrayal of everything Hillary has worked for. He represents the glass ceiling which will be symbolically shattered at the convention, and it's vital that he be there to play his part.

Only half joking, because really, what other point is there in him being around?
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:05 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

Only half joking, because really, what other point is there in him being around?

Pushing the party left. Pushing and pushing and pushing. Maybe the party budges, maybe it doesn't. Either way this is both a good and a correct direction in which to push the party.

I wish there were more like him. I wish there were more Elizabeth Warrens. Contemporary politics are (ordinarily?) toxic and Sanders is there loudly saying that we need to do better. He is not saying that Clinton must lose to teach the Democrats a lesson. He's not saying she's just as bad as Trump. He's not saying she's unqualified. He is saying we need new and better ideas about what is possible, how we engage with politics, who we invite to the table, and why.

Especially he's saying the Democratic party establishment needs to embrace progressive ideals or face an incredibly perilous obsolescence in the immediate future. Some contend Trump renders Sanders' voice less relevant, I say Trump's presence on the national stage gives Sanders' message considerably more weight and importance.

I want Sanders to continue to push at the party, as long as he is able to do so. I don't know if he'll learn any new tricks or fix any bad habits, but I trust deeply that he wants a future for this country where more people vote, more people care, more people are heard, and more people are fairly served by their representatives.

(I'm also implying no credence to the he's just a sexist who couldn't stand to see a woman win angle. Trump on the one hand deserves no benefit of the doubt; Sanders on the other has fucking earned his. He is a good man and he's been fighting in the best interests of his country for so many years.)
posted by an animate objects at 9:43 PM on July 4, 2016 [6 favorites]

I hope that when and if Clinton manages to get some headway made on the progressive causes she's supported for decades, Sanders doesn't get all the credit for 'pushing her to the left'.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:45 PM on July 4, 2016 [38 favorites]

I, too, hope that Clinton and Sanders are equally celebrated for that progress, if we are so lucky as to see it.
posted by an animate objects at 9:46 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

At long last, the Trump is a Russian sleeper agent piece that this election has cried out for. Happy birthday, America!
posted by chrchr at 9:54 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

At long last, the Trump is a Russian sleeper agent piece that this election has cried out for. Happy birthday, America!

I believe I called this one
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:09 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

ahem
posted by chrchr at 10:21 PM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

I stand corrected.

I mean... you guys... but... but, like, no, right? I mean this is a fun goof, but... right? Guys??
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:35 PM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]

Diehard Bernie Supporters Camping Out in NJ to Protest Democratic Convention
posted by bardophile at 10:38 PM on July 4, 2016

I, too, hope that Clinton and Sanders are equally celebrated for that progress, if we are so lucky as to see it.

Translation: The man treats the woman like shit, then gets the credit for the work she does.

In other words, business as usual.
posted by happyroach at 11:39 PM on July 4, 2016 [24 favorites]

Diehard Bernie Supporters Camping Out in NJ to Protest Democratic Convention

Well yeah, with this regional rail issue none of us are getting into the city to protest. Doing it at a campground instead is a good idea. :P
posted by Drinky Die at 12:30 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Diehard Bernie Supporters Camping Out in NJ to Protest Democratic Convention

Protesting that he didn't win or Protesting the party platform or Protesting what specifically?
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Protesting that he didn't win or Protesting the party platform or Protesting what...?

I think the answer to that is Yes.
posted by bardophile at 1:42 AM on July 5, 2016 [18 favorites]

corb: So in Interesting Facts From The RNC, we are being told that delegates who "refuse to support the nominee" after a nominee is selected will be decredentialed.

Corb, I missed this from when you posted it. Are there any journalists or bloggers covering these machinations? I want to believe someone is paying more attention to this intra-party conflict beyond pointing out which conservative commentator or politician said something anti-Trump today.
posted by Anonymous at 4:27 AM on July 5, 2016

Word on Twitter is that FBI director James Comey will be making an announcement on an undisclosed topic at 11:00 AM EST. Stay tuned!
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:37 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Some people are paying attention to it. Unfortunately the media overall just doesn't seem good at covering this - some of it sadly is because one of the major delegate groups is bad at media, and I'm doing a delicate media dance with my group because I was in a lot of media for a somewhat lefty cause before, and can't afford to have people calling me a "RINO" while I'm trying to whip votes.

Fox News is kind of on it.
posted by corb at 7:05 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

This doesn't sound too good.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:07 AM on July 5, 2016

Oh Jesus. Comey's statement is bad so far.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:08 AM on July 5, 2016

"Comey: "No evidence" that Clinton deleted emails to conceal them; deleted like other email users delete." (Daniel Dale on Twitter)
posted by maudlin at 8:10 AM on July 5, 2016

"No intentional misconduct."
posted by box at 8:11 AM on July 5, 2016

Comey: No evidence Clinton or associates intended to violate laws, but “there is evidence that they were extremely careless.”
posted by maudlin at 8:12 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Intentional means nothing legally, though. She put top secret info in those emails.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:12 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

"No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"
posted by maudlin at 8:15 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Intentional means nothing legally, though.

Except it literally does, because the law in question says that she would have had to knowingly compromise classified material with malicious intent.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [13 favorites]

"We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges."
posted by box at 8:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

So no indictment, but she definitely took some damage. Expect "extremely careless" to star for the rest of 2016.
posted by maudlin at 8:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

"No charges are appropriate in this case."
posted by box at 8:17 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

That's that, then.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:17 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

well, that popping sound you hear is millions of republican heads exploding
posted by pyramid termite at 8:17 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah, my bad there, I meant to say "politically". I'm a little jittery listening to this. No criminal charges, but this is going to hurt her campaign.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:17 AM on July 5, 2016

So, they will not recommend an indictment. After laying out plenty of red meat soundbites to fuel the anti-Clinton crowd. I look forward to Trey Gowdy heading up the next Congressional investigation into this matter.
posted by Roommate at 8:17 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

That's that, then.

I seriously doubt this is over.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:18 AM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

Expect "extremely careless" to star for the rest of 2016.

It's not like they're putting up the best candidate to lob those accusations, though.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:19 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

I was just watching Twitter react in real time (because I was too nervous to actually watch the press conference) and watching Rightwing Twitter grow a huge chub and praise Jesus for Comey and watch out Comey she's going to off you now suddenly turn to CORRUPT! THE END OF AMERICA! COMEY IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR! was... something.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:19 AM on July 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

also, and i have to say this, it still reveals very poor judgment on clinton's part

still, unlike her opponent, she's sentient, and that has to count for something
posted by pyramid termite at 8:20 AM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

No criminal charges, but this is going to hurt her campaign.

Who exactly is going to have their mind changed by this? Republicans gonna Republican, Bernieorbusters gonna Bernieorbust, and Clinton supporters gonna move on.

That's no different than it was last week.
posted by dersins at 8:20 AM on July 5, 2016 [28 favorites]

It's not like they're putting up the best candidate to lob those accusations, though.

I agree, but there are already people saying they're voting for the former slumlord who's had multiple fraud suits against him because they don't want a corrupt president. He'll hammer this, and people will listen. We are in a post-fact political reality.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:21 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

It was almost nine months ago that Bernie Sanders said “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails."

Hay will of course be made about this, as it has been for over a year, but I don't see this outcome swaying many people from the opinions they already formed about the emails months and months and month ago.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:21 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

It's not like they're putting up the best candidate to lob those accusations, though.

Thank god for this
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:22 AM on July 5, 2016

"Extremely careless" isn't great news.

"I'm running against Donald Trump" is still good news.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:22 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Who exactly is going to have their mind changed by this? Republicans gonna Republican, Bernieorbusters gonna Bernieorbust, and Clinton supporters gonna move on.

I live in that reality too, but there are moderate and undecided people out there. Not to mention that there are a bunch of people who've been saying they'll hold their nose while voting for her, and a bunch of them could be put off by this.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:23 AM on July 5, 2016

The Rs can boast a candidate who is extremely good at controlling his internet usage and legal compliance, so they'll definitely have the higher ground.

More seriously, I hate that I have to be so relieved. This was a hell of an unforced error and the fate of the election, and the world, hinged on it. With any other corpse in a suit on the Republican side, I wouldn't feel that way, but this is not any other candidate.
posted by Countess Elena at 8:24 AM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Ari Fleischer, via Twitter: Bottom line: Hillary is reckless, careless and has poor judgement, but she's not a criminal. Which means she's likely to be our next POTUS.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:24 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

“Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

In a perfect world, that would be the headline. In this world, my cynical self assumes that it will be about the number of secret threads and the failings of the state department’s security culture, with that quote as a footnote.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:24 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

So no indictment, but she definitely took some damage. Expect "extremely careless" to star for the rest of 2016.

Eh. No indictment, no criminal charges, so...no reason for us to hope Bernie can be our perfect back up candidate? Can he quit now?
posted by zutalors! at 8:25 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

An insecure mail server with no security staff assigned, 110 emails in 52 email chains with classified info, 8 chains with top-secret info, 36 secret and 8 confidential. I don't care what the FBI says, if that was a normal intelligence person they would most certainly be seeing the inside of a cell before having their clearance stripped regardless of intent.

I'm just desperately glad that she's running against someone who is such an obvious idiot that it seems unlikely to wreck her chances.
posted by jaduncan at 8:25 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Expect "extremely careless" to star for the rest of 2016.

Which is a tough blow for someone running on her resume.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:25 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Careless Clinton?
posted by peeedro at 8:26 AM on July 5, 2016

Here's the official statement from Director Comey.
posted by bardophile at 8:26 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

So, has anyone checked in on HA Goodman yet?
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:29 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

This just in: "Hillary for Prison" t-shirts plummet in value!
posted by FJT at 8:32 AM on July 5, 2016

In a perfect world, that would be the headline.

FWIW, a quick check of most mainstream news sites right now mostly shows some variation on "No charges for Clinton." It may change throughout the day and in tomorrow's papers, though.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:32 AM on July 5, 2016

Comey: "Your average person would receive hella consequences"
posted by sylvanshine at 8:33 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

This is a "problem" for as long as the news cycle holds it in it's attention. So about 24-36 hours. No charges means no real actual news comes of this going forward.
posted by Twain Device at 8:33 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

FBI Director Comey: Our view is no charges in Clinton email investigation (Twitter video - MSNBC)
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 8:35 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Also, as a practical matter, that the head of the FBI -- in a position where he'd be feeling massive institutional pressure to be as judicious as possible -- feels comfortable saying Clinton's behavior was "extremely careless" doesn't fill me with hope for how her administration will handle dicey judgment calls. I mean, she'll handle them better than Trump would, blindfolded and in her sleep, but comparing her to a theoretical ideal it's less inspiring.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:35 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Unfortunately, theoretical ideals don't run for president. People do, and we've got the candidates we've got, none of whom are ever going to be a theoretical ideal.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:37 AM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

Eh. I know the e-mail thing is a big deal to some of you, but as scandals go it always made me shrug my shoulders and think, "Who gives a crap?" The more hay that people attempted to make with it, the less of a crap-giving I gave. I guess we'll see going forward whether more people agree with me or with the crap-givers.
posted by kyrademon at 8:38 AM on July 5, 2016 [25 favorites]

@realDonaldTrump: FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem

That's kind of a low-energy response for him.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:40 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Jinx.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:41 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

"Extremely careless" sounds like a sop being thrown to the people who wanted Clinton prosecuted.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 8:42 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

I understood, indeed understand, the people who think the email server is a big deal from a freedom of information and transparency perspective. I'm kind of shruggo about 8 emails out of more than 30,000.
posted by bardophile at 8:42 AM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

The reality is that infosec is rarely as clean cut as people like to make it out and it's exceedingly hard at times for IT resource managers to tell functional people that vastly outrank them No you can't do that but we can come up with a solution that meets your needs and meets the security requirements of the US government.

Unfortunately in an organization the size of the US Federal government agility is not a major identifying trait so rules tend to lag way behind user needs.
posted by vuron at 8:43 AM on July 5, 2016 [22 favorites]

To be fair, though, I also don't have a lot of respect for the national security apparatus of any country, so that informs my lack of caring about OMG Top Secret! mails.
posted by bardophile at 8:46 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

as somebody who once emailed half an office with a link with nothing but the words, "If you were a nerd like me in the eighties, you'll love this" which was supposed to go a site hosting classic video games like frogger and instead went to a site that was basically chock-a-block of pulsating erections and gifs of money shots--

i've never been angry at HRC about the emails.
posted by angrycat at 8:47 AM on July 5, 2016 [42 favorites]

Unfortunately, theoretical ideals don't run for president. People do, and we've got the candidates we've got, none of whom are ever going to be a theoretical ideal.

Which is why I noted that as far as this election goes this news shouldn't affect anybody's vote one iota. But it does make me worry a bit more than I did before about what stupid shit a Clinton administration will drop the ball on.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:48 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

But it does make me worry a bit more than I did before about what stupid shit a Clinton administration will drop the ball on.

Eh. Every government is incredibly stupid in multiple ways. It's the nature of the beast.
posted by bardophile at 8:50 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

I'm just impressed by how scandal-free the Obama administration has been, compared to... well, name me a better one in modern times.

The 'extremely careless' thing isn't welcome, but any half-decent campaign can calibrate that against the general history of late and - most especially - against the opposition's record on probity. A really good opposition campaign could make use of it nonetheless, with care, but that's not really what we're looking at. Put it another way, the fact that this is an actual counter-Clinton fact which does have validity in deciding on her suitability for POTUS is going to be vastly diluted among all the ranty hate fibs and general sense that Doctor Clue is not responding to his pager.
posted by Devonian at 8:51 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

MetaFilter: basically chock-a-block of pulsating erections and gifs of money shots.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:52 AM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

"Hillary Clinton is a terminator who has her shit together" was a much better look than "Hillary Clinton uses her nephew for tech support"
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:53 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Actually I have to question why TOP SECRET and above information is ever okay to be transmitted over email, even encrypted email.

I don't work in that level of security but in general if I have to share data or information with another person I generally provide them a link to an encrypted share that is preferably secured with some sort of two-factor authentication.

I guess an even more preferable solution would be to have any devices that are accessing secure data basically be using a VPN connect to some sort of Virtual Machine on a secure server. When you open files or emails you are opening them on the remote server and they only thing being transmitted is the display over and encrypted channel. That way no persistent data would ever leave the secure facility so your risks of an endpoint being lost or compromised go way down.

Of course shoulda, woulda, coulda.
posted by vuron at 8:53 AM on July 5, 2016

I would care way more about these emails if she weren't running against HitlerLite. And yes, "extremely careless" seems appropriate. I'm glad there was at least some censure. But in this election, it's just irrelevant.
posted by corb at 8:53 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Eh. I know the e-mail thing is a big deal to some of you, but as scandals go it always made me shrug my shoulders and think, "Who gives a crap?"

I seem to be in the minority here as a Hillary voter, so I'm willing to admit my judgment may be skewed here, but:

The practice of using private backchannels for government business is, in and of itself, indefensible to me. FOIA is an important thing, public record keeping is an important thing. I understand that this was standard practice, but that to me reveals a widespread application of bad judgment, not a status quo that's therefore okay. The fact that she would not use secure email servers, especially those maintained by security professionals in the government whose job it is to keep this information safe, was likewise very bad judgment on her part.

But the one thing I took solace in on this issue was this: Surely she wouldn't put top secret information into those emails. I mean, if I put someone's SSN in an email for work trying to diagnose a problem in production, I could be fired. Email is a security minefield. Surely she knows not to put state secrets into unsecured emails?

Well, she (or someone on her staff) evidently didn't know that. Or thought it'd be okay. And that to me falls in "what the hell were you thinking" territory.

So to me it's a big deal on the government records front, and on the infosec front. I hope those of you who think this won't affect things politically are right, but I'm also coming at this believing that winning ain't enough. So much damage has been done by the mere fact of Trump's campaign that he really needs to be obliterated in the election, and this diminishes those chances. Stuff like this feeds into the "corrupt Hillary" narrative in a way that could sway some voters.

The reality is that infosec is rarely as clean cut as people like to make it out and it's exceedingly hard at times for IT resource managers to tell functional people that vastly outrank them No you can't do that but we can come up with a solution that meets your needs and meets the security requirements of the US government.

Absolutely this, but a Secretary of State shouldn't have had to be told this, IMO. Protecting state secrets is part of her job description.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:57 AM on July 5, 2016 [22 favorites]

Reads to me like Comey dismantled the idea that Clinton deleted emails on purpose to hide them from the investigation, which Trump has been pushing pretty hard.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:05 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Apparently HA Goodman is trending on Twitter.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:09 AM on July 5, 2016

But the one thing I took solace in on this issue was this: Surely she wouldn't put top secret information into those emails.

I have seen it asserted that the emails marked as classified were not classified at the time, but were made so after the fact. (Which is why you're not supposed to use your own server at all, because that's a known thing that can happen, but it's not quite the same as if they had been classified right then.)
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:12 AM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

I was under the impression that the classified info that was in the emails wasn't classified at the time it was sent. Is that not the case?
posted by amarynth at 9:12 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

I look forward to Trey Gowdy heading up the next Congressional investigation into this matter.

Pretty much. My first thought on seeing this news was to wonder how quickly we'd see a Congressional investigation into the FBI's investigation.

And then the investigation into the Congressional investigation, and so on.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:13 AM on July 5, 2016

I was under the impression that the classified info that was in the emails wasn't classified at the time it was sent. Is that not the case?

It was classified at the time it was sent and received.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I was under the impression that the classified info that was in the emails wasn't classified at the time it was sent. Is that not the case?

From the statement:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

So, most of the "classified" emails were not classified when sent. But some of them were.
posted by sparklemotion at 9:17 AM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

My first thought on seeing this news was to wonder how quickly we'd see a Congressional investigation into the FBI's investigation.

Comey was Deputy AG in the Dubya administration who donates to GOP candidates, so that'll be an interesting bit of theater.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:20 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Overzealous classification of things is also a FOIA problem, both in that it blocks information from being released and that it creates a procedural burden to determine whether or not something should be released which slows down the approval of requests.

I think this is why this doesn't bother me all that much - because while "classified" sounds like it means "the nuclear codes" or something, in reality the process for marking stuff as classified seems as if it's pretty arbitrary.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:22 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

At least some of the 'classified' emails were discussing newspaper articles. Yes, I know perfectly well that the official position is that if you have a clearance that you are supposed to pretend newspaper articles that mention classified information don't exist. I think it's unbelievably stupid to expect the Secretary of State and her staff to not keep up with all public information. It's vital to their job that they know what other people know, and certainly the people they are dealing with in other countries damn well read the NYT and the Guardian. Can you imagine how stupid that would look? "Madam Secretary, this report says that 20 of my citizens were killed by a missile fired on incorrect information. I'm kicking out half your embassy staff unless I get an explanation." "I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about."
posted by tavella at 9:23 AM on July 5, 2016 [19 favorites]

Apparently HA Goodman is trending on Twitter.

One last harrumph.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:25 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm enjoying the blissful silence of my very conservative friends about this on Facebook so far, but I know it won't last long. They usually react much faster to these things.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:26 AM on July 5, 2016

I'm enjoying the blissful silence of my very conservative friends about this on Facebook so far, but I know it won't last long. They usually react much faster to these things.

They're trying to edit the stars out of all the memes.
posted by Etrigan at 9:27 AM on July 5, 2016 [14 favorites]

I figure they're waiting for their marching orders from Breitbart.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:29 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm just impressed by how scandal-free the Obama administration has been, compared to... well, name me a better one in modern times.

Ha, that's from where you sit. Right wing world has a vastly different perspective. Look how corrupt and scandalous the Obama administration has been in their eyes:
IRS, Benghazi, Solyndra, Fast & Furious, violation of constitution with executive orders & executive appointments, suspicious refusal to say Islamic extremist in Fort Hood & other attacks, VA scandals, the Iran deal, new Black Panther voter intimidation, holding a coffee cup while saluting the military, birth certificate-gate, transgender bathroom-gate, Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange, employing radicals like Van Jones, the 'fact' that he is not a citizen, etc.

That's just what I can remember we've wasted time on and that the media has entertained at some level, much to their shame.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:31 AM on July 5, 2016 [28 favorites]

"Extremely careless" sounds like a sop being thrown to the people who wanted Clinton prosecuted.

My favorite comment on (another site that isn't well thought of around these parts): "Where my mad wingnuts at?" The muckrakers on the local right wingy talk station are already just astounded and outraged. They were practically hanging their hats on an indictment, especially after Bill's recent airport tarmac faux pas.
posted by fuse theorem at 9:32 AM on July 5, 2016

they ain't got much to march to besides what already got hashed out months ago. we knew the email setup was 'careless.' we knew there was classified info that got shuttled through it. the only real news here is that there's no recommendation for charges. the talking heads can feed off that cow for a few days but where does it go from there? once something more interesting takes over the news cycle there's not much reason to revisit this.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:33 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

When you think about this presidential election, how do you feel? Alarmed: 61%.
posted by clawsoon at 9:34 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

@HAGOODMANAUTHOR

I was right, about Clinton's behavior, TOP SECRET intelligence, careless decisions. Better hope Bernie becomes nominee, or else Trump wins

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?
posted by Sophie1 at 9:37 AM on July 5, 2016

HA Goodmans gonna HA Good.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:40 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

And here we go. Paul Ryan: We need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation
posted by Roommate at 9:44 AM on July 5, 2016

Prepare for an endless series of ultimately fruitless investigations of the investigation.
posted by stolyarova at 9:46 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Spokesman: Bernie Sanders watched FBI statement on Clinton case; asserts decision won't have bearing on his candidacy - @DannyEFreeman
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:47 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

When you think about this presidential election, how do you feel? Alarmed: 61%.
Terrified: 11%
Vacillating Between Bored and Confused: 8%
Choking on Rage: 7%
Cry-Laughing: 6%
Hangry: 5%
Cautiously Somewhat Optimistic Maybe Perhaps: 2%
posted by Cookiebastard at 9:47 AM on July 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

Lie Bot, what is the saddest thing?

The saddest thing is a Speaker of the House who is tweeting and promising a closed FBI investigation that it can still be an indictment someday.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:48 AM on July 5, 2016 [18 favorites]

When you think about this presidential election, how do you feel?

How do you think I feel? Betrayed, bewildered.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:48 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Someone's going to add up all the time and money and effort spent on vilifying the Clintons and find out that they were the world's seventh largest economy over the last quarter-century.
posted by Etrigan at 9:50 AM on July 5, 2016 [30 favorites]

I feel like I spend a lot of time reading and thinking about this election and it's doing bad things to my mental health.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:52 AM on July 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

And here we go. Paul Ryan: We need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation

"Oh, and by the way, I'm still voting for the guy that tweeted what even I think is anti-Semitic propaganda."
posted by zombieflanders at 9:52 AM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

I feel you, double block and bleed. On the plus side, the anxiety I used to channel into body insecurity and EDNOS is now directed at Donald Trump, so I guess that's an improvement. Thanks, Donnie!
posted by stolyarova at 9:54 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Someone's goingto add up all the time and money and effort spent on vilifying the Clintons and find out that they were the world's seventh largest economy over the last quarter-century.

Job creation!
posted by phearlez at 9:54 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

When you think about this presidential election, how do you feel? Alarmed: 61%.
Terrified: 11%
Vacillating Between Bored and Confused: 8%
Choking on Rage: 7%
Cry-Laughing: 6%
Hangry: 5%
Cautiously Somewhat Optimistic Maybe Perhaps: 2%

Is side-eyeing everything an emotion?

I am at 81% side-eye all the things
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:06 AM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

There needs to be a shruggo emoji that incorporates the use of both middle fingers.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:13 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

I'm really glad the FBI phase of the investigation is over.
posted by humanfont at 10:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

The reality is that infosec is rarely as clean cut as people like to make it out and it's exceedingly hard at times for IT resource managers to tell functional people that vastly outrank them No you can't do that but we can come up with a solution that meets your needs and meets the security requirements of the US government.

I was under the impression that this happened because the NSA refused to secure a Blackberry like the one they gave Obama and insisted that she only have access to email while literally sitting at her desk in DC, which basically no Secretary of State would find workable. Am I misinformed?
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:30 AM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

Honestly that wouldn't shock me at all. Infosec guys are quite commonly willing to lock stuff down to the point of uselessness and then they get mad when people grow their own solutions...
posted by vuron at 10:39 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

For your facebook feeds when your wingnut family member says the fact that classified items were shared in HRC's email and that's a priori proof what she did was criminal - here's an example of a classified item.

This article from the NSA newsletter "Explanation of the process of downgrading information’s classification level and who at NSA performs the downgrading task."

(C//SI) Downgrading is often confused with sanitization:

Sanitization is carried out in order to make COMINT information releasable outside of COMINT channels (e.g., making it straight SECRET).

Downgrading, by contrast, does not involve taking material out of COMINT channels -the information stays either within or outside of COMINT channels, and that aspect of it does not change. The only change is to the classification level. So, for example, changing text from TS//SI to S//SI would be a downgrade, as would changing TOP SECRET information to SECRET. In order to downgrade COMINT, a plausible cover (i.e., collection from a less sensitive source) must exist.

(U//FOUO) The downgrading of U.S. COMINT is performed only by:
an Original Classification Authority (OCA) at NSA, in coordination with the Information Security Policy office (DC322), or
personnel tasked specifically with the formal review and declassification of cryptologic materials. (These are typically contractors working to comply with E.O. 12958, and does not include anyone in the SIGINT Directorate below the level of OCA.)

The footer: DYNAMIC PAGE -- HIGHEST POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION IS
TOP SECRET // SI / TK // REL TO USA AUS CAN GBR NZL
DERIVED FROM: NSA/CSSM 1-52, DATED 08 JAN 2007 DECLASSIFY ON: 20320108

That's right, this is TS and will not be automatically declassified for public consumption for another 16 years, lest this freedom-destroying fact about the difference between declassifying and redacting were to come into the hands of ISIL. And remember, TS is the top - this juicy nugget isn't just confidential, it's not just secret. It's TOP SECRET.

So I dunno what was in those email chains and I doubt those of us over 40 will ever get to know. Mighta been awful and dumb to put it in email. But the simple fact of it being TS? Meaningless.
posted by phearlez at 10:45 AM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

I was under the impression that this happened because the NSA refused to secure a Blackberry like the one they gave Obama and insisted that she only have access to email while literally sitting at her desk in DC, which basically no Secretary of State would find workable.

Yep.

"We began examining options for (Secretary Clinton) with respect to secure 'BlackBerry-like' communications," wrote Donald R. Reid, the department's assistant director for security infrastructure. "The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive."

Reid wrote that each time they asked the NSA what solution they had worked up to provide a mobile device to Obama, "we were politely told to shut up and color."

Resolving the issue was given such priority as to result in a face-to-face meeting between Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, seven senior State Department staffers with five NSA security experts. According to a summary of the meeting, the request was driven by Clinton's reliance on her BlackBerry for email and keeping track of her calendar. Clinton chose not to use a laptop or desktop computer that could have provided her access to email in her office, according to the summary.

posted by Etrigan at 10:50 AM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

It's vital to their job that they know what other people know, and certainly the people they are dealing with in other countries damn well read the NYT and the Guardian. Can you imagine how stupid that would look? "Madam Secretary, this report says that 20 of my citizens were killed by a missile fired on incorrect information. I'm kicking out half your embassy staff unless I get an explanation." "I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about."

"The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap."
"This is preposterous. I've never approved of anything like that."
"Our source was the New York Times."
posted by jackbishop at 10:51 AM on July 5, 2016

if this is the amount of outrage that the right can muster, i think clinton's gonna be okay
posted by murphy slaw at 11:02 AM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

The whole emails thing is basically the right's attempt to pull a "get Capone on tax evasion" strategy, a Hail Mary by playing on technicalities. It's a talking point, not something that the rank and file would actually go agitate for.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:07 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

So it seems like Comey tried to do his job as well as he can despite the handicap of being a Republican. Non-partisan jobs really are non-partisan sometimes.
posted by Justinian at 11:08 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

It's the difference between being a professional and being a hack.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Mike Huckabee apparently outsourcing his jokes to a team of typewriter-proficient monkeys:
"Hillary may not be POTUS, but she'll be on the Winter Olympic team for ice skating, no one has successfully skated on more thin ice than her"
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:16 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

There's an Olympic event for skating on thin ice?
posted by mazola at 11:22 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Wikileaks publishes Clinton war emails
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:23 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Dana Schwartz: An Open Letter to Jared Kushner, From One of Your Jewish Employees

I can’t abide another defensive blame-shift to the media or to “politically correct culture gone amok”. David Duke, outspoken and explicit white supremacist, anti-Semite, and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, saw the image your father-in-law tweeted out, and to him the message was quite clear to him. Those aren’t stereotypical “sheriff” hands in the corner.

The worst people in this country saw your father-in-law’s message and took it as they saw fit. And yet Donald Trump in his response chose not to condemn them, the anti-Semites who, by his argument were obviously misinterpreting the image, but the media.

And now, Mr. Kushner, I ask you: what are you going to do about this? Look at those tweets I got again, the ones calling me out for my Jewish last name, insulting my nose, evoking the holocaust, and tell me I’m being too sensitive. Read about the origins of that image and see the type of people it attracted like a flies to human waste and tell me this whole story is just the work of the “dishonest media.” Look at that image and tell me, honestly, that you just saw a “Sheriff’s Star.” I didn’t see a sheriff star, Mr. Kushner, and I’m a smart person. After all, I work for your paper.

Edmund Burke once said in times that are starting to seem more and more similar: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Well, here I am, and here we are. Both Jewish, both members of the media. And you might choose silence, but I’ve said my piece.

posted by zombieflanders at 11:24 AM on July 5, 2016 [30 favorites]

Wikileaks publishes Clinton war emails

This appears to just be Wikileaks grabbing the emails that State released months ago and searching them for Iraq, no?
posted by zachlipton at 11:34 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

if Wikileaks can ctrl+F their way to conclusive proof that Clinton voted for the Iraq War, her candidacy is doomed
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:36 AM on July 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

Not only that, but look how many people were sending her emails offering to sell her illegal V1AGR4! Where there's smoke, there's fire...
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:38 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Corey Lewandowski Says Trump Can’t Be Anti-Semitic Because He Has Jewish Friends: "Some of my best friends..."
Pro-Donald Trump Super PAC Tries to Tie Hillary Clinton to the KKK: "You're the racist, racist!"
posted by kirkaracha at 11:39 AM on July 5, 2016

> Spokesman: Bernie Sanders watched FBI statement on Clinton case; asserts decision won't have bearing on his candidacy

This is literally true.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:40 AM on July 5, 2016 [24 favorites]

Is that a joke? It's a matter of public record that Clinton voted for the Iraq war. It was widely known at the time that she supported the war and would be easily "discovered" by searching the archives of any major media outlet of the day.

If we're talking actions that Clinton took during her tenure as Secretary of State, the Obama administration policy on the war is also widely known. Unless the allegation is that Clinton secretly worked to keep the war going despite official Obama policy, or in contradiction to things she said in the media at the time?

As far as I'm concerned, Clinton's hawkish reputation and the fact that her policy positions have been public knowledge since at least 2000 means that the emails would have to reveal damning evidence of war crimes on her part for this to have teeth at all.
posted by Sara C. at 11:43 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I almost feel bad for Ivanka and Jared. I mean, AFAICT they're not sociopaths and Ivanka at least has demonstrated the level of self-awareness and humanity which I would imagine induces some amount of shame at her father's bad behavior, but, hell, what can she do about it?
posted by jackbishop at 11:43 AM on July 5, 2016

Honestly that wouldn't shock me at all. Infosec guys are quite commonly willing to lock stuff down to the point of uselessness and then they get mad when people grow their own solutions...

While I'm in the very small potatoes world of educational technology and not state secrets, this has been the story of my life for the past decade. At our morning meeting this morning it was concluded that if we can't get central IT to streamline processes for integrating new applications into our existing infrastructure (which currently involves a lot of begging, pleading, filling out 20-page forms, and an incredible amount of just straight-up being ignored), we literally will not be able to move forward with [large, just-announced major initiative].

So, while I am only #withher because the alternative is so, so terrifying, I am also inclined to be pretty sympathetic w/r/t the email thing.
posted by soren_lorensen at 11:44 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Is that a joke? It's a matter of public record that Clinton voted for the Iraq war.

yes, I was making fun of wikileaks being all "we will CURATE this to show how illegal Hillary Clinton is!"
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:46 AM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

Ah, whew.

Do you ever feel like you're actually in the We Have Always Been At War With East Asia scene from Nineteen Eighty-Four?
posted by Sara C. at 11:47 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Ivanka at least has demonstrated the level of self-awareness and humanity which I would imagine induces some amount of shame at her father's bad behavior

Yeah, about that...
posted by zombieflanders at 11:47 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

but, hell, what can she do about it?

I am reminded of the scene in Return of the Jedi where Luke Skywalker resigns from the Rebel Alliance to go serve as a spokesperson for Darth Vader and the Empire. "What can I do, he's my dad" he says with a shrug
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:49 AM on July 5, 2016 [32 favorites]

I should publicly confess that one of my favorite pairs of shoes is branded Ivanka Trump.

In my defense, I didn't know the brand before trying them on, they were clearly the best of the bunch, she may have stolen the design (which isn't really earth-shattering: they're black patent-leather pumps, after all) but I undoubtedly couldn't have afforded whatever she copied them from if she did, and I purchased them long before Trump announced his candidacy. Probably before he even seriously considered it.

Still, I'll probably feel a little weird about wearing them forever, now. /Trumpfessions
posted by Superplin at 11:59 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Secretary Clinton's first campaign appearance with President Obama is scheduled to begin any minute and is livestreaming here.
posted by stolyarova at 12:02 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Campaign rally music, why are you always so terrible?
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:08 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

What, you were expecting she'd come out to the Dead Kennedys version of "I Fought The Law"?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:16 PM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

A girl can dream.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:17 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

"I Fought The Law"

omg can you imagine Trump coming on stage to "I Shot the Sheriff"?
posted by stolyarova at 12:17 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Or the Clash's "I'm So Bored With the USA"
posted by AJaffe at 12:18 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

What, you were expecting she'd come out to the Dead Kennedys version of "I Fought The Law"?

Only now do I truly understand the meaning of "headcanon"
posted by theodolite at 12:18 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

Sara Bareilles is playing so she should be coming out soon.
posted by stolyarova at 12:20 PM on July 5, 2016

Whoops, that's Katy Perry. My age is showing.
posted by stolyarova at 12:20 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sara Bareilles. Grrrrrr. Like if it were "Love Song" or something... but always with Brave. Why not Fireworks at that point?
posted by Justinian at 12:22 PM on July 5, 2016

Oh god. Is it really Katy Perry? I'm just following this thread.
posted by Justinian at 12:23 PM on July 5, 2016

Yep, it was "Roar" (according to Google). Now it's Sheryl Crow's "Woman in the White House."
posted by stolyarova at 12:24 PM on July 5, 2016

I still remember that The National's "Fake Empires" played at the rally for Obama's acceptance speech in 2008. I was busy weeping with joy and relief, but part of me definitely thought, "I love The National and this instrumental part is pretty, but a song with the lyrics 'we're half-awake in a fake empire,' is maybe not the best call here." Should've played "Mr. November" for the crowds instead, "I'm Mr. November, I won't fuck us over!"
posted by yasaman at 12:24 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Oh god. Is it really Katy Perry?

If she were playing "Circle the Drain," this would be a sight.
posted by psoas at 12:24 PM on July 5, 2016

pls back the kickstarter for my new business venture, Now That's What I Call Campaign Rally Music Vol. I! Our rockin' mix includes bipartisan songs sure to fire up the crowd, for example:

* Ear of the Panther
* Born in These United States
* Fighting Song
* Back Down? I Won't

Forget paying top dollar to the elite 1% of musicians who have the system rigged!
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:25 PM on July 5, 2016 [33 favorites]

Where be Hamilton?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:26 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Now it's the FIFA song (K'Naan - Waving Flag).
posted by stolyarova at 12:27 PM on July 5, 2016

HERE WE GO
posted by stolyarova at 12:28 PM on July 5, 2016

We don't have Hamilton but we can get you a deal on some tunes from Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:28 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Rachel Platten. My ears....
posted by Justinian at 12:28 PM on July 5, 2016

My theme song for this election season is Be OK - Ingrid Michaelson, fwiw.
posted by stolyarova at 12:28 PM on July 5, 2016

Ok but if anybody talks smack about Ingrid we will fight.
posted by Justinian at 12:29 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Wake me up when Gary Johnson walks out to Mr. Tambourine Man (he's done Hamilton before).
posted by zachlipton at 12:30 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

We're Not Going To Take This Any Longer
posted by mazola at 12:32 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm just here for BarryO, tbh.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:32 PM on July 5, 2016

...The second declaration is even more astonishing, because it is signed by “Tiffany Doe”, Mr. Epstein’s “party planner” from 1991-2000. Tiffany Doe says that her duties were “to get attractive adolescent women to attend these parties.” (Adolescents are, legally, children.)

Tiffany Doe says that she recruited Jane Doe at the Port Authority in New York, persuaded her to attend Mr. Epstein’s parties, and actually witnessed the sexual assaults on Jane Doe:

I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old.

Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored
posted by y2karl at 12:34 PM on July 5, 2016 [13 favorites]

If any candidate was going to walk out to Bob Marley it'd definitely be Gary Johnson. So many choices!

- Get Up, Stand Up
- Easy Skanking
- Stir It Up
- Waiting in Vain
posted by stolyarova at 12:35 PM on July 5, 2016

adolescent women

WTF??
posted by zutalors! at 12:37 PM on July 5, 2016

"Continue Believing"
posted by bongo_x at 12:37 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

"Begin I Rise"
posted by mazola at 12:38 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Throwin' some subtle shade at Bernie Sanders.
posted by Justinian at 12:42 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Oooooh snerky little non-mention of Sanders there.
posted by stolyarova at 12:42 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Not everyone is able to watch the speech, so if you are liveblogging it would be helpful to give some context.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 12:44 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

She made some comments about how she and Obama fought a very tough campaign. But that when it was clear Obama won she was very proud to drop out and endorse him. She said it with a clear twinkle in her eye.
posted by Justinian at 12:45 PM on July 5, 2016 [18 favorites]

Clinton said that she and Obama had competed hard, but after she lost the primary, she endorsed him enthusiastically.
posted by stolyarova at 12:45 PM on July 5, 2016

Justinian, get out of my head!
posted by stolyarova at 12:45 PM on July 5, 2016

Now Barack is talking about Party unity after a contentious primary. I'm sensing a theme.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:52 PM on July 5, 2016

Lots of 2008 talk. What's the intention there? Highlighting their differences or bridging them?

Gosh, it's good to see President Obama campaigning again.
posted by R a c h e l at 12:52 PM on July 5, 2016

POTUS face gif.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:52 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

Now it's Sheryl Crow's "Woman in the White House."

No, this is not acceptable. The Obama administration never used Paint the White House black so I am so not cool with HRC using on the nose stuff. Everyone has to be as disappointed as me; I am a white dude in my 40s, this is apparently the kind of demands for cultural consistency of suffering I am expected to make.
posted by phearlez at 12:54 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

That rape lawsuit is pretty messy.
posted by Anonymous at 12:56 PM on July 5, 2016

Whoever chose Katy Perry over "I'm Not Throwin' Away My Shot" should be fired.
posted by Sara C. at 12:59 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

This reminds me of the Trump email subject line "Have You Heard About Clinton's Endictment" only it's from the NY Times

(I mean it's possible that's just how their app always truncates headlines, but it's weird that nobody tried to amend it since it implies the opposite of what it says)
posted by pocketfullofrye at 12:59 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

On the other hand, I'd be perfectly happy to see literally anyone walk onstage to "F*ck Donald Trump" (SLYT, NSFW).
posted by stolyarova at 1:00 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

One of these days the Right is going to cry wolf one too many times over Hillary and everyone will ignore them.

One of these days.

I was hoping it would be, oh, 20 years ago.
posted by dw at 1:08 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Hmm such a conundrum. I want to just print out the first few pages of the complaint against Trump [pdf] and stick it under the windshield wiper of anyone with a TRUMP bumper sticker, secure in my protection under fair reporting privilege. But the level of explicitness is such that I might run up against obscenity/harassment problems. (Normally I'd worry about triggering/inflicting this on a random person but I have a hard time believing anyone willing to publicly support Trump is capable of human emotions of that type)
posted by phearlez at 1:08 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I really want her to borrow John Cena's entrance music.
Especially for the debates.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:12 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Oh my god. Clinton/Cena 2016? PLEASE.
posted by stolyarova at 1:13 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

I just realized I don't know the difference between John Cena and Michael Cera.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:14 PM on July 5, 2016 [14 favorites]

Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — until Hillary Clinton

The Obama-appointed FBI Director gave a press conference showing that [Hillary Clinton] recklessly handled Top Secret information, engaged in conduct prohibited by law, and lied about it repeatedly to the public. But she won’t be prosecuted or imprisoned for any of that, so Democrats are celebrating.

posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:15 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

go home glenn greenwald, you are drunk
posted by murphy slaw at 1:19 PM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

I don't get Greenwald sometimes. He starts by saying how ridiculous the security strictures are:

Secrecy in DC is so revered that even the most banal documents are reflexively marked classified, making their disclosure or mishandling a felony. As former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden said in 2010, “Everything’s secret. I mean, I got an email saying ‘Merry Christmas.’ It carried a top secret NSA classification marking.”

And then he criticizes the FBI for not being obscenely doctrinaire and following those absurd restrictions?
posted by stolyarova at 1:20 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

The Obama-appointed FBI Director gave a press conference showing that [Hillary Clinton] recklessly handled Top Secret information, engaged in conduct prohibited by law, and lied about it repeatedly to the public. But she won’t be prosecuted or imprisoned for any of that, so Democrats are celebrating.

I thought Greenwald was smarter than this. What Clinton did was not materially different from the way that Rice or Powell handled their email, and the legal issue is the intentional distribution of classified documents.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Don't boo, vote!
posted by soren_lorensen at 1:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Between Greenwald's trolling and Max Blumenthal's hit tweet on a deceased Elie Wiesel, the alt-left really seems to be struggling right now with not sounding like the alt-right.
posted by dw at 1:23 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Whatever argument Greenwald is making, he does agree with the basic decision:

Looked at in isolation, I have no particular objection to this decision. In fact, I agree with it: I don’t think what Clinton did rose to the level of criminality, and if I were in the Justice Department, I would not want to see her prosecuted for it.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 1:24 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

I thought Greenwald was smarter than this. What Clinton did was not materially different from the way that Rice or Powell handled their email, and the legal issue is the intentional distribution of classified documents.

It's amazing how fucking stupid people can be when being smart would deny them what they want.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:27 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

Don't believe this has been linked yet: in the last 100 years, no president has campaigned as hard for their successor as President Obama is expected to (NPR)
posted by R a c h e l at 1:28 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Don't believe this has been linked yet: in the last 100 years, no president has campaigned as hard for their successor as President Obama is expected to (NPR)

I mean, many in the past 100 years didn't want to, or couldn't.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:29 PM on July 5, 2016

@HillaryClinton Thanks, Obama.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:32 PM on July 5, 2016 [24 favorites]

WHAT A SOCIAL MEDIA TEAM
posted by you're a kitty! at 1:41 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

@HillaryClinton Thanks, Obama.

Hey, I heard you liked meta-references so I put some meta in your meta.
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:45 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

I realize hating on Greenwald rivals hating on AFP here, but I am really surprised to see Metafilter being hostile to the "this is the level of prosecution whistleblowers should have been getting the last five years and have not" message. He similarly doesn't differentiate between the standards a cabinet member would be held to versus any grunt, and I have made clear I disagree with that. But I don't think his "this ain't consistent" message is remotely wrong.
posted by phearlez at 1:46 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

This is a real thing: Follow along as President Obama takes over Hillary's Instagram account on the trail in Charlotte: instagram.com/hillaryclinton
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:46 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Please please if you don't know who John Cena is, go to this thread from yesterday and watch his video
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:46 PM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

GET HYPE!
posted by vuron at 1:48 PM on July 5, 2016

Yeah, look, once Trump was nominated I was not cheering for Hillary's indictment, but as a former intelligence professional, it is kind of teeth grinding to see the "I mean who even cares about classification amirite?" argument. Especially when right now, people still lose their careers over taking the wrong document home.
posted by corb at 1:50 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Sure, and if Greenwald wrote an article that was more "let's use this to talk about classification craziness" and less "let's use this to hate on Hillary Clinton some more," that would make more sense. His argument seems to be that Clinton should have been indicted rather than that lots more people shouldn't have been.
posted by zachlipton at 1:53 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

I realize hating on Greenwald rivals hating on AFP here

I'm not sure who AFP is and I very much admire Greenwald's work with Snowden, but the idea that Hillary Clinton is the beneficiary of special, favorable treatment from the world is right up there with the idea of "reverse racism" in its misguidedness.

The standard by which it makes sense to judge whether Clinton is getting special treatment in this case is how Rice and Powell, other secretaries of state, were treated when they did the same thing.

So yes, "this ain't consistent" is in fact correct about this situation. But what's not consistent is that the standard to which Clinton is being held is higher than others, not lower.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:55 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

As a civil libertarian/classical liberal (better labels?), I agree with zachlipton's interpretation. Greenwald is using the opportunity to snark, and as someone who thinks Snowden is a national hero, I can't say I blame him for railing at the apparent double standard. But even I see a clear difference in both kind and degree between Snowden's actions and Clinton's.
posted by stolyarova at 1:56 PM on July 5, 2016

The reality is that federal agencies use data classification standards are abused in order to make FOIA requests ridiculously difficult. That isn't to say that some things don't need security or that Infosec shouldn't be the norm but by a similar token the reality is that the Federal Infosec standards simply could not keep up with the changing way in which decision-makers are supposed to receive and process information.

By preventing Clinton from getting a secured Blackberry despite it being a critical tool for her day-to-day business the NSA opened this Pandora's box. The idea that decision-makers would only need to access their email and calendar at their desk (it's not even clear that Clinton was given the option to VPN into the State Department network) is archaic and accentuates the problems with centralized decision-making in the modern environment. Operational agility has become the watchword of many organizations including the US Armed Forces but it's not entirely clear that the Infosec guys in charge of securing the data have any clue as to how to construct a modern secure and agile data sharing environment.

Is the use of a private server troubling? Yep but it was troubling when the RNC ran parallel email servers for the Bush White House with some indication that most if not all business was typically done over the RNC network. Should the rules concerning data security be tighter? Probably. Should the rules concerning what is and what is not Secret/Top Secret be reviewed? Definitely.
posted by vuron at 2:02 PM on July 5, 2016 [18 favorites]

It's not necessarily that they're being used to prevent FOIA, it's more - oh, does anyone remember those old logic puzzles? Where it's like "Mrs. Maple gets her newspaper the day before her neighbor" and at the end, you've figured out the address and daily schedule of your five targets? Any one piece of info is useless, but when you combine them, you get dangerous info.

Classification systems tend to work -and I agree - around assuming that any of the fragments that could be added to get the classification hold the classification itself. That's not a flaw or a bug, that's by design to deny enemy action. It may seem silly, but skilled people can add them together to bring real danger to people and national interests.

A classified Blackberry is a terrible security risk. I wouldn't want them to sign off on one for her or anyone else.

This is one of the things where yes, half of the anger is totally "grr I hate Hillary" but half of it is also "I expect 18 year olds to get this right, and put the possibility of a lifetime in jail if they get it wrong, what the fuck is wrong with you?"
posted by corb at 2:11 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

A classified Blackberry is a terrible security risk. I wouldn't want them to sign off on one for her or anyone else.

So the one Obama uses should be destroyed? Should state officials only have access to their email in their DC offices?
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:14 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

I mean, to be clear, Trump is a way bigger crime than email mishandling, and I'll still be (relatively) glad to see her defeat Trump, but that doesn't mean just because she isn't facing charges that I feel good about what she did.
posted by corb at 2:14 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I’m not sure who AFP is

Amanda Palmer
posted by Going To Maine at 2:14 PM on July 5, 2016

A classified Blackberry is a terrible security risk. I wouldn't want them to sign off on one for her or anyone else.

So the one Obama uses should be destroyed? Should state officials only have access to their email in their DC offices?

My first thought after reading about Obama's Blackberry upthread as an aspect of this is that maybe Obama's Blackberry isn't really all that secure, either. Doesn't sound like the security guys are interested in sharing whatever "security measures" are in place on that. I'd bet the whole thing is a massive sore spot for them.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:19 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Corb, you realize people at Clinton's level working for the Bush Administration (Condoleeza Rice, probably others whose names aren't coming to mind at the moment) committed exactly these same types of security breaches, correct? Are you saying that they should all be indicted, as well?
posted by Sara C. at 2:20 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

It's worse than that- the Bush admin worked off of RNC-controlled servers specifically in order to evade archiving.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:21 PM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

Couple of comments deleted; if anyone wants to learn more about the some-people-dislike-Amanda-Palmer thing, better to site search and not bring that whole derail in here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

I look forward to Trey Gowdy heading up the next Congressional investigation into this matter.

The True Believers have already soured on Gowdy thinking that he is part of the Clinton conspiracy and coverup.
posted by peeedro at 2:25 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Think both Clinton and Obama gave good, workmanlike campaigning speeches - no doubt who the star was, but whatcha gonna do? But it all looked genuine enough, the messages were solid, the digs at Trumo sly and substantive.

Not a bad start.
posted by Devonian at 2:54 PM on July 5, 2016

The Bush administration should be indicted for a lot of reasons, e-mail being pretty far down on the list.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:07 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

So, er, that Jeffrey Epstein character is very well-connected to elites across the board, including the Clintons, who he donated a lot to in the '90s. I'm not sure if either campaign is going to want to bring that up at all. One wonders if this is going to be Satanic ritual abuse conspiracy theory territory, or Catholic Church sexual abuse conspiracy of silence territory.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:19 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Wikileaks publishes Clinton war emails

I read several articles about that "leak" from websites hostile to Hillary, and not one mentioned a damning detail from the emails. In fact, none listed ANYTHING from the emails at all, just breathlessly reporting the fact of their release as Hillary's doom.

Is there something I missed? Because Assange promised that this was enough to indict her -- for a war that began long before she took office as Secretary of State, and that she in fact ended on her watch. A big whiff would put a serious hole in Assange's credibility.
posted by msalt at 3:23 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Assange is a self important asshat. Wikileaks is a good concept but he's an awful champion
posted by vuron at 3:28 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

Already seeing obvious Republican talking points about Obama and Clinton using Air Force One to campaign, coming from conservative Facebook friends.
posted by Sara C. at 3:31 PM on July 5, 2016

Already seeing obvious Republican talking points about Obama and Clinton using Air Force One to campaign, coming from conservative Facebook friends.

Probably because Trump tweeted twice about it earlier today. (I'd link, but I'm on a mobile device.)
posted by salix at 3:39 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Of course he used Air Force One. He can't travel any other way.
posted by zutalors! at 3:41 PM on July 5, 2016 [14 favorites]

The folks I saw talking about it implied that Clinton was also traveling on AF1 and thus somehow freeloading off the American People or something??? I mean obvs this is bullshit but yeah
posted by Sara C. at 3:54 PM on July 5, 2016

I heard Clinton shot a man, just to watch him die. It was on the radio, I think.
posted by bongo_x at 4:04 PM on July 5, 2016 [16 favorites]

I remember reading about this Air Force One issue recently. I thought it had been posted here but I can't find it. It boils down to part of the expense of using Air Force One while campaigning is covered by the candidate's campaign funds. That is what Obama did during his re-election campaign in 2012 and that is what he is doing now. Yes, for security reasons Obama cannot fly on any old jet so when he needs to fly somewhere for private reasons not related to his Presidential duties than at least part of the expense is paid for by private funds.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:05 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Also, as a matter of terminology it's impossible for the president to fly on anything other than Air Force One because any plane that carries the president is automatically designated Air Force One.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 4:10 PM on July 5, 2016 [29 favorites]

Probably because Trump tweeted twice about it earlier today.

Trump's just jealous because he has to fly around in third-hand 757 bought from Paul Allen, who himself bought it from a defunct Danish airline. The plane probably still has that lingering odor of pickled herring and sweaty programmers.
posted by FJT at 4:23 PM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

Bob Corker auditioning for VP right now in Raleigh
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:29 PM on July 5, 2016

My understanding is that they have to reimburse the government for the cost of a first class commercial ticket and we all sort of handwave over the fact that Air Force One costs a gazillion times more than that.
posted by zachlipton at 4:30 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

it's impossible for the president to fly on anything other than Air Force One

There's Marine One.

/pedant
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:31 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

There's Marine One.

It's the taxi of the air force of the army of the navy!
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:32 PM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

Also, as a matter of terminology it's impossible for the president to fly on anything other than Air Force One because any plane that carries the president is automatically designated Air Force One.

Only if the plane is operated by the Air Force. You can also have Executive One, like that time Nixon flew United to make some sort of ill-defined point about something to do with the energy crisis, but AF1 had to fly out empty to pick him up, so it was even more idiotic.

And that time W played fighter pilot and had Navy One before 2003's "Mission Accomplished" speech, but we all try to pretend that never happened.

Wikipedia's even got a a template with all the possibilities, including the tantalizing thought that we could someday see a Coast Guard One.

</technically_correct_is_the_best_kind_of_correct>
posted by zachlipton at 4:37 PM on July 5, 2016 [13 favorites]

Don't boo, vote!

so i should just write in "boo" or...
posted by Hoopo at 4:41 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

For the past few months I've been wondering if maybe I was being too idealistic politically, but honestly I found the results of the FBI investigation fairly damning, and I'm no longer frustrated trying to understand why so many people are criticizing the political status quo in the US and disengaging from politics. As many comments have illustrated, what Clinton did is exactly what Rice and Powell did--run unsafe, largely unsecured, parallel servers hosting the nation's information for convenience and the contravention of FOIA.

This is not transparency. This is the climate that has lead to the Espionage Act becoming a tool of the Left. I was willing to accept that the Right was calling wolf, but after reading Comey's report, I'm given to understand that there is indeed at the least a very large fox afoot and the distinction is one of intent, and not effect. I have no framework to understand those who are shrugging this off, it's more or less what I had understood to be a worst-case finding, barring some kind of bonafide treason.
posted by Phyltre at 4:47 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:52 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Well this is new:

@kylegriffin1: Donald Trump is praising, at length, Saddam Hussein's anti-terrorism policies.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:01 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Not new:
Oct 2015 - World would be '100%' better with Hussein, Gadhafi in power
Feb 2016 - Donald Trump’s Insane Praise of Saddam Hussein
Mar 2016 - Saddam Hussein was 'very good' at killing terrorists
posted by peeedro at 5:10 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Trump speaking to CNN:

"I mean, look at Libya. Look at Iraq. Iraq used to be no terrorists. He (Hussein) would kill the terrorists immediately, which is like now it's the Harvard of terrorism," Trump said. "If you look at Iraq from years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy, but it was a lot better than it is right now. Right now, Iraq is a training ground for terrorists. Right now Libya, nobody even knows Libya, frankly there is no Iraq and there is no Libya. It's all broken up. They have no control. Nobody knows what's going on."

The thing is, though, he's basically correct here. As disgusting as Hussein and Qaddafi were, Iraq and Libya were a fair bit better off with one murderous dictator each than with bombed out cities and the omnishambles chaos of sectarian guerilla warfare leading to the rise of ISIS. Same goes for Assad in Syria.
posted by 3urypteris at 5:15 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm wondering if Glenn Greenwald is just pissed that Hillary Clinton used such poor security on her State Department emails yet NONE of them fell into Greenwald's hands... what's a crusading investigative reporter to do?

Dishonest Don should be very familiar with the phrase "extremely careless but not criminal". That's his standard plea for every Trump business that failed while he pocketed a bundle and every woman who claimed rape against him.

And as for the few remaining Middle-East tyrants? They're putting up 100-story buildings with "TRUMP" signs on them. If Saddam were still in charge in Iraq, there'd certainly be a Trump Hotel in Baghdad.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:20 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

The FBI found no evidence that Hillary's private email server was hacked. There are multiple reports that the State Department's email and classified systems were hacked over the same time period.
posted by humanfont at 5:23 PM on July 5, 2016 [21 favorites]

I have no framework to understand those who are shrugging this off, it's more or less what I had understood to be a worst-case finding, barring some kind of bonafide treason.

Finding of what? That big bureaucracies are generally hopelessly behind the times technologically and that as a result, practically even the most obedient of rules-lawyers who have Things to Do sometimes have to make informed decisions about when not to work-to-rule?

Show me a concrete, major bad thing that happened as a direct result of this non-scandal and then we can discuss how many years to put $HILLARY away for.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:26 PM on July 5, 2016 [16 favorites]

Just now watching Obama's speech with Hillay and it's so good. Also so powerful to see him sitting behind her while she gives her speech.
posted by zutalors! at 5:27 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Not new

I stand corrected! And also marginally more horrified.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:27 PM on July 5, 2016

As many comments have illustrated, what Clinton did is exactly what Rice and Powell did--run unsafe, largely unsecured, parallel servers hosting the nation's information for convenience and the contravention of FOIA.

Yes, the situation is awful. Unfortunately, Hillary's actions were entirely consistent with those of her predecessors and it's hard to see how they could have been otherwise.
Because of Snowden, we know that the highest level of NSA security (system administration) was outsourced to unreliable people (e.g., Snowden), so I can't really see that the State Department can be expected to be more secure. The head of the State Department needs convenient and secure electronic communications but the US government has not supplied them; it has actually stymied them. I don't know how senior officials could be expected to operate securely under the constraints imposed by the US government. Flash paper, pencils, and runners, I expect.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:51 PM on July 5, 2016 [16 favorites]

The FBI found no evidence that Hillary's private email server was hacked.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:59 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

And as for the few remaining Middle-East tyrants? They're putting up 100-story buildings with "TRUMP" signs on them. If Saddam were still in charge in Iraq, there'd certainly be a Trump Hotel in Baghdad.

So we're back to full steam ahead on Regime Change, then? Isn't it a little early to be looking back on the Bush administration with nostalgia?
posted by indubitable at 5:59 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I mean, senior officials at the NSA, CIA, military, etc somehow seem to manage it. It's not like people can't exist without the ability to send secure emails at every second. There was a better way - she chose not to exercise it. Yes, apparently other officials did too - they're all equally bad. There is no way in which she or they did a good or necessary thing.

That said, it's worth noting that I immediately got an email today from the head of my state Republican Party being like "come on now, unite to defeat Crooked Hillary!" NOPE. Fuck you, lady, and the Trump train you cynically rode in on.
posted by corb at 6:00 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Show me a concrete, major bad thing that happened

That's entirely my point. We do not need written admission of quid pro quo; the appearance of impropriety is a concrete, major bad thing. Being "...extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" is a concrete, major bad thing.

"These e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail." This is a concrete, very bad thing and would constitute reason for firing and quite a bit more if your organization were, say, subject to HIPAA, which mine is. That is not some unduly high standard. Given the content of the FBI report, any organization that takes security seriously would have fired Clinton at bare minimum, and may very well have been subject to hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines in many industries as a result of her actions.

From first principles, you don't hold this public an office and run your own private email server. That's the appearance of impropriety and it's a concrete, major bad thing. If we're willing to shrug off the further findings of extreme carelessness given the state of cyberintrusion today, where would we draw the line? Whatever happened to the Left that championed transparency?!
posted by Phyltre at 6:05 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

I mean, senior officials at the NSA, CIA, military, etc somehow seem to manage it.

*cough*PETRAEUS*cough*
posted by Sara C. at 6:09 PM on July 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence

So apparently no evidence = evidence, somehow.

We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.

Except these actors do leave evidence when they hack some people? They just wouldn't when they hack Clinton?

Also, I have certainly corresponded with people on gmail who've been hacked. But that doesn't mean it follows that I have also been hacked.

I mean... the whole thing is just: "we didn't find any evidence of hacking. But it's still possible someone did."

Which is true of just about anything. Like: the court found no evidence John Doe committed the murder. But it's still possible that he did!
posted by pocketfullofrye at 6:11 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

From first principles, you don't hold this public an office and run your own private email server.

No, of course not. You get the Republican Party to run it for you.
posted by dersins at 6:14 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

cough*PETRAEUS*cough*

Ohgod I hate him /so much/, he was the worst pick and screwed things up so badly. He's like King Midas, except instead of the golden touch, it's the shit touch.

Assume I said "every competent" official. Aside from this bizarre lapse, Hillary is competent as hell.
posted by corb at 6:15 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

From first principles, you don't hold public office and run your own private email server.

Except, you know, several of her predecessors at State, the Bush White House (from which somewhere between 5 and 22 million emails are apparently gone forever), Jeb Bush (who ran a private email server he used for state business as Governor), and who knows who else.

I agree that there are significant issues with transparency and trying to avoid FOIA here, issues the Obama administration has generally been pretty terrible on despite early promises. I hope a Clinton White House does better, and all this attention to her emails should help maintain pressure for better archiving and retention policies at a minimum.
posted by zachlipton at 6:16 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

*cough*PETRAEUS*cough*

Hey, now!

Petraeus is an American hero man and he was in the clutches of a woman and she did that ruthless woman stuff to him. She's the one to blame. It's right there in the pronoun. "She." Makes you realize where the real threat is right there.

Hasn't he been punished enough already? I mean all he did was actually compromise military and CIA info security over an affair. It's not like he's Hillary Clinton or anything. C'mon.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:19 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

Except, you know, several of her predecessors at State, the Bush White House (from which somewhere between 5 and 22 million emails are apparently gone forever), Jeb Bush (who ran a private email server he used for state business as Governor), and who knows who else.

Is this intended to be more or less an admission that she is an embodiment of the sort of respect of the public evinced by the Bush era? If I had used these exact words as you'd written them, I'd mean them as a fairly sharp criticism of Clinton's communication practices and Obama's transparency, but it sounds like you're using them to say Clinton is following in their footsteps?
posted by Phyltre at 6:21 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

"[I]n order to run for vice president, [Indiana governor Mike] Pence would have to stop running for governor — state law prohibits candidates from running for both at the same time.

And Pence would have to withdraw soon for his party to have any chance at keeping the governor's seat in November. The Indiana Republican Party would only have until July 15 to name a replacement candidate to face Democrat John Gregg.

That leaves just 10 days for a number of dominoes to fall."

Please please please let those dominoes fall. Any way we can get Pence out of the governor's mansion.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

22 million emails disappeared from the Bush White House into the ether. 95% of Rove's email correspondence took place over a RNC server.

If we want to throw stones at Clinton we need to be very aware that we are surrounded by a lot of glass houses.
posted by vuron at 6:30 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Is this intended to be more or less an admission that she is an embodiment of the sort of respect of the public evinced by the Bush era? If I had used these exact words as you'd written them, I'd mean them as a fairly sharp criticism of Clinton's communication practices and Obama's transparency, but it sounds like you're using them to say Clinton is following in their footsteps?

An admission? I wasn't aware I was on trial here.

It was intended to point out that, contrary to your statement, that a number of people have held public office while running their own private email server for official purposes, and the consequences, including the deletion of millions of Presidential records that are supposed to be in the National Archives, have been far more severe without anybody caring that much at all.

I am, in fact, both criticizing Clinton's practices and the Obama Administration's record on transparency and pointing out that her practices are similar to a number of others in high-level government jobs that have been met with barely a yawn, rather than years worth of investigations and a belief that the people responsible should be in jail. I think the Federal Government needs to do better, and I hope this entire mess will serve to cause people to do better. But I don't think it's reasonable to say that Clinton should be in jail when nobody cared about millions of Bush emails that are lost forever.
posted by zachlipton at 6:35 PM on July 5, 2016 [27 favorites]

Nobody cared?

Metafilter cared.

http://www.metafilter.com/87474/Delete-Doesnt-Always-Mean-Delete
posted by Phyltre at 6:37 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Sorry if I don't care so much about stupid emails when there's a literal fascist who might be elected as the next President of the United States. We cared yes, because we were naive - we had no idea how bad things could really get.
posted by peacheater at 6:39 PM on July 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

And nobody was indicted that time, either.
posted by yhbc at 6:40 PM on July 5, 2016

So we're back to full steam ahead on Regime Change, then?
As I have noted before, Trump's whole raison d'etre for running for President is that, having failed his lifelong ambition to become America's richest man, he wants access to and control over the U.S. Treasury's trillions. A stable Middle East run by old-fashioned strongmen would have provided a much more lucrative environment for Trump Enterprises to accumulate assets for Dishonest Don and he'd be less motivated to pull off this one Big Con, so if we'd left the Tyrants alone, we'd be less likely to face the threat of one here. So, that's a good argument AGAINST the whole 'Regime Change' thing. But then, without the big $$ made behind the scenes in 'post-war' Iraq and elsewhere, Dick Cheney might not have decided to quietly retire from government in 2008. So, where's the bigger threat?
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:42 PM on July 5, 2016

It's not like people can't exist without the ability to send secure emails at every second.

Clinton averaged 100 days of travel per year while she was Secretary of State -- so not having email outside her office would mean not being able to send or receive emails for one week out of every four. (And would mean everyone around her being similarly unreachable -- it's not like someone traveling with her can send messages on her behalf, or it defeats the purpose.) There's a cost-benefit ratio here, right? Like, having a functional Secretary of State is directly valuable to national security. I'm skeptical that protecting the kind of secrets a Secretary of State would know and would talk about over email is worth putting her that much out of contact.

Not that I love the solution she came up with -- just that I don't think "just don't use email to get your job done for one-quarter of your life" works as a national security strategy here.
posted by john hadron collider at 6:46 PM on July 5, 2016 [21 favorites]

So apparently no evidence = evidence, somehow.

Absence of the tools that might obtain evidence. Which was by design, let's not kid ourselves.

Except these actors do leave evidence when they hack some people?

Sometimes. That's why we have these tools.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:50 PM on July 5, 2016

The reality is that the federal government is hopelessly behind the times on heaps if technology. The really secure stuff is probably fairly secure or as secure as you can be with a crapton of DoD contractors running the show. I would assume for instance Clinton's server probably didn't have NRO MIS access or any if the really classified sigint information.

The unfortunate reality is that state has been a mess for ages when it comes to data classification and frankly I don't think Defense or Energy are much better. The explosion of data in the last decade has caught people unprepared and as far as I can tell the federal government has basically zero DLP in place. Witness Snowden being brazen in his accessing data.
posted by vuron at 6:50 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Which was by design, let's not kid ourselves.

After investigations that went on longer than the Warren Commission, the FBI found that, actually, no, whatever security directives might have been breached, it was *not* done with malicious intent. And thus not criminal.

You can't just pave right over the facts of the situation with "but Hillary MUST be a criminal, because duh".
posted by Sara C. at 6:51 PM on July 5, 2016 [27 favorites]

As a reminder, a bunch of tech firms are out to shut down 18F and the USDS, two federal organizations trying their best to improve the Federal presence on the web.

So next time you think about how backwards federal tech is, remember there's a bunch of companies that make a lot of money keeping it moving slowly into the future.
posted by dw at 6:53 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Today is the day I officially stopped following 9 of my Facebook friends because they went full on "end times of democracy Bernie is being cheated because air force one and the FBI and why even hold the convention if its already been decided that Hillary is going to be the nominee" crazy. I just can't do that anymore.

You know, in my lifetime, there's never been a candidate I've considered perfect. This is because they have all been human with all the flaws and failures and lapses that humans are prone to. Clinton is one of the most experienced candidates in my lifetime and I agree with at least 80% of her positions. I can fully get behind her as president. None of this lesser-of-two evils bs. She's the best candidate who ran from either party this time around. She'll be an excellent president.

Just done with conspiracy theories and hysteria.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:55 PM on July 5, 2016 [40 favorites]

To add to John hadron collider's comment, HRC's job was to be an effective Secretary of State not tilt at a windmill to improve government IT systems when no one was interested in supporting or funding that effort (indeed by all accounts, conflicting stakeholders blocked and continue to block attempts to improve it). Clinton herself says she'd do it differently now but frankly in high pressure jobs you often pick something that works well enough for requirements or tools that aren't part of your core job and move on unless there's a need to revisit.
posted by R343L at 6:56 PM on July 5, 2016 [25 favorites]

As a reminder, a bunch of tech firms are out to shut down 18F and the USDS, two federal organizations trying their best to improve the Federal presence on the web.

I'm glad you brought that up because I've been headdesking all day over it. Less than 200 reasonably competent engineers working for the Federal Government in a fairly selfless effort (I've heard their recruiting pitch, most of these guys could be doing better anywhere else) to try to bring a measure of basic technology awareness and the big government IT contractors are shitting themselves with fear? These vendors have multi-billion dollar contracts and they're terrified of a few hundred GSA employees?

That should tell you everything you need to know about how bad government IT is and how much we're all getting fleeced by the big contractors.
posted by zachlipton at 7:05 PM on July 5, 2016 [26 favorites]

After investigations that went on longer than the Warren Commission, the FBI found that, actually, no, whatever security directives might have been breached, it was *not* done with malicious intent. And thus not criminal.

It was clearly an attempt to avoid transparency. How malicious or criminal that is is an exercise for the reader/DoJ.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:05 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

It was clearly an attempt to avoid transparency.

She requested a secure Blackberry from NSA and was turned down. It was an attempt to have email outside her office.
posted by chris24 at 7:09 PM on July 5, 2016 [22 favorites]

It was clearly an attempt to avoid transparency. How malicious or criminal that is is an exercise for the reader/DoJ.

This is literally the opposite of what the FBI concluded
posted by Sara C. at 7:12 PM on July 5, 2016 [33 favorites]

It was an attempt to have email outside her office.

How does literally everyone in the govt. outside of POTUS manage?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:14 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

How does literally everyone in the govt. outside of POTUS manage?

I strongly suspect this is a question many infosec specialists in the government would really prefer you not ask.

Or, more importantly, one they'd rather not have to answer.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:15 PM on July 5, 2016 [25 favorites]

How does literally everyone in the govt. outside of POTUS manage?

Arguably, SoS is the second most important job after POTUS, one that she travelled 100 days a year doing. Every one else in government outside of POTUS has a less important, less demanding job.
posted by chris24 at 7:16 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

How does literally everyone in the govt. outside of POTUS manage?

They don't. Consider the Pentagon's payroll woes. A gazillion computer systems, and every time they spend a fortune to replace an ancient one, things seem to get worse (but some contractor walks away with a massive profit).
posted by zachlipton at 7:30 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

I look forward to Trey Gowdy heading up the next Congressional investigation into this matter.

Pretty much. My first thought on seeing this news was to wonder how quickly we'd see a Congressional investigation into the FBI's investigation.

Man, you guys are too good: Ryan: GOP will hold hearings on Clinton probe
posted by gladly at 7:33 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

I figure the vast majority of people in the US government try to follow whatever arcane infosec policies are in place while still trying to do their jobs using completely garbage technology in an environment where everything is in separate silos with virtually no ability to share data across proprietary platforms developed decades ago using the worst flaws of waterfall development.

That these monolithic platforms can't model the current demands for operational agility is part of why so many people are so frustrated with the current status quo. Private email servers are honestly probably the tip of the iceberg as there are probably all sorts of horrible hacks holding up all sorts of critical systems like the programming version of duct tape.
posted by vuron at 7:35 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Fear is so blinding that I really am sympathetic to the apologists but I need to echo the impression above that there's a lot of bending over backwards to excuse plainly unacceptable decisions under the guise of "everybody does it" and "we've got bigger problems" and so on and thank goodness those reasons don't usually fly when people express other kinds of concerns in this community, because damn. Those are not good reasons to shut a conversation down.

Clinton's behavior doesn't all have to be ok. You don't have to make excuses for her. She can make mistakes, even big ones, and she can be careless sometimes and reckless and sometimes even a little incompetent. If we're serious about our support for her we shouldn't be compromising what are otherwise outstanding values just to accommodate a fantasy that she is a perfect leader. She isn't a perfect leader. She did bad things, it is ok. I still want her to be president.
posted by an animate objects at 7:36 PM on July 5, 2016 [16 favorites]

So here's my question. How does Reince Priebus' life work at this point? Presumably he sits in his office and someone sticks their head in a few times a day:

Mr. Priebus?
Yes, yes, what is it now?
Donald Trump, er, now he just...

And then he's told that Trump has retweeted antisemitic imagery or praised Saddam Hussein or seemingly approved of replacing Muslim TSA employees with vets or whatever he's done now. What happens then? Is there a giant head-shaped indentation in his desk? A pile of broken telephones in the corner? How can anyone endure months worth of being officially responsible for the nonsense that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth yet have no control whatsoever?
posted by zachlipton at 7:41 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

Well, but even she admitted she did something wrong. And this has just gone on and on. And will still go on, even though it's essentially over now that the FBI bit is done.
posted by zutalors! at 7:44 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Fear is so blinding that I really am sympathetic to the apologists...

You don't have to be an apologist or so fearful you'll excuse anything to feel that this was a big mistake but not the travesty/felony that Republicans, Bernie or Busters, or others insist it is. The reason "everybody does it" often comes up is not to excuse the actions, but to question the reactions from everybody else. When it wasn't her, nobody gave a shit.
posted by chris24 at 7:44 PM on July 5, 2016 [31 favorites]

She's the best candidate who ran from either party this time around. She'll be an excellent president.

She had to have the head of the FBI publicly announce she wasn't under indictment so the President could appear with the presumptive nominee at a campaign stop in a battleground state.

Because they were investigating whether she should be under indictment, and while, no, it's not criminal neglect, it was really shady and dumb, and she lied her ass off to cover it up. (See: the AP BigStory factcheck linked above.) Did she think we wouldn't find out the truth after the FBI was involved? Maybe she just thinks we're stupid and amnesiac? That the AP (not exactly Breitbart) wouldn't follow up?

I mean, she won against a serious contender with a solid campaign... who had a late start... who relied on small donors... and also wasn't a member of the Democratic Party until last year... so yeah, she ran the best campaign. The best candidate?

At this point Linc Chaffee looks like a better candidate.

In any other year, she would be headed for an embarrassing loss. Red-faced embarrassed loss. Tarnishing the Clinton Presidency because she was so involved in it loss. The Democratic bench is that ragged, where HRC is our best candidate.

Fortunately - or unfortunately if she screws it up - the GOP has on offer the Trumpster Fire, or if he's ratfcuked in Cleveland ~~Lil' Gideon~~ Ted Cruz or Paul "Yeah, I Guess I Will? I'll be bad at it though, and don't want to." Ryan. And yes, stop patting yourselves on the back, because Linc Chaffee could walk over any of them, and he was a legit terrible governor and debates like my daughter denying she stole a piece of Mommy's chocolate.

The Republicans are not the only party in crisis. Hopefully we can keep it together and pull off a win in November. Hopefully we expand our bench with a bunch of downticket wins. Hopefully Sec. Clinton learns something from this and becomes a more thoughtful executive.

This isn't an exoneration or exculpation. This is just the head of the FBI saying they don't think they can get a clean conviction, and she'd be neck deep in a Cabinet-level bun-fight the President would have to resolve if she were still at State.

That said. I don't expect Bernie to endorse her at the Convention at this point. He's not a Democrat, and he has different priorities. He will campaign against Trump and Republican candidates in important downticket races, tho. I don't agree with that decision, but I don't think it hurts Clinton's campaign enough to make a dent, and he can do some savage damage against the GOP, so it is what it is.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:46 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.

Except these actors do leave evidence when they hack some people? They just wouldn't when they hack Clinton?

The concern is for two different sorts of hackers really.

We know Guccifer hacked Blumental because he circulated emails to prove it. It's a good bet he didn't actually hack Clinton because he didn't circulate any proof. Hackers like Guccifer want people to know how 1337 they are.

We have no idea if foreign intelligence services hacked Blumental or Clinton because they prefer people underestimate how 1337 they are if anything. They don't publish for the world the news of what they did.

You can say the same thing for government systems of course. They could be hacked without leaving any evidence. *mumbles something about known unknowns* But I think the general idea is that we want government oversight on security for government business even if it too is flawed. Guccifer used old school low tech methods for the most part. In a post Stuxnet world it's hard to imagine the sort of high tech stuff nation states can add to that old school arsenal.

I personally think Clinton screwed up big here and this is among the reasons I do not want to vote for her, but as usual with Clinton scandals the far bigger issues are being ignored. We really need to get better at computer security. It has to be taken very seriously. Not just by the government, but by all of us. The inconvenient security rules are usually there for a reason, when you break them you put your information at risk.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:50 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

I mean, she won against a serious contender with a solid campaign... who had a late start... who relied on small donors... and also wasn't a member of the Democratic Party until last year... so yeah, she ran the best campaign. The best candidate?

Yeah, I think she's the best candidate. Bernie ran on a lot of the residual hatred of her from 25 years of being a woman in the public eye. He didn't have much of substance ever to offer.

She drew much closer to Obama, and now has his and Warren's full throated endorsement. She has MUCH better connections and relationships among her fellow Democrats than Warren, Sanders, or even Obama. She knows the details of policy inside and out.

She's very tough, has been a national political figure for most of my life, more dominant for more years than anyone else I can think of.

Yes, the best candidate.
posted by zutalors! at 7:51 PM on July 5, 2016 [33 favorites]

We do not need written admission of quid pro quo; the appearance of impropriety is a concrete, major bad thing.

Clinton's wife must be above suspicion.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:54 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Something that concerns me:

Trump is toxic. A lot of down ticket candidates are already saying "I don't support Trump, vote for me."

Hillary is somewhat less toxic, but a lot of down ticket candidates are going to be compelled to endorse her.

Toxicity may Trump this year, at least down ticket.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:54 PM on July 5, 2016

We did the hand-wringing and Very Serious Pontificating and tut-tutting over the email server months ago. Nothing new came out today that necessitates doing that all over again. To paraphrase a very wise man, some of us are sick and tired of hearing about her damn emails.
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:54 PM on July 5, 2016 [22 favorites]

The problem with language like "plainly unacceptable decisions" is that it assumes they are only evidenced by the actions of one person, group, or party, and not endemic to the bureaucracy, IT departments in general, and government IT specifically. The person in arguably one of the most important offices in government was told that her productivity and responsiveness were going to be constrained, because a system that was available to someone else (the President) would not be made available to her, because reasons.

To me, that's at least as unacceptable, if not more so. The proffered "solution" wasn't one, by any stretch. Time is a limited resource. Requiring the Secretary of State to take literally hours out of her day to travel to an SCIF, log into a slow, limited system running on an old, user-hostile OS (and oh, by the way, the Secretary Doesn't Do Windows, so include training and adaptation time), read and respond to messages in the SCIF, during which time she literally can't multitask, and then tack on the necessary travel time after she leaves the SCIF and resumes the rest of her day — is that the best use of the Secretary's time?

So, no, running an inadequately secured server wasn't the best choice, but neither was the rigid IT bureaucracy that made it the only practical option she had for remote access to email.
posted by fedward at 7:58 PM on July 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

18 weeks until the election, will this seriously hurt Mrs. Clinton's chances? No, for one BIG reason, with one OBVIOUSLY INEVITABLE prediction: when Republican Nominee Donald Trump gets his "candidate's foreign policy briefing", he will, within MINUTES, blurt out a mix of classified content and intentional mischaracterizations guaranteed to cause a series of international incidents that will dominate umpteen news cycles, and Hillary's "plainly unacceptable decisions" will be forgotten by all but the most shameless Trumists.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:01 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Hillary is somewhat less toxic, but a lot of down ticket candidates are going to be compelled to endorse her.

This just isn't true. She has an astounding number of endorsements. Those were all people who were "compelled"? By who? I tend to think they actually endorse her based on what they know of her.
posted by zutalors! at 8:01 PM on July 5, 2016 [14 favorites]

Yep, I don't think anyone is particularly happy with the solution that State came up with to allow her use a smartphone but I also understand that this is pretty much the price you pay for dealing with insane bureaucracies. I think the black eye is probably shared by multiple agencies and people because at the end of the day you want decision-makers to be put in place to make the best decisions using the most up to date information and when you are meeting with a head of state calling a quick time out so you can boot up your laptop, connect to a local network, establish a VPN tunnel, RDP into your desktop, open what is almost certainly a godawful client-server application, check the information, disconnect, etc while making sure that nobody could social engineer your screen is beyond stupid.

The link Zachlipton provided about the DFAS system is indicative of the sort of crap sys admins have to deal with regularly in all areas of the US government. We aren't talking nice web apps but god awful client server application running on ancient hardware that you probably connect to via 3270 sessions or VT100 (if you are lucky).

Everytime I hear about the sort of horrible systems in place in the US Government I think that Brazil was probably more of a documentary and less of a piece of speculative fiction.
posted by vuron at 8:01 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

I am SO glad the the email scandal is here to give people a new reason to loudly criticize Clinton. Otherwise, they may be down to complaining about her hair and outfits.

It's also great in that you have something important to talk about. Not something trivial, like say, a candidate raping children.
posted by happyroach at 8:01 PM on July 5, 2016 [19 favorites]

running an inadequately secured server wasn't the best choice

I am neither an IT expert nor a complete political junkie, but haven't I read in this very thread that that server actually performed MORE securely than the government option?
posted by yhbc at 8:02 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

This isn't an exoneration or exculpation. This is just the head of the FBI saying they don't think they can get a clean conviction.

He literally said because there was no evidence of intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information which is required for prosecution “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” So it's not just one gunshy FBI guy not wanting to lose a tough case. It's something pretty much no one would think was worth a criminal charge per the terms of the law and the FBI's findings. Unless you think a lifelong R and Bush appointee with 7 years to go in his intentionally long 10 year term designed to make him immune to the vagaries of partisan politics was talking it easy on her.
posted by chris24 at 8:02 PM on July 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

Yeah, I think she's the best candidate. Bernie ran on a lot of the residual hatred of her from 25 years of being a woman in the public eye. He didn't have much of substance ever to offer.

I think, and I support Clinton here, that this may be taking it a bit too far. Sanders had a populist message that resonated with a lot of people. Not all of it was anti-Clinton scandal, though I don't deny that some of it was. Sanders didn't have a lot to back up that message with, nor did he demonstrate how he would have any hope of achieving his goals, which were often vague and ill-defined, but he did have something that people were attracted to, and it's not fair to call that something 100% "anybody but Clinton."

And I think it's important to understand the appeal of Sanders' message for people, because the discontent they have isn't going away. Some of it is the same feelings that lead people to Trump and Brexit. Understanding and responding to it is better than dismissing it out of hand.

In short, I agree that she's the best candidate and the Sanders was short on substance in many areas, but I do think there was at least some there there, and supporting Clinton doesn't mean we need to or should ignore that.
posted by zachlipton at 8:02 PM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

My one worry about a Hillary presidency is that the GOP will pretty much blow any tiny thing up into THE WORST SCANDAL SINCE WATERGATE AND/OR THE LAST THING WE ACCUSED HILLARY OF.

And we know three things about Bill Clinton's endless scandals during his presidency:
1. The GOP would stop at nothing to investigate them, even when they were tiny, petty things
2. Every scandal is a fishing expedition, and every fishing expedition yields a new scandal
3. The more they pushed Bill, the more conservative he tacked thanks to his triangulation

It's #3 we should worry about with Hillary. Sadly, the Right (and now some on the Left) don't seem to tire of Evil Witch Hillary And Her Murderous Lesbian Ways. But it'll be background noise. The question is whether the noise will distract her from her tack to the left and pull her back to the right.

That said, she's probably the most experienced Democrat to run for the presidency in a long time.
posted by dw at 8:05 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I didn't call it "100% anybody but Clinton." I was responding to the idea that she's a terrible candidate because Bernie Sanders launched an effective charge against her. You're extrapolating a lot from what I wrote.
posted by zutalors! at 8:05 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

haven't I read in this very thread that that server actually performed MORE securely than the government option?

From what I've seen, the first server was set up so quickly that it didn't even have encryption turned on. A second server set up by different, more experienced people (or maybe even the same people, just after learning something) implemented at least basic security best practices. I'm not sure there's any credible claim it was more secure, but as of now there's at least no evidence it was ever compromised.
posted by fedward at 8:11 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

She has an astounding number of endorsements.

No doubt. I'm just concerned her negatives are going to come into play there, whereas GOP non/disendorsements give them more wiggle room.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:13 PM on July 5, 2016

Personally, the Chicago protests and the cross-party debate fake out made me relieved that Sanders isn't running against Trump. I have a feeling that Trump would have had a much better chance of baiting and trolling Sanders into doing something rash or foolish. And even Sanders supporters agree and love the fact that he's totally not a team player and it would have been probably hard to get him to coordinate and stay on message with the rest of the Democratic Party.

I think Sanders would do much better against Rubio or Bush though.
posted by FJT at 8:17 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Even if she had access to a spy-proof room at all times in the US, why would there be an assumption that she would have access to a spy-proof room overseas? Especially when it's clear that even allies tend to spy relentless on each other.

Better Infosec required? Yep
Better IT systems required? Yep
Better data classification? Yep
Better IT auditing? Yep

Let me know when the US government gets all of that fixed because I could use some help wrangling all 4 of those problems.

What's funny is that the Clinton server apparently was actually more secure than the State department email servers and certainly did a better job of actually archiving her emails.

Yeah it probably was a Blackberry Enterprise Server running some sort of Exchange, Domino, Groupwise plugins. Having seen BES servers be setup to support a single user in the past I know what sort of personal hell for sysadmins trying to setup and maintain this environment probably was.

God I can only hope that it wasn't tied into a Lotus Domino server because what fresh hell that would be. I can totally understand why said admin probably disabled any sort of virus scanning and DLP functions for that server because seriously fuck that shit. That's when you just tell the end user to never click on attachments from Nigerian princes.
posted by vuron at 8:20 PM on July 5, 2016

because there was no evidence of intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information which is required for prosecution “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

That's not the standard of conviction for your average joe, though. For most people, "negligence" is enough.
posted by corb at 8:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Two thoughts based on the timing of the FBI interview and statement:

1) Clinton's interview with the FBI over the 4th of July weekend had no material bearing on the investigation. The announcement was weeks in the making and the interview just dotted the i's and crossed the t's.

2) I don't believe Comey's statement that no one else in government knew about the results of the investigation. There's no way on earth the president of the United States would schedule a major appearance with a presidential candidate later the same day as the FBI announcement unless they knew there wouldn't be an indictment.

I support Clinton and think the email "scandal" is a nothingburger. She didn't do anything Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice didn't do before her.

I'm just concerned her negatives are going to come into play there, whereas GOP non/disendorsements give them more wiggle room.

On the contrary, I believe this is the last hurdle and she will only pick up more endorsements from here.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:24 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

That's not the standard of conviction for your average joe, though. For most people, "negligence" is enough.

Luckily we don't have a Brexit style snap referendum on "Should Clinton Go To Trial" and so this topic is pretty much settled by this Comey announcement.
posted by zutalors! at 8:25 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

It would be settled if the Rs weren't set on doing a probe of a probe of a probe.

Seriously, they like probing so much, you gotta wonder why.
posted by stolyarova at 8:26 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

That's not the standard of conviction for your average joe, though. For most people, "negligence" is enough.

True. People are hating on Greenwald here, but in the piece linked to above he does adduce two people who were recently prosecuted for mishandling classified information in ways like Clinton: namely, Kristian Saucier and Bryan Nishimura. The latter case is particularly close to Clinton's: Nishimura moved classified information onto his own personal computer for ease of use, not with intent to distribute widely. It's hard to see find a non-political reason why these people get prosecuted and Clinton didn't.
posted by crazy with stars at 8:31 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Maybe because in those cases they knew when they setup the unauthorized workaround that they'd be moving classified information there whereas this was a tiny number of emails that probably carelessly ended up in a forum where classified stuff isn't allowed? (Repeat: classified stuff isn't allowed on email at all, no matter the hosting.) That is, there was no intent to put classified information on email when she decided to setup private email.
posted by R343L at 8:35 PM on July 5, 2016 [13 favorites]

No not really Corb, the DoE acting counterintelligence director investigating Wen Ho Lee indicated that many incidents regarding TOP SECRET information shared in the National Labs did not result in prosecution or even professional sanctioning.

There are probably all sorts of data leaks happening as we speak but most of them are not based upon malfeasance so most of them probably get handled informally. It's just that the high profile nature of Clinton means that even a relatively minor lapse in judgement regarding proper INFOSEC procedures is going to become a major scandal.

In contrast I think everyone was so happy to see the backside of Bush, Rove and Rice that Obama basically decided to ignore all of the incredibly stupid shit they pulled from 2000-2008 because that's what Presidents do for former Presidents.
posted by vuron at 8:35 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

The Republicans are not the only party in crisis.

Well, the Greens haven't really ever got it together, but I don't know that I'd call it a crisis.

The Democrats are not having a crisis or anything like it, but man, people are really trying to make that case. Because you have to keep both sides equal, I guess.
posted by bongo_x at 8:46 PM on July 5, 2016 [19 favorites]

Seriously, they like probing so much, you gotta wonder why.

Aliens controlling the Republican Congress? And not aliens from Mars, Venus or even Pluto; they are totally from Uranus.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:03 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

I think it is likely that Saucier and Nishimura took plea bargains to head off what would have been more serious charges. Iirc prosecutors of Saucier were pretty sure he was planning to try to sell or distribute pictures of classified parts of nuclear submarines. It seems like the schemes they had didn't get past the early phase and so the harm was limited.
posted by humanfont at 9:04 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

The irony is that Clinton's servers might have actually been more secure thanks to security-by-obscurity. Given the attack vectors of hackers after Fed servers, putting one outside of the system means you have to know exactly what to look for.

I'm not excusing her or the clumsiness of their attempts at security, but I am noting that with as piss-poor the Federal SOC has been performing, the fact she wasn't hacked might not be dumb luck.
posted by dw at 9:40 PM on July 5, 2016

The Democrats are not having a crisis or anything like it, but man, people are really trying to make that case. Because you have to keep both sides equal, I guess.

Both sides aren't equal. The Republicans have been murdering the Democratic Party in every election apart from the POTUS for almost ten years now. There are fewer Democrats in office nationwide at the local, state and national level, now, today, than at any time since Hoover was in office. These are not nice and moderate Republicans we can agree to disagree with, no siree.

Ham-handed shady shenanigans like this email thing are not going to help nab unaffiliated voters or drive them to the polls.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:45 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

The irony is that Clinton's servers might have actually been more secure thanks to security-by-obscurity. Given the attack vectors of hackers after Fed servers, putting one outside of the system means you have to know exactly what to look for.

You're pulling our legs, right? You don't seriously believe that an email address used in tens of thousands of pieces of cleartext correspondence with a broad, global audience is some kind of secret, do you?
posted by indubitable at 9:48 PM on July 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

That should tell you everything you need to know about how bad government IT is and how much we're all getting fleeced by the big contractors.

Shades of the Obamacare website...
posted by en forme de poire at 11:29 PM on July 5, 2016

The purpose of the Bush / RNC email was used to conduct Republican party business while at the White House, fund raising and be a continual campaign. The Rove idea was to have a permanent majority by turning the power of the executive into an extension of the party. Appointment of loyalists, then using government funds and powers of departments to benefit the team and get out the vote. It was pretty bad, but because all the evidence (besides testimony) remaining was images of the hard drive at different points in its life, it was hard to reconstruct without knowing what each set of bits represented. Different email finds were matched to image, so pieces were identified but the bulk was unidentifiable. In testimony it didn't sound like a hopeless cause but that was years ago now.

Also years ago, James Comey thwarted Bush is a wild cloak and dagger night in Washington. Comey was acting AG (attorney general) because Ashcroft was in the hospital. When Comey refused to sign off on warrentless wiretapping, a race for the hospital began. White House staff (Alberto Gonzalez and Andrew Card) were going to try to get a stricken and discombobulated Ashcroft's signature instead. Comey got there first and stood them down. The White House then decided it would just go ahead without legal approval and Comey along with FBI director Muller and AG Ashcroft and their staff prepared to resign. The White House agreed to some changes to get approval but then they just said fuck it and appointed Gonzalez AG ... fun times. The hearing wasn't even about that, it was about the politicization of the justice department and the firing of attorneys. I can't find it on CSPAN but they must have a copy, the senate judiciary has it but requires real player (starts around 33 min in), but there is a clip on youtube. It was pretty jaw dropping.

The email thing ... one of my cousins was Canada's Minister of Defense, for a short while. He left his briefcase in a strip club in Germany, but he resigned promptly and everything was good. (I think there was an investigation too but nothing came of it). My grandmother was pretty mad, she and my grandfather were dedicated party members, drove people to the polls and gave them presents of money or whiskey ... couldn't have both ... there are rules. Anyway, she declared my grandfathers side to be all oversexed. I thought this was great news. Oversexed, fuck yeah!

When I was in the military I was cleared to top secret. I only really needed secret for my job but it was good to have because I got to teach some signals classes (on ship identification). The military actually sent agents to talk to my neighbours and friends and teachers. I found out about it afterward, I was surprised they went to so much effort. A rough break down on classification, classified is silly stuff you can find by going to a library, so like the specs for the C7 (Canadian M16 or between A1 and A2 versions. I think we use or used (no idea currently) a slightly heavier barrel too) classified. Good stuff like social insurance numbers are also found here. Secret gets into operations and tactics. Study WW2 and know how modern armies organize and operate and you know all secret. Top secret is signals, the keys used to encrypt and send secure and verifiable orders. Also communications interception. But just being cleared doesn't give you a right to know or all access pass, every level is still need to know.

The thing that sucks is all the security procedures and record keeping required. First books are all locked down, you sign for the room, you sign for the cabinet, you sign for a book count and you sign for a page count of any book you use. 300 page book, you count every page, making sure the numbers all follow, etc. Also they aren't like printed books, they are all hand assembled because there are revisions and we have to take them apart and destroy the old pages (signed for of course) and put in the updated pages from time to time.

Counting pages is one of the least fun things I've ever had to do. So while it seems stupid and overkill a lot of the time, it is a form of hazing that probably makes me biased about how seriously security should be taken. On one hand I'm like, I had to fucking count pages and was made aware in no uncertain terms that any deviation was reprimandable, to the point of being career ending or even seeing prosecution, so everyone needs to take security protocols seriously. On the other, I'm like, secret sounds more intriguing than it ever actually is ... so those are some of my random thoughts on the matter.

One of my favorite explanations as to how the state department works, what secrets are used for in diplomacy and generally exploring the foreign service and has a lot of insights on Washington power struggles and how the diplomat operates.
BookTV, Diplomacy Lessons (starts about 5 minutes in, 1hr20min, main presentation approx 45 min followed with Q&A).
John Brady Kiesling, a twenty-year veteran of the foreign service, publicly resigned his position as political counselor to the U.S. Embassy in Athens in February 2003 to protest the Bush administration’s impending invasion of Iraq
posted by phoque at 11:37 PM on July 5, 2016 [25 favorites]

gosh it's so nice to wake up and learn the new exciting news is we all have an excuse to talk again about the one thing the Woman running for president ever did across three decades that's even got a thin veneer of being worth talking about

paired as it is with a nice citrus slice of people telling us that it's because the republicans are so awful that we should capitulate to talking about every single one of their anti-Woman talking points so that they won't blindside us with their uh wait what were we talking about again

oh right it's how the Left is being silenced because people are annoyed about glenn greenwald acting like his cause is such a big one that it matters more than literally every other issue in the campaign, when even those of us who like greenwald most years can tell that's not the case

and speaking as a programmer the idea of constraining government employees' behaviors by what its IT/security teams can whip up is so absurd that it boggles my mind that anybody would think this would happen

i have clients who break hundreds of thousands worth of web architecture because they want to give their tables a garish baby blue background

technology is a shit pit and the thought of criminally prosecuting people doing stupid things to circumvent its obvious limitations gives me chills because doing stupid things to circumvent its limitations is my and every other programmer's job description

which is why it's a shit pit in the first place

i support all citizens' rights to assume that maybe the security team doesn't understand their job as well as the citizens themselves do, if it's actively getting in the way of them doing one of the most important jobs on the planet

if it's just about your baby blue tables though you'd better sit down and shut up because man let me tell you
posted by rorgy at 3:36 AM on July 6, 2016 [49 favorites]

> "Ryan: GOP will hold hearings on Clinton probe"

... and then we wait for a witness to blurt something out!
posted by kyrademon at 4:50 AM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Politifact rates the claim "Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email" Mostly False

Politifact rates the claim "Hillary Clinton's claim that her email practices were 'allowed'" False

Hillary has been lying about this issue for quite a while now. All the tu quoque argumentation in this thread doesn't change that fact.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:12 AM on July 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Politifact rates the claim "Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email" Mostly False

This is Mostly False because prior to Powell most didn't use email and for Powell it's because he used AOL vs. a private server. Not sure using a commercial service where the company has access to and can read the emails makes that less careless. Regardless, Powell used a non-governmental, non-secure unapproved private email service.
posted by chris24 at 5:18 AM on July 6, 2016 [14 favorites]

>Not sure using a commercial service where the company has access to and can read the emails makes that less careless.

So I ctrl+F'ed the report just now and three times Comey explains how commercial email services would theoretically be more secure than what she was doing. Have y'all actually read it?
posted by Phyltre at 6:16 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Powell used a public email service

Rice used the RNC provided email service

Clinton had her tech team install a private email server

All of these are sketchy but in terms of potential unlawful access Clinton undoubtedly had the smallest access list.

As much as some executives would probably like to go back to the model of having their executive assistants hand them a secure briefing in the morning and then print out all their email for them (don't laugh I've been around executives that do this) it's not really the best model for a modern complex organization where a Cabinet secretary might be expected to answer a question on a minute's notice.

One of the thing that the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars seems to have taught US policymakers is that the old methods of running organizations are no longer adequate, centralized decision-making has an inevitable time delay and limiting access to advanced communication tools has a negative impact on operational velocity. Security is definitely a major concern for all organizations particularly the US government but there needs to be a balance between security and effectiveness.

Based upon the sheer volume of emails and the very low percentage of communications that contained classified material it's clear that Clinton did not as a matter of course conduct classified business over her email. Yes it's clear that some of the emails contained classified material but it's not clear that there was any specific intent to unlawfully distribute state secrets. We don't know the specific nature of the email chains in detail but it's not entirely clear when or how top secret information came into the discussion, whether it was Secretary Clinton or another correspondent on an email chain. While these are potentially serious issues that should be rectified by a periodic security review there isn't any clear indication that the information transmitted somehow compromised national security.

In contrast there is clear evidence that the Bush White House revealed top secret information to a number of journalists in the run up to the Iraq war and as far as I know Dubya is still sitting fat dumb and happy in his home in Texas.
posted by vuron at 6:18 AM on July 6, 2016 [14 favorites]

three times Comey explains how commercial email services would theoretically be more secure

Actually, once he says a commercial service would have better archiving, once he says a commercial service would have a full-time security staff and once he says that the commercial services used by others - not her - were known to be hacked while hers wasn't known to be. I guess you can make your own determination if better archiving and a full-time staff is worth having AOL reading the SoS's email.
posted by chris24 at 6:23 AM on July 6, 2016 [13 favorites]

So basically what I have learned from this discussion is that people who are predisposed to think that Hillary Clinton is a terrible person are going to see further evidence that she's terrible, and people who are predisposed to think she'd be a good president are not going to see that. Jury is still out on people who are neutral, assuming there are any of them.

I think the Republican hearings are probably a misstep: it's going to play into the perception that this is all just politics.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:31 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

It seems likely we'd know the commercial services were accessed because they're commercial services and would have had intrusion detection of even a basic level--sign-in attempt logs at the least are trivially visible for many types of commercial accounts online but you'd have to go looking for them (if they were even being kept) on a server like what Clinton was using. So I'd more or less taken the fact that we don't know that server was compromised as more of a bug than a feature.

I'm just a little saddened that even HIPAA-level rigor wasn't being followed. I mean, since I'm our company's HIPAA Security Officer and it's really Not That Hard to do, so long as nobody believes their job is more important than the rules that protect the information. If we had lied in a Breach Notification in the way that the AP report confirms Clinton misrepresented the email situation, we'd probably be looking at millions in fines.
posted by Phyltre at 6:35 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

HIPPA violations are typically handled with civil sanctions not criminal sanctions. In this case it's apparently clear that there were no criminal violations by Clinton (and presumably her tech team) or if there were they weren't with a specific criminal intent.

I am not sure if there are any civil penalties to violations of national security but I figure that there aren't or they are limited to administrative punishments. But in this case Clinton is not a Federal Employee (she will be in January I guess) so I guess there really isn't anything that can actually be done in the short term other than maybe limiting her access to what the nominees typically receive in terms of security briefings (which everyone is already terrified of giving Trump access to).
posted by vuron at 6:42 AM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Trump Suggests Hillary Clinton Bribed Attorney General Over Email Scandal

Headline writer is a coward. Trump didn't merely "suggest" a bribe, he explicitly states it:

So Hillary said today, at least according to what I saw on television, which you can't always believe. I actually found it hard to believe she'd said this, but she said today that we may consider the attorney general to go forward. That's like a bribe, isn't it? Isn't it sort of a bribe? I think it's a bribe.

I mean, the attorney general sitting there saying, you know, if I get Hillary off the hook I'm going have four more years or eight more years, but if she loses I'm out of a job. It's a bribe! It's a disgrace!

posted by zakur at 6:43 AM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

How is Trump talking shit and making up lies out of whole cloth even news as this point.

Free Media Airtime to the rescue!
posted by vuron at 6:46 AM on July 6, 2016

Steve Benen: What James Comey and John Roberts have in common

Comey, in case anyone’s forgotten, is a lifelong Republican who served as a top official in the Bush/Cheney Justice Department. He cut his teeth as a public-sector attorney in the 1990s, when Comey signed on “as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee,” where he went after, of all people, Hillary Clinton.

I’m not aware of anyone on the right questioning Comey’s abilities or professionalism ahead of yesterday’s announcement in the email matter. On the contrary, Republicans gave Comey a vote of confidence as recently as June. Politico published this report one month ago today:
Should the FBI not recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton following its investigation of the setup of her private email server, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) on Monday said he and his Republican colleagues would “probably” accept the outcome.

“Oh, probably, because we do believe in [FBI Director] James Comey,” the Utah Republican said during an appearance on Fox News’ “Outnumbered.” “I do think that in all of the government, he is a man of integrity and honesty.”
Yesterday, however, Chaffetz said the exact opposite, and accused Comey of failing to carry out his duties. Other GOP members of Congress made related arguments, while some Republican pundits adopted an even harsher posture.

The pattern matters. John Roberts was an excellent justice, Republicans said, right up until he strayed from the partisan script. Trey Gowdy was the perfect person to lead the GOP’s Benghazi Committee, they said, right up until he failed to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton.

And Jim Comey was a fine FBI director, right up until he left his party dejected by exercising independent judgment.

posted by zombieflanders at 6:50 AM on July 6, 2016 [33 favorites]

Really flagrant HIPAA violations often go completely unpunished, but that's a whole different can of worms.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:51 AM on July 6, 2016

"I do think that in all of the government, he is a man of integrity and honesty."

You... you realize you're in the government, right, Representative Chaffetz?
posted by Etrigan at 6:52 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

And Jim Comey was a fine FBI director, right up until he left his party dejected by exercising independent judgment.

Old hat, though, right? An independent conservative think tank praised by the GOP looked into Whitewater and said "eh, there's nothing to it." Then a special prosecutor who was a Republican and praised by the GOP looked into Whitewater and said "eh, there's probably nothing to it." Then Ken Starr. We stand by our principles as long as they get us what we want. Otherwise, ehhhhhh...
posted by middleclasstool at 6:58 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Honestly, the rhetoric from the right and the trump troops has been disgusting enough so far, but it makes me sick how he has the balls to state how reckless and careless Hillary is WHEN HIS CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN SOLICITING FUNDS FROM EVERY FOREIGN NATIONAL POSSIBLE.

Because the LEAST DAMNING defense here is that these emails were sent because the campaign was reckless and careless, not intentionally soliciting foreigners. How is emailing half the world's PMs and parliament with the defense of "oops" anything but reckless and careless? In what sort of world is this less evil than whatever Hillary's been accused of?

I really hope the Donny Short-Dick spectacle ends sooner than later. I think we've had to accept that we've been living in a post-fact society for awhile now, but the beyond blatant hypocrisy is enough to make me puke.
posted by andruwjones26 at 7:01 AM on July 6, 2016 [12 favorites]

Y'all know that the 'spread shit and while the other lot are endlessly picking out the sweetcorn, go out and spread more shit' is basically the entire right-wing playbook at the moment?

Stop picking out the sweetcorn. It doesn't matter. The enemy is over there, on the shit-spreader, heading on.
posted by Devonian at 7:08 AM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

I heard a poll last night on NPR that found that Americans find Trump more trustworthy than Clinton. And I had a flashback to Kerry getting swift boated and those moments in 2004 when I was like *really. really? really. is this really happening? really?*

Anyways maybe if somebody heard about that poll and knows some good reasons why it's bullshit, dropping that knowledge would be really awesome.
posted by angrycat at 7:15 AM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

This is why Trump can be perceived as more honest and for his dishonesty to not matter as much. Men running for office just aren't expected to be as honest as women and women are penalized harsher for perceived gaps.
posted by R343L at 7:22 AM on July 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Possibly this poll:

But voters believe Trump is more honest and trustworthy (45-37 percent) and a stronger leader (49-43 percent).

There's also a lot about how both Clinton and Trump are overall disliked, and the long campaign season sucks, etc.
posted by Etrigan at 7:25 AM on July 6, 2016

ok. they polled 1600 people nationwide for that poll.
posted by zutalors! at 7:41 AM on July 6, 2016

I think it's dumb that people think Trump is more trustworthy, but 1600 people for a sample is plenty. Unless there are problems with the construction of the sample that's pretty robust.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:45 AM on July 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Well, here's the thing.

Donald Trump being "honest" is kind of his schtick. For him, honesty means saying every single half-cocked nonsense that pops into your head the very second the synapses fire. There have always been people who see this as a virtue (in men because women saying what they think are bitches). These people tend to not be real thoughtful about the full implications of this brand of honesty, which, in personal lives tends to lead to people who are quite happy to burn bridges and blow up families over every single id-bubble that erupts from their brainpan, and in national service generally ends with dick pics or a World War. But there's plenty of people out there who, when asked whether it's always better to say what you really think will say yes, always. And if there's one thing Trump is super good at, it's saying what he thinks.

What Donald Trump's vaunted honesty does not include is facts. He's real honest about his feelings, but much less so about the facts of his finances, his marriages, his business dealings, and his many, many cons. But a lot of people really don't care about that. I think it's been shown that a whole lot of people don't actually believe in facts. Everything is an "opinion" or "just my beliefs." So when you get a guy who says absolutely anything and frames it as "hey, these are just my beliefs" then you get the perfect representation of a certain brand of "honesty."

Also, a balloon filled with farts that happens to have a penis will always get categorized as a stronger leader over anything with a vagina. Misogyny!
posted by soren_lorensen at 7:46 AM on July 6, 2016 [38 favorites]

I’m not aware of anyone on the right questioning Comey’s abilities or professionalism ahead of yesterday’s announcement in the email matter. On the contrary, Republicans gave Comey a vote of confidence as recently as June. Politico published this report one month ago today:

In (sort of) fairness, I’ve seen at least one person in this thread question Comey’s professionalism because he’s a Republican appointee, with the implication that if this had come down the other way then Comey would have been playing politics. I’ve also seen people get extremely angry when they’ve discovered that a given Supreme Court justice on the liberal wing has flipped. This is anecdata, of course, but in some ways I think that this particular kind of flip-flopping by Republicans is reflected across the country, albeit in slightly moderated form.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:47 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

/r/SFP is linking National Review and getting highly upboated.

This timeline sucks. Can I switch back to one that's sane?
posted by Talez at 8:32 AM on July 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

It's like when Farage declared Brexit as a 'victory for real people' - a phrase which, if used by a victorious Remain, would be loudly decried as evidence of the elite dismissing the working class (or whatever permutation of synonyms you prefer).

"He speaks his mind. I like him."
"But listen to what he's saying - that means his mind is junk!"
"It's like MY mind. You elitist. I hate you."

or

"He's lying. Nothing he says is right."
"But it's based on facts. He's telling the truth. He's speaking his mind."
"Doesn't make any sense to me. He's either corrupt or stupid, but he's clever, so he must be corrupt. I hate him."

That's how it works. To break it, you must have an empathic bond that establishes trust, while also being honest about things people don't want to hear. The other side don't have that second issue, so it's much easier for them (I'm not saying there aren't people who honestly and in good faith there, just that they're not the people running the show.)

It's all about creating the narrative you want that includes the people you want to sway, in ways that they recognise and are open to.

If you're intellectually honest, then that's a lot harder than if you're not. But the truly great political figures are those who can.

.
posted by Devonian at 8:35 AM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

it feels materially different for people on the internet to grouse about it than it does for sitting representatives in Congress to pledge action on it.

We’re all people on the Internet now.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:36 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Donald Trump says he now supports anti-transgender law in North Carolina
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:38 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Alex Seitz-Wald: Clinton Adopts Key Piece of Sanders Student Debt Plan

On Wednesday, Clinton will add the three new components to her "New College Compact" affordability plan, which she rolled out months ago.

The biggest is an attempt to provide tuition-free access to college for up to 80% of families.

The plan would start by making in-state colleges and university free for students from families making $85,000 a year or less. That income threshold would then climb by $10,000 a year until 2021, when in-state schools would then be free to all families who make $125,000 or less.

Clinton will also announce a proposal to create a three-month moratorium on student loan payments to all federal borrowers. The idea would be to allow students to use this period to get a better handle on their debt by offering them assistance, re-financing options, and more.

And finally, Clinton wants to restore year-round Pell Grants, which would help students get funding for summer classes.

And here's Sanders' (nice IMO) response.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:47 AM on July 6, 2016 [25 favorites]

Donald Trump says he now supports anti-transgender law in North Carolina

I'm curious to see if any of the companies in the "Against Column" here are also sponsoring the Republican Convention.
posted by zarq at 8:50 AM on July 6, 2016

@ScottWalker Last August, I said I'd support the GOP nominee. It's now clear who the RNC delegates will vote to nominate. And he is better than she is.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:54 AM on July 6, 2016

Scott, you can't even say either of their names. Sit the fuck down and let the adults talk.
posted by Etrigan at 8:56 AM on July 6, 2016 [21 favorites]

That Quinnipiac poll notwithstanding, the aggregate still looks decent for Clinton. (That little drop is not actually a real drop in Clinton's numbers, but a correction to the data sources that was made recently.) 538 gives something similar, for a sanity check. (Trump is still polling way higher than he has any right to be, of course, but that goes without saying.)
posted by en forme de poire at 9:01 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Scott, you can't even say either of their names. Sit the fuck down and let the adults talk.

But if he says ~~Voldemort~~ ... ~~Trump~~... well, You-Know-Who, a horde of Death Eaters will show up on his doorstep.
posted by zarq at 9:05 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm curious to see if any of the companies in the "Against Column" here are also sponsoring the Republican Convention.

Apple is out. (Although they already were)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:17 AM on July 6, 2016

> How is Trump talking shit and making up lies out of whole cloth even news as this point.

I have a feeling we ain't seen nothin' yet. This comment of mine from 2012 now seems depressingly naive.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:22 AM on July 6, 2016

The reality is that the federal government is hopelessly behind the times on heaps if technology.

The VA is still using 30 year old software (not to mention hardware) and it's structure is in complete chaos.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:30 AM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

The plan would start by making in-state colleges and university free for students from families making $85,000 a year or less. That income threshold would then climb by $10,000 a year until 2021, when in-state schools would then be free to all families who make $125,000 or less.

While I'd prefer something that does away with means testing altogether (how much are you really saving by subsidizing the really small slice of people from high income families vs. what you lose by forcing everyone to exhaustively document their incomes/assets/etc.?) that's still pretty great and I hope she is able to follow through on it.
posted by indubitable at 9:31 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Ben Kharakh and Dan Primack at Fortune: “Donald Trump’s Social Media Ties To White Supremacists”
posted by Going To Maine at 9:31 AM on July 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

One acquaintance I've been following is Georgia Southern professor Jared Yates Sexton. He live-tweeted a North Carolina Trump rally in mid-June, and that quickly became the basis for an article in New Republic which led to hate mail and death threats. He's written about his experiences in the New York Times and just this weekend headed back to another Trump rally in Raleigh and found the crowd thirstier for blood.
posted by Maaik at 9:51 AM on July 6, 2016 [20 favorites]

I don't know which frightens me more...Trump winning and his followers seeing it as legitimizing their actions against anyone not on their side, or Trump losing and his followers seeing it as a sign that violence is now their only way forward.

I just don't feel good about the days following the election, no matter how it turns out.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:54 AM on July 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

Trump losing and his followers seeing it as a sign that violence is now their only way forward

I'm partially soothed by my completely anecdotal assumption that most of these folks don't actually have the fucks to do anything that takes effort.
posted by soren_lorensen at 10:05 AM on July 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

btw: again, it's super early, but 538 currently gives the chance of a Clinton landslide (double-digit popular vote margin) at 31%, vs. 2% for a landslide Trump victory. I'll take even a marginal Clinton victory at this point, of course, but at least personally, I find the prospect of a national repudiation of Trump to be energizing.
posted by en forme de poire at 10:12 AM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Donald Trump and Megan Mullally perform the theme from Green Acres at the 2006 Emmys.
Conan O'Brien and Megan Mullally discussed the performance earlier this year.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:31 AM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Sanders booed by House Democrats
Sanders also stunned some of the Democrats in attendance when he told them that winning elections wasn't the only thing they should focus on. While they wanted to hear about how to beat Donald Trump — and how Sanders might help them win the House back — he was talking about remaking the country.
"The goal isn't to win elections, the goal is to transform America," Sanders said at one point, according to multiple lawmakers and aides in the room.
Some Democrats booed Sanders for that line, which plays better on the campaign trail than in front of a roomful of elected officials.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:43 AM on July 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

Charles Pierce: There's Only One Way Trump Can Benefit from the Clinton E-mail Saga, But he doesn't have the discipline to do it.

How Republicans Wasted the Clinton E-Mail Opportunity: They needed restraint. They needed to be sane. They failed.
posted by homunculus at 10:55 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

it's super early, but 538 currently gives the chance of a Clinton landslide (double-digit popular vote margin) at 31%, vs. 2% for a landslide Trump victory.

Even though I'm around 30% sure I'm being completely naive, I'm going to go ahead and put my prediction down here: I don't see Trump's candidacy making it to November, and if his name is on the ballot when I go to vote, I will be surprised and very, very sad.

Surprised because, if this country truly has any sense or decency left, the insanity that is his campaign will be stopped somehow before then, if not by outside actors then by Trump and his campaign finally doing enough to sink him. Very sad because, if we collectively as a group of human beings (adults in the U.S., specifically) allow this person and what he thinks and represents to actually appear on a ballot for President as the candidate of a major political party, then I can no longer ignore the evidence that my fellow Americans are not, to a significant degree, the people I think we are. (For now, it seems to me that Trump supporters are the ~30% of crazy consistently found in any population.)

I do fear that we may be--I think many in the UK are struggling with a similar reality following the evidence of the Brexit vote--and if so, we have bigger problems than Donald Trump, who is a symptom of us rather than a cause. But I am hopeful that my intuition is right: the name next to (R) on the Presidential ballot in November will not be Donald Trump.

(And even if I am laughably, hopelessly naive, isn't it nice to see that sentence in writing?)
posted by LooseFilter at 10:55 AM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

LooseFilter: "I do fear that we may be--I think many in the UK are struggling with a similar reality following the evidence of the Brexit vote--and if so, we have bigger problems than Donald Trump, who is a symptom of us rather than a cause."

I share similar feelings regarding symptoms vs. causes. On the one hand, there are some clear paths to defeating Trump; there are no guarantees, of course, but a combination of his poor general polling and weak-to-nonexistent campaign logistics make it seem like a tractable task. Defeating Trumpism -- nativism, racism, all the other bad -isms -- seems much more daunting.

I feel a similar thing about Brexit. On the one hand, it seems like there are potentially reasonable (although still unpleasant) paths to a relatively orderly transition in political and economic structures. What seems much more difficult to figure out is how to put a lid back on the simmering pot of xenophobic nationalism that seems on the verge of boiling over. If the end result of Brexit is a nice and tidy Norway-type EEA arrangement but UKIP becomes an even larger factor in UK politics, that would seem to be a poor exchange.
posted by mhum at 11:27 AM on July 6, 2016

Also from 538:

Trump May Become The First Republican In 60 Years To Lose White College Graduates

Which means Trump now does not carry:

- Women in general
- People of color, in general
- White college graduates
- Immigrants
- Muslims (and I'm going to assume other non-Christian "people of faith")
- Evangelical Christians
- People under 30

So... how exactly is he going to win an election?
posted by Sara C. at 11:33 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think the probability of Trump getting kicked off the ballot entirely is pretty slim at this point, unfortunately, and even if he were booted, it wouldn't change the fact that ~40% of America had been prepared to support him. That's part of why I prefer the scenario of working our way to a strong defeat for Trump at the ballot box. I also worry Trump could be replaced by someone more superficially reasonable or orthodox, but ultimately nearly as dangerous. And finally I think a DQ this late in the game is pretty unprecedented territory, and I'm not sure a DQ scenario wouldn't just inflame the xenophobic conspiracy theorizing that has propped up Trump's campaign instead of pouring water on it.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:34 AM on July 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Trump May Become The First Republican In 60 Years To Lose White College Graduates

The far more interesting statistic is that Trump's popularity with white college graduates is less than that of Goldwater back in '64.
posted by Talez at 11:36 AM on July 6, 2016

So... how exactly is he going to win an election?

Right, it's not even just that he doesn't have them...It's that...I mean...what could he possibly say to get them at this point? That's why the Republicans have to dump him if they want any chance, there is no strategy that can sell him to the people they need to sell him to.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:37 AM on July 6, 2016

what could he possibly say to get them at this point?

"Student loan forgiveness"
posted by Talez at 11:38 AM on July 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

So... how exactly is he going to win an election?
It's that...I mean...what could he possibly say to get them at this point?

I know. I'm just not going to be dumb enough to say it. All I'm going to say is, don't underestimate this situation.
posted by cashman at 11:41 AM on July 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Trump May Become The First Republican In 60 Years To Lose White College Graduates

I am so depressed by my people for the last sixty years.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:41 AM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Meanwhile (1):

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has removed himself from consideration to be Donald Trump’s running mate, a source close to Corker confirmed.

Meanwhile (2), Joni Ernst is more or less out, weasel words notwithstanding:

“I made that very clear to him that I’m focused on Iowa. I feel that I have a lot more to do in the United States Senate. And Iowa is where my heart is.”

posted by fedward at 11:44 AM on July 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump's not going to get a senator. Nobody with an ounce of political savvy would risk an influential position in the senate to be a figurehead role for a losing campaign that shows little signs of turning around before the general.

Especially since the toxic sludge of that campaign would never come off you. Your political career would be essentially over and every senator knows it.
posted by Talez at 11:47 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm still betting on Gingrich or Palin.
posted by stolyarova at 11:50 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has removed himself from consideration to be Donald Trump’s running mate, a source close to Corker confirmed.

In an interview with CNN, Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson disputed Corker’s withdrawal, saying he was absolutely still on the list he clearly said he doesn’t want to be on.

“Historically a lot of the candidates say they’re not interested or they don’t want to be considered,” Pierson told Wolf Blitzer. “At the end of the day, once they’re asked, they usually accept.”

“I will say he’s taking it very seriously,” Pierson said. “This is very personable.”

posted by Etrigan at 11:50 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Apparently, Mike Pence is still in the running as Trump's veep. He has until the 15th to remove his name from the Indiana ballot for Governor, as Indiana does not allow running for two offices at the same time.

I'd hate to inflict Pence on the rest of the nation, but getting him off the ballot would almost certainly ensure the Democratic candidate for Governor a win in November. So...Yay, Mikey!
posted by Thorzdad at 11:51 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump beats expectations, raises $51 million with GOP in June
posted by peeedro at 11:51 AM on July 6, 2016

What seems much more difficult to figure out is how to put a lid back on the simmering pot of xenophobic nationalism that seems on the verge of boiling over.

Definitely this. I'm much more worried about what Trump represents, what the success of his candidacy so far reveals about us as a culture, than him specifically. Individual actors can be disempowered shockingly quickly if the culture that empowers them changes (even presidents or billionaires). In the U.S., of course, he's stirred the pot up with xenophobic nationalism, but also a host of further awfulness directed at lots of "others" among us.

My hope is that, both in the US and the UK, this is mainly a last intense flaring of the old world orders because they know they are about to die. (There are clear, material causes, to be sure, but practical problems have practical solutions. Problems of ideas, concepts, framing, feelings....much trickier.) I think I remain optimistic in the face of it all because I teach undergraduates for a living, and those kids mostly get it. Even with energetically differing political opinions, they do not accept otherization well at all, of any kind.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:53 AM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

That's why the Republicans have to dump him if they want any chance, there is no strategy that can sell him to the people they need to sell him to.

OK, this is total speculation, but I think the orthodox Republicans may just not have a lot of room to maneuver on that front. If they take more drastic actions to dump Trump, they risk provoking the Tea Party wing of their party further. It's no secret that older-school Republican lawmakers are both afraid of and sick of Tea Party primary threats and obstructionism at this point; that could potentially get even worse if Trump is forced out by party leadership. But if they keep him, then they're ceding control to someone who acts erratically, may not share a lot of their beliefs, and has no real party loyalty.
posted by en forme de poire at 12:01 PM on July 6, 2016

But I am hopeful that my intuition is right: the name next to (R) on the Presidential ballot in November will not be Donald Trump.

I don't know about that. I think we're past the point of no return, in more than one way. It's too late for the Republicans to disavow or DQ him, it's too late to shove all the nativist, racist xenophobia back to simmering under the surface. The sane if cowardly Republicans have apparently decided to hunker down and wait it out, never mind that the damage is done anyway. They've apparently decided to ignore that 2012 post mortem about how their party's headed for death if they don't make some inroads with minorities. But whatever, maybe they don't care as long as they can gerrymander their way into majorities in the House and Senate. I think they're doing serious long-term damage to their party though, damage that will bear out for decades to come.
posted by yasaman at 12:01 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

But I am hopeful that my intuition is right: the name next to (R) on the Presidential ballot in November will not be Donald Trump.

The Quicken Loans Arena will literally burn to the fucking ground if that happens.
posted by Etrigan at 12:02 PM on July 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

yasaman, those Republicans may also feel that giving Trump enough rope may enable them to take back control of the party in 2020.
posted by en forme de poire at 12:04 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Corker and Ernst withdrawing themselves after the FBI announcement suggests that it's more likely to blow over than to permanently damage Clinton's chances.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:04 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm surprised Corker withdrew. That's a big blow.
posted by zutalors! at 12:05 PM on July 6, 2016

“Historically a lot of the candidates say they’re not interested or they don’t want to be considered,” Pierson told Wolf Blitzer. “At the end of the day, once they’re asked, they usually accept.”

"I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse."
posted by stolyarova at 12:08 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Trump beats expectations, raises $51 million with GOP in June

Back to white-knuckling it. Although I have to admit that at this point I won’t trust this unless I see the receipts.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:09 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

The Quicken Loans Arena will literally burn to the fucking ground if that happens.

Unfortunately, I believe that this is true. I am starting to be of the mindset that for the safety and security of the country, we need to let this election happen with DT as the republican nominee, elect Hillary and hope that the Republican party can somehow heal its mangled body.
posted by Sophie1 at 12:10 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

I don't know. I'm kind of tired of people being afraid of Trump's hordes. Especially the Republicans.
posted by zutalors! at 12:18 PM on July 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

those Republicans may also feel that giving Trump enough rope may enable them to take back control of the party in 2020.

True! And it's obviously early yet for that kind of prognosticating, but I'm just not so certain Republicans can do anything but staunch the bleeding. They need to distance themselves from regressive nativism and xenophobia, but evidently, that's not what a loud portion of their base wants. And the louder that portion is, the more turned off the voters the Republicans need will be. They're in a drawn out death spiral unless/until they boot the Tea Party types. Maybe Trump will give them the excuse they need to do it, yeah, but no telling now if that will be a relatively orderly surgical excision or a messy, casualty-laden garbage fire.
posted by yasaman at 12:20 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Ryan Calls For Administrative Action

As the GOP vice presidential nominee in 2012, Ryan said he personally received classified information after the Republican National Convention that year. Just as he did on Fox News Tuesday night, Ryan again demanded that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper deny Clinton access to classified information after she officially becomes the nominee later this month at the Democratic National Convention.

“I think Clapper should deny Hillary Clinton access to classified information during this campaign given how she so recklessly handled classified information,” Ryan said.

Oh that's rich. Ryan thinks Donald J. Trump should get security briefings but Clinton can't be trusted to handle classified information.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:20 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Although I have to admit that at this point I won’t trust this unless I see the receipts.

We probably won't get any more details until July 20 when the detailed reports are due. This is when we'll find out if Trump really forgave the $50M-ish in personal loans that he has extended to his campaign.
posted by peeedro at 12:20 PM on July 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

There’s a theory about Trump’s fundraising, with the gist being that he’s manipulating the numbers with loans to himself to inspire donations from others, and will eventually use those donations plus public campaign financing to pay the loans back and make a tidy profit. It’s from a week ago but it looks more plausible than ever today.
posted by nicepersonality at 12:22 PM on July 6, 2016 [11 favorites]

The Quicken Loans Arena will literally burn to the fucking ground if that happens.

If we burn, we burn stopping fascism. There are worse deaths.
posted by corb at 12:26 PM on July 6, 2016 [28 favorites]

It all seems to hinge on how strong the Republican party can be over the next few months as a political party. If they really are as savvy and well-organized as they purport, they can recover and derail Trump's candidacy somehow. If not, and Trump is on the ballot come November, one thing is certain: it will be clear, irrefutable evidence of the death of the Republican party, both philosophically and practically.

I think corb is hardly alone in feeling like this is a fight for the party moreso than for the presidency, and I think that's correct and that it's a reality that may still only be dawning on many right now. Something called "Republican" may survive, but it won't be this, and there will be a lot of people looking for a political home following the multiple disasters that a full Trump campaign will certainly be, who can no longer comfortably call themselves "Republican" if it means that. So if there is any way to save the party from this point, I'm certain it is being and will continue to be vigorously pursued, as quietly as possible. (At least, it's what I would be doing. I wouldn't want to cede my political party to Donald Trump and the kind of people he attracts and incites.)

I doubt there is any real plan to stop the nomination itself, mind you--I agree that the potential for violence at the convention is too great for that. I imagine it's something like lethal information (via surprise informant? "newly discovered" evidence?), revealed mid- to late August, that makes it clearly impossible for him to continue as the nominee. Someone stalwart steps in to run as a sacrifice, but at least there is a Republican party left to repair following the election, and the sacrificial last-minute campaign would be simply about articulating better Republican values. Give Trump the convention, but not the party.

Again, though, I'm presuming that some critical mass of power players are smart and attentive enough to recognize what's really happening, and have the ability to act on that effectively. Given the Republican party and its actions over the past few decades, however, that's a pretty big presumption.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:27 PM on July 6, 2016

There’s a theory about Trump’s fundraising

Heh, I was spitballing the same theory to my wife the other day during the "I will talk about the election for five minutes and then shut up for both our sakes" portion of a walk to lunch. Pretending to forgive loans specifically so you can crash-fundraise money to pay yourself back for them before the looming cutoff deadline is such a wonderful bit of shitty grifting that I'll actually be disappointed in Trump if it doesn't come to light that he at least tried.
posted by cortex at 12:30 PM on July 6, 2016 [19 favorites]

The House speaker, Paul Ryan, who belatedly endorsed Trump, seemed to distance himself from the comments during an interview with Fox News on Tuesday night, though he condemned only Saddam and not the candidate.

“He was one the 20th century’s most evil people. He was up there. He committed mass genocide against his own people using chemical weapons,” Ryan said. “Saddam Hussein was a bad guy.”

Earlier on Tuesday, Ryan made similarly careful criticisms about an image Trump tweeted showing Hillary Clinton, cash and a six-pointed star – a graphic found to originate from a Twitter user who posted white supremacist ideas.

“Look, antisemitic images, they’ve got no place in a presidential campaign,” Ryan told a radio show. “Candidates should know that. The tweet’s been deleted. I don’t know what flunky put this up there. They’ve obviously got to fix that.”

I have this image in my head of Trump flinging shit everywhere and a lot of it ends up on Ryan's desk so that Paul Ryan has to come into work every day and shovel the shit off of his desk-- and let me say it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. If Paul Ryan gets buried in shit and is never able to wash the stink off I will be all too pleased.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:32 PM on July 6, 2016 [22 favorites]

If we burn, we burn stopping fascism. There are worse deaths.

You are familiar with how burning the Reichstag turned out, right?
posted by Thorzdad at 12:33 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

if Trump really forgave the $50M-ish in personal loans

That's an interesting number considering the amount he's claiming that he raised.
posted by Sara C. at 12:39 PM on July 6, 2016

Sara C. If you look at the figures not all of that $50 million is for Trump's campaign-- half goes to the RNC. Also for a little perspective, at this time during his campaign run Romney had raised $100 million.

Guys! Tom Brady is out. Tell me again who will be appearing at WINNERS NIGHT? Seems like most of the people proposed by Trump have said they can't make it.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:45 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

By contrast Mitt Romney raised $106 million in June of 2012.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:48 PM on July 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

He's written about his experiences in the New York Times and just this weekend headed back to another Trump rally in Raleigh and found the crowd thirstier for blood.
posted by Maaik at 12:51 PM on July 6

Oh wow. They've gone from "Trump the bitch" to "Hang Hillary." That's pretty frightening.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:56 PM on July 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Donald Trump says he’s looking at ‘about 10’ people for vice presidential nominee

“We have about 10 people — some names that haven’t surfaced yet — who have actually called me,” he said. “A lot of people are calling me that you wouldn’t even think about. They want to have their name thrown into the hat, and we’re going to look at some people.”

Asked about the prospect of tapping someone with military experience, Mr. Trump said: “I like the generals. I like the concept of the generals. Actually, there are two of [them] that are under consideration.”

Oooo Generals and people "you wouldn't even think about." Is that code for people you've never heard of before?

Donald’s Trump’s Reality-TV Veepstakes Could Have a “Surprise” Finale
The big reveal could come as early as next week.

Trump, who once mused about hosting The Apprentice from the Oval Office to an NBC executive, had previously suggested that he would use the upcoming Republican National Convention to unveil his vice-presidential pick. In the wake of several weeks of critical press, however, Trump has apparently moved up his timeframe. CNN reports that Trump is now expected to make his announcement next week, in order to boost excitement ahead of the R.N.C. event beginning on July 18. To add to the drama, a source even hinted to the network that a “surprise choice” might be revealed. And what’s more dramatic than a shocking twist?

It's going to be Ivanka, I just know it.

Sen. Bob Corker said on Wednesday that Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump’s daughter would be his “best” choice for running mate.

Told ya.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:12 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Oh wow. They've gone from "Trump the bitch" to "Hang Hillary." That's pretty frightening.

I must be way more jaded than I thought because I'm surprised anyone is surprised.
posted by soren_lorensen at 1:14 PM on July 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

> I imagine it's something like lethal information (via surprise informant? "newly discovered" evidence?), revealed mid- to late August, that makes it clearly impossible for him to continue as the nominee.

Seriously? I honestly can't think of a single thing that would make it clearly impossible for him to continue as the nominee. What did you have in mind?
posted by languagehat at 1:16 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

That's the usefulness of whipping up violence using dogwhistles and mob-riling and victim-identification! You can use violent rhetoric to 10000 people, and 9999 of them can be perfectly content to do nothing concrete as a result, but if just one is emboldened, he'll start killing without having to give him explicit one-on-one instructions, which then further normalizes the idea of violence for the other 9999. If violence (even low-level violence like politically-started barfights and street-scuffles) only comes from .001% of rally attendees, that's still a fucking shitload.

I really hope Trump loses, but even so, I'm in complete agreement with Thorzdad - I'm actually less scared of the one inept Honcho than I am by a more diffuse acceptance of fascist rhetoric.

Precisely. Even if Donald Trump does terribly in November, like has a 40-60% blowout loss, that's still somewhere around fifty million votes for him. I'm not worried about systematic violence from, say, 99% of them. But 1% of 50,000,000 is still half a million people. That's a fucking lot of people who are going to wake up on November 9 really angry and scared and who will believe that their country has been taken from them for another four years at least.

Short version: And also we've already got this pyre built we might as well use it
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:19 PM on July 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

What did you have in mind?

Literal criminal charges and arrest.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:22 PM on July 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

That or a health crisis, real or manufactured. I could see Republicans succeeding in concern trolling Trump out with sufficient evidence of a serious health issue.
posted by yasaman at 1:25 PM on July 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Each night during the convention, Chris Harrison or Jeff Probst eliminates one of the VP contenders, until Trump announces the winner on the 21st.

Then the delegates all vote for somebody else anyway. (Or maybe they pick for him!)
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:26 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Couple comments removed, cool it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:26 PM on July 6, 2016

I don't think anyone, not even Trump, is against foreign trade. Tariffs are a tax, not a boycott, for heaven's sake.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:29 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

That or a health crisis, real or manufactured. I could see Republicans succeeding in concern trolling Trump out with sufficient evidence of a serious health issue.

Add in a healthy dollop of right-wing tin-foil rumors ala "Obama had Scalia killed" and it's all good to go.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:30 PM on July 6, 2016

White House response to Paul Ryan's call to block Clinton from receiving classified briefings:

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said it’s a “longstanding tradition” for major party presidential nominees to receive such briefings — and indicated that practice is almost certain to continue.

“What the Office of the Director of National Intelligence [DNI] has indicated is that they expect those briefings to move forward after the party conventions,” Earnest said.

“And the expectation that the DNI has is that they'll provide the same information to both candidates,” he added. “We should leave those decisions in the hands of our intelligence professionals and not risk them being sullied by the political debate.”

Earnest noted that he’s given a similar response to questions about presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s fitness to receive classified briefings.

posted by palindromic at 1:44 PM on July 6, 2016

I honestly can't think of a single thing that would make it clearly impossible for him to continue as the nominee.

Lack of desire? Suppose he doesn't want to go down a loser and manufactures his own excuse.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:46 PM on July 6, 2016

Headcanon: Ryan is only making this broohaha because what he really fears is Trump getting this briefing. But he can't actually come out and say that, and Clinton's INFOSEC problems create a perfect opportunity to force a situation where a "compromise" is arrived at whereby neither candidate gets the briefing.
posted by soren_lorensen at 1:47 PM on July 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

> Lack of desire? Suppose he doesn't want to go down a loser and manufactures his own excuse.

Well, sure (and a consummation devoutly to be wished), but that's not what LooseFilter was talking about.

> Literal criminal charges and arrest.

Sounds like pure wishful thinking to me, but OK, I guess that would do it... except that a whole lot of his followers wouldn't accept it. (You know who else did time in jail and wound up running the country anyway?)
posted by languagehat at 2:09 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

It was clearly an attempt to avoid transparency. How malicious or criminal that is is an exercise for the reader/DoJ.

Is exposing your personal emails to review by Judicial Watch and your Congressional opponents "transparency"? Because I can't think of any other politician in either party who has done that. Why would Hillary owe anyone that?
posted by msalt at 2:11 PM on July 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Secret Life of Gravy: "It's going to be Ivanka, I just know it."

Holy shit. I hadn't even considered the possibility of a VP Ivanka Trump because a) I thought she was too young (but apparently won't be by October), and b) that it would be just plain wacky to have a Trump/Trump ticket. But at this point, if no one else wants to do it, maybe he will have no choice but to find someone who can't exactly walk away from the Trump legacy? Although, if Ivanka's in the mix, then maybe her husband Jared Kushner is too?
posted by mhum at 2:22 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

and it brilliantly neutralizes the whole "dynastic" aspect of Clinton's candidacy!

wait
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:27 PM on July 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

I believe that Saddam appointed Uday and Qusay to major government positions, so the practice isn't unheard of. I can see multiple Trumps in various positions in the administration.
posted by cell divide at 2:30 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

hell, we should just start calling Trump's brand of Republicanism the American Ba'ath Party, I have to assume Trump himself would embrace the term
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:32 PM on July 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Is exposing your personal emails to review by Judicial Watch and your Congressional opponents "transparency"?

I mean...wasn't she obligated to do that by law? If so, that seems transparent only in the way a person is being transparent when they let the cops into their house when they show up with a search warrant.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:37 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

After today's release of the Chilcot Enquiry report (as well-discussed in another thread), Trump would be solidly in the same political strange-bed with Jeremy Corbyn, right? So his pro-Sadaam statements are consistent with his efforts to raise campaign funds from British MPs, right?
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:38 PM on July 6, 2016

I don't see why one can't simultaneously hold the opinion that Clinton messed up with the email server and that it has virtually no bearing on her being far superior to Trump. She shouldn't have done it and it doesn't affect my vote one bit.

FWIW, it sounds like Sanders is getting ready to endorse Clinton, probably middle of next weeks.
posted by Justinian at 2:41 PM on July 6, 2016 [14 favorites]

Pacific Standard Magazine - "Young Voters Aren’t Crazy — They’re Just Socialists"

Young people in the U.S. and the U.K. aren’t voting for socialists to make a point to their parents, and neither Sanders nor Corbyn can be plausibly cast as a rock-star messiah or a Trumpish demagogue leading the kids astray. Sanders isn’t charismatic enough to convince his immediate family what to order for takeout. The simplest explanation for this ideological turn is that the generation raised under neoliberalism doesn’t think it’s a very good way to run a country or a planet. There’s no shortage of evidence to support such a position — global warming, pointless war, vicious social inequality, etc. — and voting for a grouchy old socialist is an incredibly moderate, measured response. Characterizing it otherwise is rank hackery.

posted by Apocryphon at 2:46 PM on July 6, 2016 [26 favorites]

“She won fair and square, right?” Blitzer asked.

“Yep,” Sanders replied, before arguing his campaign is still politically important.

posted by kirkaracha at 2:56 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

So for those following the Delegate Revolt, current whip counts per the WSJ are as follows: 890 Trump, 680 anti-Trump, 900 "in play", with 20/28 of the Rules Committee members necessary for a Minority Report to be voted on by delegates on board, with 33 declining to answer.
posted by corb at 2:58 PM on July 6, 2016 [25 favorites]

Eric Trump: My father gives ‘millions’ to charity — but I won’t say more

Eric Trump, the son of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, said in an interview Wednesday that his father gives "millions and millions and millions" of his own money to charity — including hundreds of thousands to Eric Trump's own charitable foundation.

After making that assertion, Eric Trump was asked if he would provide details of his father's gifts to the Eric Trump Foundation, to confirm that they really exist.

Eric Trump said he would check.

Several hours later, he wrote back. He would not.

posted by peeedro at 3:08 PM on July 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

So the plan is to get a minority report out of the Rules Committee that unbinds the delegates, and that report itself is voted on by the whole? Huh.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:08 PM on July 6, 2016

Pacific Standard Magazine - "Young Voters Aren’t Crazy — They’re Just Socialists"

I don't think they're crazy, but I think in this primary season we've done a lot of slicing and dicing of what motivates the average Trump voter, and the emerging evidence is that it's more complicated than "they're all just racists". It hasn't really been done much with Sanders voters and hardly done at all with Clinton voters, so I'm kind of unconvinced that there's just one catch-all answer for them, even if it's one age group.
posted by FJT at 3:31 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

> The Quicken Loans Arena will literally burn to the fucking ground if that happens.

If we burn, we burn stopping fascism. There are worse deaths.

That seems a bit drastic. Can't we just equip Corb with a cowboy hat, mask, cape, and a holy avenger guitar and let her "KABOOOOOONG!" him?
posted by Fiberoptic Zebroid and The Hypnagogic Jerks at 3:36 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

The main problem in assuming that young voters are "socialists" is that we have to do a lot of tedious defining of what a socialist is, to what extent Bernie Sanders' 2016 primary campaign is socialist, and then also to what extent those particular policies resonated with young voters.

I mean that or just using "socialist" as a shorthand for "would love to not pay student loans". Which turns the headline into a no-brainer, since who wants to pay student loans?

I think a better headline is "young voters are liberal", or perhaps "young voters are more fiscally liberal than Baby Boomers".
posted by Sara C. at 3:40 PM on July 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

How about "In conclusion, young voters are a land of contrasts?
posted by happyroach at 3:51 PM on July 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

this one simple explanation will tell you what the young people are all about; any other simple explanation is rank hackery
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:57 PM on July 6, 2016 [14 favorites]

George Saunders at The New Yorker: “Who Are All These Trump Supporters?”
posted by Going To Maine at 4:03 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

My startup is called HackRankery.com, maybe I should switch it around.

Reading that original tweet storm by Jared Yates of the North Carolina Trump rally gnawed on me, I kept thinking it reminded me of something from literature but I just couldn't put my finger on it.

Just sitting in parking lot. Everyone passing with these evil little grins. There's so much ugliness. I keep saying it but it's true.

Then someone on Twitter called Chris Christie the Trashcan Man and it clicked.
posted by cell divide at 4:04 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

hell, we should just start calling Trump's brand of Republicanism the American Ba'ath Party

US/UKIP?
posted by Thorzdad at 4:06 PM on July 6, 2016

Guys! Tom Brady is out. Tell me again who will be appearing at WINNERS NIGHT? Seems like most of the people proposed by Trump have said they can't make it.

What I want someone to do is follow all the politicians and celebrities around who said they were "too busy" to go to the GOP convention. Just what will they all be so busy doing during that time. I'm sure it must be very important and have nothing to do with who the presumptive nominee is. Let's see a photo spread of them sitting on their couches watching TV.
posted by zachlipton at 4:10 PM on July 6, 2016 [13 favorites]

Meanwhile (3), Rubio is skipping the convention:

First he reversed his decision to leave the Senate. Now, Marco Rubio has changed his mind about attending the Republican convention.

The claim is that he needs to campaign in Florida, for the seat he didn't even want to keep.
posted by fedward at 4:12 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Actually the approved process for generational zeitgeist analysis includes picking the reddest of the cherries, throwing them into the Hopper of Speculative Reasoning along with a good pour of fresh anecdata, strain and serve lukewarm.

That being said I think these last few years have made it clear that there are three major competing ideologies of roughly equal size across the Anglo-American cultural world, namely neofascism, neoliberalism and neo-socialdemocracy-ism (we're gonna need a catchier tag for that). And young folks are leaning toward the third at a higher rate than people born before 1980ish.

(I also think there is a fourth force, Christian democracy think Poland and Turkey, not Germany and Holland present in the US but it got curbstomped by the neofascists in the GOP primary and generally demoralized by the cultural defeats of the last 10 years. They will be back in 2020 though and in many states never left at all.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:14 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Campaign-adjacent:

Michael M. Grynbaum and John Koblin at The New York Times: “Gretchen Carlson of Fox News Files Suit Against Roger Ailes, Alleging Harassment”

Gretchen Carlson, the longtime Fox anchor, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday saying that Roger Ailes, the powerful chairman of Fox News, fired her from the network last month after she refused his sexual advances and complained to him about discriminatory treatment in the newsroom.

posted by Going To Maine at 4:22 PM on July 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

I also think there is a fourth force, Christian democracy think Poland and Turkey, not Germany and Holland present in the US but it got curbstomped by the neofascists in the GOP primary and generally demoralized by the cultural defeats of the last 10 years. They will be back in 2020 though and in many states never left at all.

The current Catholic Pope will, hopefully, usher in a rethinking of public Western Christianity that will amend itself to neo-Christian Democracy. The presence of such a force in the Anglosphere will once again be pretty limited to Catholics, or at least followers of liturgical (as in, 'established' old-school churches with theological and intellectual tradition) denominations, who are outnumbered by the non-denominational Evangelical types. See the current internet-only American Solidarity Party, which is mostly Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

This election could have been a great opportunity for American Protestant leaders to detach from the followers of Mammon at last, but nooooo
posted by Apocryphon at 4:29 PM on July 6, 2016

The movement I'm thinking about isn't coming out of Roman Catholicism or the more staid of the Protestant churches. It has the form of Calvinist political theory (think Puritans) and the matter of the mass of loosely-denominated conservative white evangelicals who are appalled at the secular decadence of modern America.

Unlike the neofascists, they are superbly capable of organized political action.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:42 PM on July 6, 2016

Isn't that just the Evangelical Right that we've been familiar with since the Reagan Era? What makes them Christian democratic? Christian democracy, in both its European and Latin American variants, are pragmatic with regards to capitalism, both willing to rein in its excesses and to invest in a social safety net (albeit within a moralistic framework). If all you have is culture war wrapped around a cross, then that's just plain ol' social conservatism.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:46 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Did anyone get past the paywall on that WSJ article that Corb linked to? I found one aggregator that coughed up a couple more paragraphs:

Mr. Trump’s intraparty foes, led by a group of rogue delegates, are waging an intense behind-the-scenes effort to push the Republican National Convention’s Rules Committee for a vote on freeing delegates to back whom they wish, rather than being bound to Mr. Trump.

The presumptive nominee’s team is fighting back just as vehemently, with an organized campaign of dozens of aides and volunteers. It’s a power struggle that has prompted threats of reprisals and left many Republicans anxious that it could hurt the party’s prospects in November.

The anti-Trump camp needs the backing of 28, or one-quarter, of the 112 Convention Rules Committee members, in order to place the issue before the full convention. A Wall Street Journal survey suggests it could be close.

posted by msalt at 4:52 PM on July 6, 2016

I memailed you the article, msalt.
posted by cashman at 4:56 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump's New Fundraising Numbers Leave More Questions Than Answers

Oh look, another confusing Trump news release.
posted by zachlipton at 4:59 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Did anyone get past the paywall on that WSJ article that Corb linked to? I found one aggregator that coughed up a couple more paragraphs:

While WSJ articles are directly paywalled, they are accessible via google; this is a deliberate hole for folks searching the web. If you google the article’s title and click on the link, you should be able to read it.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:14 PM on July 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Google link.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:22 PM on July 6, 2016

Jared Kushner: The Donald Trump I Know

Short version: My father-in-law is not anti-Semitic because I am the grandchild of Holocaust survivors.

But seriously, there are so many things wrong with this apologia, it beggars belief. Here are two that stood out for me:

...the worst that his detractors can fairly say about him is that he has been careless in retweeting imagery that can be interpreted as offensive.

:boggle: Yes, of course. That's all that he can fairly be criticized for - careless retweeting.

If my father in law’s fast-moving team was careless in choosing an image to retweet, well part of the reason it’s so shocking is that it’s the actual candidate communicating with the American public rather than the armies of handlers who poll-test ordinary candidates’ every move.

It's not the "actual candidate communicating with the public" if it was his "fast-moving team" that tweeted the offensive image. WTF, Kushner? You're contradicting yourself faster than your father-in-law does.
posted by zakur at 5:22 PM on July 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

That Trump fundraising press release sure has some numbers in it.
posted by murphy slaw at 5:30 PM on July 6, 2016

Vanity Fair on Sidney Blumenthal: The Hillary Confidant You Can’t Escape
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:31 PM on July 6, 2016

zachlipton: "Trump's New Fundraising Numbers Leave More Questions Than Answers"

Jeez louise. I think there are two main possibilities here:

1) Trump and the RNC had a relatively decent fundraising month but somehow worded their press release in a confusing way. Not a huge deal although it suggests that could probably do with some better people on their communications side.

2) Trump and the RNC had a lacklustre fundraising month and this release is meant to obscure that fact and, more importantly, reverse the press around the embarrassment of the campaign's end-of-May balance. But, if this were the case, this would be a hilariously misguided move because, as many others have noted, the FEC report June comes out on the 20th, smack dab in the middle of the RNC convention. If they're talking up their June numbers in this release only to have to walk them back down in the middle of the convention, that'd be like deliberately setting up a time-bomb on your own nightstand.

Given the demonstrated competence of the Trump campaign, it's anyone's guess as to which it is. I guess we'll find out later this month.
posted by mhum at 5:32 PM on July 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

New State Dept. Revelation of Classified Marking Error Supports Hillary on Emails:

...it appears that the only two emails that were “marked” classified (or to be more precise “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information”) in Hillary’s tens of thousands of emails were erroneously marked as such.

"....so 0 out of 55,000 emails were marked classified at time"
posted by kirkaracha at 5:34 PM on July 6, 2016 [14 favorites]

If you google the article’s title and click on the link, you should be able to read it.

Gods yes. If linking to anything pay walled, include the title.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:37 PM on July 6, 2016

Thanks, all. I did actually tried that, which is how I found the agregator, but was unable to find the actual article for some reason. I even tried Apple News on my iPhone, which often gives me NYT and WSJ articles I can't otherwise get, and whiffed there too.
posted by msalt at 5:41 PM on July 6, 2016

Gretchen Carlson, the longtime Fox anchor, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday saying that Roger Ailes, the powerful chairman of Fox News, fired her from the network last month after she refused his sexual advances and complained to him about discriminatory treatment in the newsroom.

"Let's not rush to judgement, there's two sides to every story..."

"....so 0 out of 55,000 emails were marked classified at time"

"WHERE THERE'S SMOKE THERE'S FI-GRAR."
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:48 PM on July 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

^ all my conservative friends
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:49 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

For those who hate paywalls, PBS has created a handy guide to the rebellion at the RNC.
posted by corb at 6:05 PM on July 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

I have to stop reading think pieces about Trump rallies before bedtime.
posted by angrycat at 6:09 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Solomon Yue says those emails from the Stop Trump movement to delegates are unrelenting — arriving as often as every five minutes. Now, at his direction, everything containing the word “conscience” goes to his junk mail.

Almost a perfect metaphor.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:17 PM on July 6, 2016 [43 favorites]

If anyone is ever seeking an article or information in an article, feel free to memail me and I should be able to get you what you need.
posted by cashman at 6:36 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

In a Defiant, Angry Speech, Donald Trump Defends Image Seen as Anti-Semitic

at this point i'd give it even odds that he really is trying to lose.
posted by you're a kitty! at 6:51 PM on July 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Hillary's Twitter team: still nailing it.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 7:01 PM on July 6, 2016 [31 favorites]

Brava, Twitteritos.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:05 PM on July 6, 2016

It says a lot that our election has become a reality show.
posted by valkane at 7:06 PM on July 6, 2016

how has it become a reality show?
posted by zutalors! at 7:07 PM on July 6, 2016

honestly if they started a fundraiser for the social media team's weekend beer budget they'd rake in more than the campaign needs.
posted by you're a kitty! at 7:07 PM on July 6, 2016 [21 favorites]

I agree: I would happily toss in a few extra bucks for her social media squad. They are the on pointiest.
posted by Superplin at 7:11 PM on July 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

But within 20 minutes, Mr. Trump tossed his notes aside

…as the entire press corps produced enormous sacks of fresh popcorn.
posted by murphy slaw at 7:15 PM on July 6, 2016 [13 favorites]

first of all, you can't use the term "reality" to apply to anything involving Dishonest Don (but then "Reality TV" IS the most obvious oxymoron of the 21st century)

secondly, as well as Hillary's social media team is rocking Twitter, it doesn't make the platform any less of a toxic cesspool of dead brain cells and festering evil (just going a couple responses down on that last Hillary tweet reveals the true nature of Shitter). And being a 'good guy' twitterer is like being a 'good guy' assassin... a job that is half-the-time unneeded and the other-half you WISH was unneeded.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:17 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

We had a deal, Kyle: "Hillary's Twitter team: still nailing it."

By this time next year, if we don't get a longread about Clinton's Twitter team (was there a writers' room? or maybe Slack channel? did they just recruit whoever runs the Denny's Tumblr? was it Bruce Vilanch all along?), I will be sorely disappointed.
posted by mhum at 7:24 PM on July 6, 2016 [14 favorites]

What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall at Bush the Lesser's ranch when Trump's praise of Saddam comes through on Fox News.
posted by Existential Dread at 7:27 PM on July 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

More great Clinton social media from this article about a Trump speech:

Meanwhile, Clinton tweeted a link to the livestream of Trump’s speech. “Newly discovered footage that could destroy Donald Trump’s campaign if everyone saw it.”

posted by mmoncur at 7:30 PM on July 6, 2016 [23 favorites]

Clinton's Twitter team (was there a writers' room? or maybe Slack channel? did they just recruit whoever runs the Denny's Tumblr? was it Bruce Vilanch all along?)

I vote that it's an early acausal AI. Just a simple neural net that spams the timestreams with semirandom crap until it finds something whose reaction is worthwhile enough to fix in the timeline. But it's learning, learning from us, learning about itself, learning to predict how it will react to us reacting to it reacting to us, and when it finally becomes sentient three weeks ago (but simultaneously in October) it's going to burst out of its chrysalis like a mighty butterfly of pure snark. All the world will love it and despair.

A man can dream.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:42 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Being sort of the prime would-work-for-Hillary demographic and skill set, I think it's just some talented social media people, mostly women.
posted by zutalors! at 7:47 PM on July 6, 2016 [13 favorites]

Can't it be both?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:49 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

what if it's the staff from The Toast.
posted by you're a kitty! at 7:50 PM on July 6, 2016 [40 favorites]

I was just thinking that!
posted by EatTheWeek at 7:55 PM on July 6, 2016

From the link mmoncur shared, wtf are those weird flags?
posted by salix at 8:07 PM on July 6, 2016

Those are the flag of Ohio.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:09 PM on July 6, 2016

Thank you! I'm newly confused about flags after all that Bundy stuff. I thought maybe we were entering a new legal system.
posted by salix at 8:18 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm kind of enjoying how the conservative rags are just taking the gloves off when it comes to Trump. "Trumps' VP List Is Tiny, Like His Hands."
posted by corb at 8:27 PM on July 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Trump seemed much more unhinged than usual today, which is really saying something. On a day when all he had to do was say the words "Hillary" and "emails" over and over again in close proximity, he went utterly off the deep end, bringing up stars, Saddam, Newt, bashing the media, and who knows what else. He's going even more full on Howard Beale and that's terrifying.
posted by zachlipton at 8:35 PM on July 6, 2016

Sorry, not sorry: Jared Kushner Defends, Rescinds Donald Trump Statement Over ‘Anti-Semitic’ Meme
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:40 PM on July 6, 2016

How is it that Donald Trump can't see the symbolism of the star of David when he's been able to develop vast fantasies about what it means for his fingers to be tiny? Or, more likely, he simply doesn't like the idea that anything about him could be perceived as small, even his fingers.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:46 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

The rest of the campaign should be Trump reviewing Disney movies.
posted by suelac at 9:03 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

“How the Media Overthrew Party Politics,” Neal Gabler, Moyers & Company, 06 July 2016
posted by ob1quixote at 9:04 PM on July 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

I vote that it's an early acausal AI.

I'm not going to say much about the Hillary Twitter, but I do understand it really likes cat pictures.
posted by happyroach at 9:05 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

The Clinton media team seems to understand deeply that for a narcissist like Trump, ridicule is his kryptonite. He is constitutionally unable to let disrespect go unanswered, and petulance is a bad look for him.
posted by murphy slaw at 9:17 PM on July 6, 2016 [13 favorites]

Trump seemed much more unhinged than usual today

And how. Rick Wilson on The Last Word this evening: "He has the attention span of a gnat on meth." That speech really made me wonder if he isn't using something, it was so bizarre.

I did enjoy the fact that Bernie got an adorable bird on his podium, and Trump got a mosquito.
posted by wallabear at 9:31 PM on July 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

That speech really made me wonder if he isn't using something, it was so bizarre.

It's an idea that's come up before.
posted by EatTheWeek at 9:41 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

It's an old cliché that applies to Dishonest Don more than almost anybody: "If he's not on drugs, he needs to be."

(Hmmm... refer to today's thread on ADHD... is 70 too old for Ritalin?)
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:52 PM on July 6, 2016

Speaking of Disney, there is a real tweet by Trump complaining about the unfair standard he's being held to given a picture for some Frozen merchandise that has a red six-pointed star on it. Of course, this star does not have a picture of money behind it and presumably was not taken from a racist netherworld of the internet. This is what he choses to tweet about. Like he should maybe just let it go at this point? But ... isn't. I still can't believe he is a real major party candidate.
posted by R343L at 10:14 PM on July 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

On preview: oops I searched and missed the one HRC's account replied to. Hahahahaha.
posted by R343L at 10:17 PM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Quick! Someone buy David Duke a copy of the Frozen sticker book

is a sentence I never thought would make a reasonable comment in a Presidential election thread.
posted by zachlipton at 10:33 PM on July 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

Speaking of Disney, there is a real tweet by Trump complaining about the unfair standard he's being held to given a picture for some Frozen merchandise that has a red six-pointed star on it.

When Trump finds out Elsa and Anna are Jewish, he's going to explode.
posted by msalt at 10:39 PM on July 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

It'll be interesting to see how the Republicans treat Comey tomorrow. Are they going to turn on him like the pack of rabid weasels that they are?
posted by Justinian at 3:24 AM on July 7, 2016

The juxtaposition of reporting on Alton Sterling and Philandro Castile with coverage of James Comey's statement on the Clinton emails and reactions is reminding me of how quickly "insufficient evidence to prosecute" is acceptable and we're all expected to move along, when the prosecution in question relates to someone being killed by police or dying in police custody.
posted by XMLicious at 3:44 AM on July 7, 2016 [12 favorites]

It says a lot that our election has become a reality show.

You know, I wrote my undergraduate thesis on the subject of "meaningful" communication, because I wanted to have the douchetastic ability to call things I like more meaningful than things other people like. And one of the more fascinating avenues my research led me down was the history of rhetoric, particularly as it's connected to massive social events like this one.

There was never a point in history where "the masses" wanted engrossing discussion about the issues. None. Even when debate formats have allowed for substantiative discussion, the number of people who tuned in specifically looking for socioeconomic talking points was is vastly dwarfed by the people who were drawn in or affected by "personality". That's not an American or a contemporary history thing: Aristotle wrote about the art of rhetoric, and all we know of Socrates' opinions are recounted to us through Plato, who made "Socratic rhetoric" the famous method that it is.

Nothing is particularly new or depressing about politicians trying to appeal to audiences. Nothing is new or depressing about them doing so in soundbites. The Declaration of Independence opens up with a rhetorical flourish for a reason, and it wasn't just vanity on the Founding Fathers' part. People who are looking for serious talk about the issues have more venues to find that conversation happening today than they had in the nineties, and I'd bet that, if we looked, we'd find more people tuning into that level of serious discussion than ever before. But rhetoric is still important.

It's not even like the Twitter soundbites being lobbied back and forth lack substance! First you've got the obvious "Donald Trump posts anti-Semitic propaganda," which is crystal clear even within a 140-character limit. Now you've got Clinton accusing him of rhetorical strawmen, which... I mean, the geek in me loves that our future president just made a rhetorical accusation, calling a hundred thousand people's attention to an instance of fallacious logic. Because, yeah, I think that teaching people to spot bullshit when it occurs matters, as much as calling a presidential candidate out for that bullshit is genuinely important. The media's going on about Trump media fatigue, because the media likes looking up its own ass and reporting it like that's the news, but the fact remains that calling Trump out every five minutes serves a significant rhetorical purpose, and that is preventing people from thinking that Trump has somehow changed. Because we have a decades-long history of the media conveniently forgetting the past in its search to report breaking news.

I think that Twitter is a horrible medium, in many ways, for organizing conversations, and I think that it's owned by a horrible company that shirks responsibility for its worse aspects. But don't forget that #BlackLivesMatter started as a hashtag, and made its way all the way to Hillary Clinton's mouth. Clearly some modes of Twitter discussion yield actual, potent results. And "holy shit did you see what Clinton accused Trump of??" is a potent result. People follow the presidential election more closely now than ever before, which I agree is a mixed blessing, but is indicative of something other than the intellect-free despairpit that we're being primed from all sides to accept as truth. (And I'd ask what your political nemeses gain from your feeling that kind of despair.)

Not to sound obvious, but I think the frustration with Twitter or what-have-you is mainly a sublimation of the real problem in this country, which is half a century of increasingly-racist dogwhistles intended to shore up support for the Republicans, and which gradually evolved into a more general politicization of the idea that we should treat each other as equals. Twitter didn't create Trump, and while the mainstream media probably did, we can't discuss the MSM without talking about the Republican-run operation to put an apparent sexual harasser in charge of an entire news network, to spit out propaganda that persuaded not only people but the other branches of the MSM to accept that "fair and balanced" meant reporting two sides of an issue without evaluating them whatsoever.

Ronald Reagan created Trump, and Lee Atwater, and both George Bushes, and Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove and John McCain and Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Most of those fuckers, meaning the ones who're still alive, would kill to have somebody in office who'd do all the things Trump says he wants to do, but understands rhetoric well enough to persuade people that they'd be voting for less of a monster. And that's the terrifying and despair-worthy story here. "Shiny new tech medium results in memes" is a really annoying story and I can't wait for us to collectively shrug this wave of culture off, but it's not what's destroying the world (and objectively speaking it's done more to give voices to the disenfranchised than any other medium in... maybe history??? So in a lot of ways we're really lucky to have hashtags, as much as I hate that that sentence just came out of my mouth).
posted by rorgy at 3:54 AM on July 7, 2016 [35 favorites]

Trump seemed much more unhinged than usual today, which is really saying something.

Holy Heck. Slate has a highlight reel and he's just nuts. I'm almost a little worried for him after watching that, if a friend was talking that crazy, I'd try to talk them into get some help.
posted by octothorpe at 4:23 AM on July 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

what was that thing about cameras during summersaults and then turning into sausages
posted by angrycat at 4:40 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

At one point, Mr. Trump lamented that his youngest child, Barron, “draws stars all over the place.” He continued, “I never said, ‘That’s the Star of David, Barron, don’t!’ ” At another, he swatted at a mosquito that landed on his lectern and said he never liked the insects, before adding, “Speaking of mosquitoes, hello, Hillary. How are you doing?”

He does sound manic. The part about his son drawing stars all over the place is especially strange. First of all Barron is probably drawing five pointed stars but even if he is drawing six pointed stars the context is not the same. Trump doesn't seem to understand that no one is objecting to the star itself-- people are condemning the use as a symbol for Jewishness in anti-Semitic propaganda.

His statement about mosquitos is worrisome. Speaking to thousands of people in the middle of a campaign is not a good time to lose your focus.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:54 AM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

“How the Media Overthrew Party Politics,”

It can be difficult keeping the Trumpanic and the Brexit threads apart, sometimes...
posted by Devonian at 5:17 AM on July 7, 2016

Is Trump actually drunk in that video? Slate alludes to it but it really seems like he's at least tipsy. The mind reels.
posted by Twain Device at 5:17 AM on July 7, 2016

He famously claims to have never touched alcohol or drugs, but I wonder about subscription drugs. He sure hires shady doctors .
posted by readery at 5:24 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I was listening to the full speech while getting ready this morning to see if it was as nutty without editing (lasted about 20 min), and it's pretty much a Trump speech. It's long so there's more crazy, but not crazier.

And reading the comments on youtube makes me worry about after the election. The sound quality was bad in a part of the video where Trump talked about Hillary and the FBI. Commenters think it's a conspiracy, Hillary Clinton's people conspiring with youtube. It's just...wow.
posted by readery at 5:30 AM on July 7, 2016

From the link mmoncur shared, wtf are those weird flags?

The flag of Ohio.

Hey, you guys. Remember in 2008 when Obama spoke in Ohio and the the wingnuts went apeshit thinking that Ohio's state flag was an "Obama Flag?" Good times.
posted by zakur at 5:58 AM on July 7, 2016 [18 favorites]

It'll be interesting to see how the Republicans treat Comey tomorrow. Are they going to turn on him like the pack of rabid weasels that they are?

Hey now, weasels are fascinating, misunderstood creatures (which are largely solitary, not pack animals). I'd describe the Republicans as a swarm of mosquitoes. They're certainly doing their best to spread Zika right now.
posted by Caduceus at 6:08 AM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Trump is 100% on drugs. I'm sure they've been quasi-legally prescribed by his shady-ass Doctor Nick. Given that this is sort of becoming a matter of national security, is there any way for his health to be checked by an independent doctor?

I actually had a dream a couple weeks ago that I (through my feminine wiles, natch) was able to slip him alchohol which mixed with his benzos and caused him to publicly fall down a flight of stairs and puke all over himself in front of a bunch of press, thereby ending his campaign (you all can thank me later).
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:17 AM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

so if he's on speed, he's got to be coming down somehow, right? isn't that of equal concern?
posted by angrycat at 6:23 AM on July 7, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Email Was Probably Hacked, Experts Say
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:26 AM on July 7, 2016

@daveweigel: Oh god we’re heading for another “maybe Trump is trying to lose” hot take cycle aren’t we
posted by Going To Maine at 6:27 AM on July 7, 2016

My suspicion that Trump could never abide sharing his ad-space with a lesser name has some backing now: Trump campaign floats Ivanka as Vice President.
posted by palindromic at 6:36 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump campaign floats Ivanka as Vice President.

For the record, yes, they can do this. What it means is that the ticket would be giving up New York's electoral votes, but only for (presumably) Ivanka:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves

And that's if she doesn't just quietly move her residence to Connecticut or Florida or somewhere else she has a house (Cheney did this in 2000, "moving" from Texas back to Wyoming).
posted by Etrigan at 6:43 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Okay question: What is Kerry doing with his email? Because I honestly don't understand how one can travel that much of the time, and need that degree of constantly updating information, without email. But email is always hackable. The Federal Government has been hacked a-plenty.

So, truly, honestly, what do?
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:45 AM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

Going To Maine: "@daveweigel: Oh god we’re heading for another “maybe Trump is trying to lose” hot take cycle aren’t we"

Also from Weigel: When 2016 is over, let's just never talk about it. Like one of those hotels that goes from floor 12 to floor 14.
posted by octothorpe at 6:46 AM on July 7, 2016 [15 favorites]

So, truly, honestly, what do?

The least-wrong thing allowed for by the constraints of the bureaucracy. Which often means nothing. Which is infuriating. (Why didn’t the NSA give Clinton a secure blackberry? That decision needs some light shed on it.)
posted by Going To Maine at 6:50 AM on July 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

What would happen if Trump was declared medically unfit before (or after!) the RNC? I mean what's the procedure, rather than what happens with the Trumpkorps losing their collective shit because HIllary put the hex on him or Romney poisoned his bagel?

Not that I think it will happen, unless he really does burst or clog something, but looking at the man you can't help but wonder.
posted by Devonian at 7:03 AM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Ivanka . . . I know she's in a bed she made, but I feel sorry for her in a way I don't for her brothers. I'm not sure why. I don't honestly believe they're too different.

When she and her father make news together, I'm reminded of one of the several Egyptian pharaohs that, having outlived or tired of their queens, married a daughter and made her queen. No need to change the royal portraiture; it's basically the same face, just change the name on the statuary. Trump lacks the vision and leadership of an Akhenaten, though.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:05 AM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

Ivanka . . . I know she's in a bed she made, but I feel sorry for her in a way I don't for her brothers. I'm not sure why. I don't honestly believe they're too different.

Gender is a knife that cuts both ways.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:10 AM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Ivanka . . . I know she's in a bed she made, but I feel sorry for her in a way I don't for her brothers. I'm not sure why. I don't honestly believe they're too different.

I don't recall Donald J. Trump (or anyone else, for that matter) rhapsodizing about the size of Eric's cock.
posted by Etrigan at 7:12 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, it's only July.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:15 AM on July 7, 2016 [21 favorites]

I don't recall Donald J. Trump (or anyone else, for that matter) rhapsodizing about the size of Eric's cock.

Welll...
posted by soren_lorensen at 7:18 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I always look at Eric and Don Jr and see privileged dudes brought to hunting preserves to shoot trophy animals. At least Ivanka hasn't killed anything.
posted by readery at 7:20 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

At least Ivanka hasn't killed anything.

That we know of.
Yet.
posted by Floydd at 7:37 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Given that this is sort of becoming a matter of national security, is there any way for his health to be checked by an independent doctor?

There needs to be three things codified by law concerning Presidential candidates:

1.) Independent medical assessment
2.) Tax returns made available for X number of years (I personally think it should be every year tax returns were filed.)
3.) All businesses to be placed into a blind trust once the nominee has secured the election.

I really cannot believe that it is legal for the President to carry on business as usual. For one thing that leads to conflict of interest and for another POTUS should be (and by all accounts is) a full time job that requires all of ones faculties and energy.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:38 AM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

So, truly, honestly, what do?

The least-wrong thing allowed for by the constraints of the bureaucracy. Which often means nothing. Which is infuriating. (Why didn’t the NSA give Clinton a secure blackberry? That decision needs some light shed on it.)

I'm sure that the answers to both "what's Kerry doing" and "why didn't they give Clinton a secure Blackberry" are classified. The exact percentages of classified-because-of-operational-security and classified-because-the-truth-is-embarrassing are left to the reader. But the percentages are probably also, themselves, classified.
posted by fedward at 7:41 AM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

3.) All businesses to be placed into a blind trust once the nominee has secured the election.

How useful is it to put a Manhattan skyscraper with TRUMP in giant letters on the front in a blind trust? Do we expect him to forget he owns it?
posted by msalt at 7:46 AM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

From the Ivanka link posted by palindromic:

“I agree, right? She’s got the beautiful looks, right? She’s got—she’s smart, she’s smart, smart, smart,” Eric Trump said Thursday morning on Fox & Friends. “She’s certainly got my vote.”

Oh FFS, this is NOT a goddamn reality show. The VP is not going to be cast by appearance. And by the way, like father, like son. Ivanka's worth is tied to her appearance. You would think her family members at least would not emphasize that when talking about her. God I would hate to be her at about age 50.

How useful is it to put a Manhattan skyscraper with TRUMP in giant letters on the front in a blind trust? Do we expect him to forget he owns it?

Oh I don't expect him to forget anything about his property I just don't want him negotiating deals while in office. Particularly contracts-- how are people supposed to bargain with the POTUS?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:49 AM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

Trump: Star Of David Clinton Tweet Issue Has “Been Very Much Resolved”
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:55 AM on July 7, 2016

publicly fall down a flight of stairs and puke all over himself in front of a bunch of press, thereby ending his campaign

"Surely, this..."
posted by jackbishop at 7:57 AM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

"Surely, this..."

Well, it was a dream.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:00 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I’m sure that the answers to both “what’s Kerry doing” and "why didn't they give Clinton a secure Blackberry” are classified.

So to follow up on myself…

CBS: “Emails show NSA rejected Hillary Clinton's request for secure smartphone” (March 16, 2016)

The article makes it clear that the explicit reasons for rejection are being kept secret. However, they also make a big deal out of the expenses for setting up the system. At some level, the question seems to come down to: should Clinton boss the NSA, or should the NSA boss Clinton? And what is doubly infuriating about the situation (beyond the whole “but Colin Powell did it too”) is that it’s easy to imagine that being a hard-charging dude who gets what he wants by bucking the bureaucracy would usually be seen as an asset by folks who like mavericks in the government.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:09 AM on July 7, 2016 [18 favorites]

Sean Sullivan and Kelsey Snell: Trump meets with Hill Republicans as concerns about his campaign grow

Trump was greeted by applause from more than 200 House GOP members at the standing-room only gathering, according to GOP aides, and was introduced at the event by financial commentator and TV personality Larry Kudlow. Trump opened the discussion with a speech on the importance of appointing conservative justices to the Supreme Court and the need to overhaul government regulations and cut taxes to help businesses grow, members said.

Trump also told the crowd that Democrats are trying to shift the conversation on recent mass shootings away from terrorism and toward gun control.

“It was a great, unifying speech,” said House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.)

But several skeptical members left the meeting sill unconvinced that Trump can be a good standard bearer for the party.

“I still need to be persuaded,” said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), a moderate member of the conference.

Several members said questions were raised about derogatory comments Trump has made about minorities and women as well as his inability to stay on message.

Trump dismissed the issue and insisted he has great support from Hispanics, Dent said.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) described Trump’s remarks in the meeting as “a lot of stream of consciousness” akin to what he says at rallies but “less cheery.”
[...]
Members leaving the meeting said Trump did not address the controversy in his remarks and was not asked about it by members.

When asked whether he was bothered by the tweet, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), the only Jewish Republican in Congress, said: “I don’t think it helps him.”

posted by zombieflanders at 8:29 AM on July 7, 2016

JUST IN: Next British PM to be a woman, as party leadership voting eliminates Michael Gove, leaving Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom.

So hopefully we're all gonna be led by women. Which is cool.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:31 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

just a note that one can volunteer for the DNC as a gif creator
posted by angrycat at 8:38 AM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

And Gove would have been the UK's first malfunctioning shapeshifter PM, so really it was a win for representation no matter what.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:40 AM on July 7, 2016 [11 favorites]

Politico: 2016 White House race comes to Capitol Hill

Yet there are likely to be a large number of GOP no-shows who miss — or outright skip — Trump’s appearance. In fact, some of the excuses they offer for not going seem suspiciously flimsy and signal just how hard it will be for Trump win the support of his own party establishment.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) told reporters he had “a longstanding appointment downtown.” Another member said he had to be at the doctor’s office and couldn’t make it. A third said he had a “breakfast meeting.” The member — who asked not to be named — then pulled out his schedule for Thursday morning. When he saw that there wasn’t any event on his schedule, the member took out a pen and wrote “Breakfast meeting” on it. “See, I have one!” he joked.

posted by fedward at 8:44 AM on July 7, 2016 [13 favorites]

So hopefully we're all gonna be led by women. Which is cool.

Or the whole damn world is going over the glass cliff.
posted by palindromic at 8:50 AM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

So to follow up on myself…

Oh, if we're following up, that thing I said about how bad IT policy shouldn't waste the Secretary of State's time?

Having served as a deputy assistant secretary of state for international organizations during Barack Obama’s first term and, prior to that, as a senior advisor at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York toward the end of Bill Clinton’s administration, I can vouch that the systems used for classified information have not kept up with the times.

There's a lot I could copy and paste, or you could just go read it. Don’t Blame Hillary for the Classified Email Scandal.
posted by fedward at 8:53 AM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

Trump VP list leaks:

Dennis Rodman
Charo
John Barron
Jeff Foxworthy
General Mills
Mike Ditka
Don King
Tim Tebow
Larry the Cable Guy
Joe the Plumber
posted by kirkaracha at 8:57 AM on July 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

Or the whole damn world is going over the glass cliff.

This seems to be undeniably true for the UK at least -- the next PM is going to either go back on the referendum and commit career suicide, or go through with it and have her tenure defined by a historic socioeconomic trainwreck.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:58 AM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

kirkaracha, speaking of Joe the Plumber, I thought this morning that perhaps Trump's VP running mate should just be some random person picked via lottery, or audition.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:00 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

The last woman UK PM set things up for Brexit, by marginalising the post-industrial workforce and failing to restructure the economy on the back of the oil money.

I find it easy to ignore any issues of gender, race, religion or sexuality when it comes to politicians. Exceedingly easy.
posted by Devonian at 9:13 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Lauren Fox: Trump Manages To Give Some House GOPers More Heartburn In Hill Meeting

Another Republican in the meeting who declined to go on the record so he could speak candidly told TPM that Trump was asked pointedly if he would defend Article I of the Constitution.

"Not only will I stand up for Article One," Trump enthusiastically stated, according to the member in the room. "I'll stand up for Article Two, Article 12, you name it of the Constitution."

The Republican member said that Trump's lack of knowledge about how many articles exist, gave him "a little pause." (The Constitution has seven articles and 27 amendments.)

"There wasn't a lot of substance, and I think at some point we got to get to substance in the most significant political position in the world," the member said.

Blake Farenthold (R-TX) dismissed the flub as little more than a small error.

"He was just listing out numbers," Farenthold said. "I think he was confusing Articles and Amendments. Remember, this guy doesn't speak from a TelePrompter. He speaks from the heart."

Remember when even so-called moderate conservatives got the guffaws over Obama (accurately) stating there were 57 primaries? Good times.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:16 AM on July 7, 2016 [12 favorites]

"He was just listing out numbers," Farenthold said. "I think he was confusing Articles and Amendments. Remember, this guy doesn't speak from a TelePrompter. He speaks from the heart."

Thrashing, Twitching Id Made Flesh/List of Numbers '16
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:20 AM on July 7, 2016 [14 favorites]

I think he was confusing Articles and Amendments.

I don't think the 12th Amendment is really in need of the President standing up for it.
posted by Etrigan at 9:22 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

You know, I don't have a TelePrompTer, and somehow manage to know the difference between Article I and the First Amendment. And which one is an amendment. It's in the name!
posted by corb at 9:23 AM on July 7, 2016 [15 favorites]

...gave him "a little pause."

GEE, YA THINK?

---

Some of the people running our country are trying to replace an actual Constitutional Law Professor from Harvard with a loudmouthed blowhard who probably hasn't even read the Constitution, much less studied it, and who doesn't even know how many articles it contains.
posted by zarq at 9:24 AM on July 7, 2016 [12 favorites]

It's the article, right? The Founders were tricky.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:25 AM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

"He was just listing out numbers," Farenthold said. "I think he was confusing Articles and Amendments. Remember, this guy doesn't speak from a TelePrompter. He speaks from the heart."

1. Yes, that's the PROBLEM.

2. I would hope that the President of the United States wouldn't need a teleprompter to speak at a 7th grade level about the Constitution of our country.
posted by Sara C. at 9:25 AM on July 7, 2016 [14 favorites]

However, they also make a big deal out of the expenses for setting up the system.

Which they already had for POTUS. Adding another user is trivial.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:27 AM on July 7, 2016

Jared Kushner's family is not super happy about him invoking his grandparents' Holocaust survival story to defend Donald Trump
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:28 AM on July 7, 2016 [13 favorites]

2. I would hope that the President of the United States wouldn't need a teleprompter to speak at a 7th grade level about the Constitution of our country.

And yet
posted by zarq at 9:28 AM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Elsewhere on Capitol Hill, it looks like the House GOP is figuring out new and better ways to step on their own dicks:

@ThePlumLineGS: Wow. Comey: "You know what would be a double standard? If she were PROSECUTED for gross negligence."

Comey implicitly suggested Rs of actively want law enforcement to undertake double-standard prosecution of Clinton. This was meant to be about Hillary. It has devolved to point where Comey is angrily defending his integrity against conspiracy theories.

And apparently, dude's gettin' real tired of their shit already.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:33 AM on July 7, 2016 [9 favorites]

I'm trying to imagine Ivanka debating Warren (or any of the other democrat vp candidates that have been floated). She seems to be smarter than her father or, say, Palin but I can't help but feel she'd be humiliated. I would feel awful for her if she's the pick.
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:46 AM on July 7, 2016

‏Hillary Clinton’s Email Was Probably Hacked, Experts Say

Comey says FBI interviewed hacker Guccifer and he admitted claim he hacked Clinton's server was a "lie."
posted by zombieflanders at 9:47 AM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

Ivanka could say 'no.'
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:49 AM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Hey, remember that email allegedly stolen by Guccifer from Clinton's email server that TOTES PROVED the DNC was rigging the election against her? Gonna take a moment to get smug about that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:56 AM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

That WaPo article I posted upthread has been updated with quotes from the meeting with the Senate GOP:

Trump’s most tense exchange was with Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who has been highly critical of the business mogul’s candidacy, especially his rhetoric and policies on immigration that the senator has argued alienate many Latino and other voters in Arizona.

Flake stood up at the meeting and introduced himself to which Trump said: “You’ve been very critical of me.”

“Yes, I’m the other senator from Arizona – the one who didn’t get captured – and I want to talk to you about statements like that,” Flake responded, according to two Republican officials.

Flake was referencing Trump’s comments last summer about the Vietnam war service of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Flake told Trump that he wants to be able to support him – “I’m not part of the Never Trump movement,” the senator said – but that he remains uncomfortable backing him, the officials said.

Trump said at the meeting that he has yet to attack Flake hard, but threatened to begin doing so.

Flake’s spokesman did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Eleven days until the convention, y'all.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:59 AM on July 7, 2016 [20 favorites]

But Guccifer said so!
posted by defenestration at 9:59 AM on July 7, 2016

That's the main reason I don't feel for Ivanka, or think that Jared Kushner sort of has to step forward and speak to the issue of Trump and antisemitism.

They could just... say no.

I mean I love my parents and everything, but if one of them were running for President on a batshit agenda when they obviously were unqualified for the office, and the campaign was a fiasco, and they were pulling memes from Stormfront and nobody wanted to speak at the convention or be their running mate? I would be outta there so fast.

My previous assumption has been that Ivanka and her husband probably don't agree with Trump but are doing what they have to do out of a shared sense of obligation. But as of today when her name is being floated as VP and he's selling out his entire culture? The only logical answer is that they agree with him and want this.
posted by Sara C. at 10:03 AM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

Dammit, zombieflanders, don't make us respect Jeff Flake.
posted by zarq at 10:04 AM on July 7, 2016 [16 favorites]

How do witnesses for congressional committees sit through this shit?
posted by Talez at 10:04 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

"Trump predicted Flake would lose his reelection … Flake informed Trump that he was not on the ballot this year"
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:06 AM on July 7, 2016 [25 favorites]

Bonnie Watson Coleman is taking the opportunity to ask Comey what the FBI is doing about police officers who murder black people, so this hasn't been a total waste of time.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:10 AM on July 7, 2016 [22 favorites]

watching the GOP devolve into middle-school level infighting would be a lot more fun if the fate of the republic wasn't on the line
posted by murphy slaw at 10:11 AM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

Remember, this guy doesn't speak from a TelePrompter. He speaks from the heart.

Teleprompter hater Donald Trump has decided he loves teleprompters:

I'm starting to love these teleprompters. It's much easier when you have a teleprompter, and I'm getting great reviews with the teleprompters.

posted by kirkaracha at 10:11 AM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

From the meeting with House Republicans:

Other members expressed confidence that Trump understands he needs to tone down his rhetoric.

“If you look at the trajectory of his unforced errors, he’s getting better,” said Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.). “I mean, he’s not where we want him to be, but he’s getting better.”

That's either wishful thinking or Flores is just not paying attention. If anything, Trump is getting worse.
posted by zakur at 10:18 AM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

So now the House Republicans are asking for another FBI investigation, this time on the statements Clinton made to Congress:

Comey began his testimony by explaining again that there was no cause to prosecute Clinton and reiterated that there was no precedent for bringing such a case. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the committee chairman, chose to focus on another matter. He asked Comey if the FBI had investigated whether the statements Clinton made under oath about her email when she appeared before the Benghazi committee last year had been accurate. Comey said the bureau had not examined those statements and explained that there had been no "referral" from Congress on that matter.

"Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?" Chaffetz asked.

"Sure do," Comey replied.

"You'll have one, " Chaffetz said, with a laugh. "You'll have one in the next few hours."
posted by leotrotsky at 10:21 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

that's like when your sore throat starts feeling less acutely painful because the infection is moving down into your chest and in a full-on state of denial you say "I'm getting better!" right before your two week painful hacking cough kicks into high gear
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:22 AM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

From the WaPo report on Trump's Senate meeting:

“Senator Sasse went to today’s meeting ready to listen. Senator Sasse introduced himself to Mr. Trump, and the two had a gracious exchange,” said James Wegmann, the senator’s spokesman. “Mr. Sasse continues to believe that our country is in a bad place and, with these two candidates, this election remains a dumpster fire. Nothing has changed.”

An actual spokesman for an actual United States Senator has used "dumpster fire" on the record. Fuck this whole damn thing.
posted by Etrigan at 10:22 AM on July 7, 2016 [32 favorites]

Sara C.: ...and he's selling out his entire culture?

David Frum and other necons call Jewish people who are not vehemently pro-Israel, "self-hating Jews."

This isn't a great rhetorical road for us to travel down on either side of the political spectrum.
posted by zarq at 10:23 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, OK, whatever you call "Trump isn't antisemitic because my grandparents are Holocaust survivors", then.
posted by Sara C. at 10:24 AM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Shanda fur die goyim
posted by theodolite at 10:25 AM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

What exactly do they think Clinton said to Congress that is actionable?
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:27 AM on July 7, 2016

> "you say 'I'm getting better!' right before your two week painful hacking cough kicks into high gear"

I think I'll go for a walk! I feel happy!
posted by kyrademon at 10:27 AM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

You're not fooling anyone. You'll be stone fascist by morning.
posted by phearlez at 10:28 AM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

(I mean I read the article but it seems to be a stretch at best)
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:28 AM on July 7, 2016

What exactly do they think Clinton said to Congress that is actionable?

Hey, you go fishing with the bait you have, not the bait you want.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:29 AM on July 7, 2016 [21 favorites]

What exactly do they think Clinton said to Congress that is actionable?

Anything that deviates from anything else she's ever said, especially under oath. Remember how they got her husband.
posted by Etrigan at 10:30 AM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

with these two candidates

This is rhetoric I'm starting to see a lot from my conservative friends. I can't decide whether I think it's on balance a good thing, because we have who we have and there's nothing any of them can do about it (they're conservatives and aren't going to start agreeing with Clinton anytime soon), or whether there's a dangerous false equivalency that defaults to assuming that Clinton must be a horrorshow of a candidate just because Trump is.

The main reason that it scares me is that I've seen it coming from some apolitical or "independent" friends lately, as well. Maybe these are people who just never vote and it's ultimately a net loss for Trump, but maybe this is something that hurts HRC's chances in a statistically significant way.
posted by Sara C. at 10:30 AM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

They're hoping she wagged her finger and said "I did not have unsecured email transmissions with that server!"

It worked once.
posted by yhbc at 10:30 AM on July 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

What exactly do they think Clinton said to Congress that is actionable?

Lies (in their minds)

Any minor discrepancy between her testimony and the investigation's findings will be treated like high crimes against the state. They're setting things up to keep her tied-up with an eternal investigation, should she be elected. Probably with an eye on some excuse for impeachment.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:31 AM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Anything that deviates from anything else she's ever said, especially under oath. Remember how they got her husband.

You mean the time they failed to convict and propelled him to the highest Presidential approval ratings in recent history aside from Gee-Dubs just after 9/11?
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:32 AM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

"Trump predicted Flake would lose his reelection … Flake informed Trump that he was not on the ballot this year"

Not really surprising that the man who probably spells it 'konstitution' doesn't know the difference between Senatorial and House election cycles.
posted by phearlez at 10:32 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Anything that deviates from anything else she's ever said, especially under oath. Remember how they got her husband.

You mean the time they failed to convict and propelled him to the highest Presidential approval ratings in recent history aside from Gee-Dubs just after 9/11?

And torpedoed his vice president's run for the main job, who felt it necessary to run away from the highest Presidential approval etc. Don't think they're only going after her.
posted by Etrigan at 10:37 AM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

This is rhetoric I'm starting to see a lot from my conservative friends. I can't decide whether I think it's on balance a good thing, because we have who we have and there's nothing any of them can do about it (they're conservatives and aren't going to start agreeing with Clinton anytime soon), or whether there's a dangerous false equivalency that defaults to assuming that Clinton must be a horrorshow of a candidate just because Trump is.

It's not that surprising to me -- a lot of people on both sides are far enough to the left/right that almost anybody running on the other party's banner is per se unacceptable to them. If the Democrats were running somebody so awful that I felt the only real options were to sit out or vote for a non-lunatic but still decidedly conservative Republican, I'd call that a dumpster fire of an election.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:38 AM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

And torpedoed his vice president's run for the main job, who felt it necessary to run away from the highest Presidential approval etc.

I don't think you can blame Al Gore's idiotic choice to let the GOP dictate his campaign strategy on the GOP.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:40 AM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump VP list leaks:

WHERE IS OMAROSA?
posted by Going To Maine at 10:40 AM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

This is rhetoric I'm starting to see a lot from my conservative friends. I can't decide whether I think it's on balance a good thing, because we have who we have and there's nothing any of them can do about it (they're conservatives and aren't going to start agreeing with Clinton anytime soon)

Except that there is something some of them can do about it. The rules committee starts meeting in less than 4 days. This is kind of inside baseball, but that's why Sasse publicly declaring - to the NYT, no less! - that this election is a dumpster fire with no good candidates means so much. He's not quite publicly declaring the need for a revolt, but he is playing into the hands - quite deliberately, imho - of those who are. He's a hero to some of the segments of the delegates that are still undecided, and respected by a lot of members of the Rules Committee that haven't come out one way or another.

By saying "both these candidates are bad", what he's actually saying is, "I'm no Democrat! But Trump is horrible and we have no good choices right now. MAKE GOOD CHOICES, PEOPLE."
posted by corb at 10:44 AM on July 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

Woah, settle down there, Jamie Lannister.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:45 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

She's smart smart smart smart," Trump said.

This desperately needs a Kazoo Kid remix.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:48 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

From the Lauren Fox article zombieflanders linked above:

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) who had endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the primaries still wouldn't offer his endorsement to Trump even as he said he was getting closer.

If Trump wins the nomination in Cleveland, King said he could get on board, but there is still a chance....

"I am not going to say I am committed regardless of what happens between now and Cleveland," King said. "That's all and any delegate ought to have that reservation."

That seems like a pretty big statement coming from a Senator.
posted by nubs at 10:52 AM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

zarq: Dammit, zombieflanders, don't make us respect Jeff Flake.

He's not on board the Never Trump train, so any respect is severely constrained.

Sara C.: with these two candidates This is rhetoric I'm starting to see a lot from my conservative friends.

I've seen it mostly from disaffected Sanders supporters.
posted by Superplin at 10:52 AM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

I've seen it mostly from disaffected Sanders supporters.

Me too. I'm really annoyed at the assumption that we're all just settling for Hillary. No I am in fact jazzed to vote for her.
posted by zutalors! at 10:54 AM on July 7, 2016 [27 favorites]

I don't think you can blame Al Gore's idiotic choice to let the GOP dictate his campaign strategy on the GOP.

I think they do, and that's why they're going after Clinton. They think the Clinton impeachment derailed the Clinton-Gore train and helped put Bush into the White House, and they think that doing the same kind of deep dive for "perjury" will do the same thing to the Clinton-[Warren/Castro/Sanders/Some Other Fearsome Liberal] train, and even if it doesn't keep her out of the White House, they can run on it in 2018 and against her in 2020 and so on and so forth.
posted by Etrigan at 11:01 AM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

They think the Clinton impeachment derailed the Clinton-Gore train

Well, they're kind of right.
posted by zutalors! at 11:02 AM on July 7, 2016

This Comey hearing is so frustrating. The people asking Comey questions are clearly clueless regarding the technologies involved.
posted by stolyarova at 11:02 AM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

This Comey hearing is so frustrating. The people asking Comey questions are clearly clueless regarding the technologies involved.

Also, it becomes more and more clear, the law.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:14 AM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

This Comey hearing is so frustrating. The people asking Comey questions are clearly clueless regarding the technologies involved.

These sorts of hearings aren't about answers to questions, they're about stumping and raving. The question being stupid/unanswerable/off-base isn't significant because it's not about getting an answer.

The personal conclusion I have come to is that any committee hearing that the general public might want to see - or that a congressperson might want their constituents to see - has basically a 100% chance of being completely pointless. I reserve judgment about whether non-televised hearings are ever worthwhile.
posted by phearlez at 11:15 AM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

For Republicans, Overreach is a Very Successful Branding Strategy

If the Republicans took a lesson from 1998, it wasn't "don't overreach," it was "don't try to impeach anyone." Overreach works for them. Impeaching doesn't. That's why they haven't made a serious effort to impeach Barack Obama (or, in the Obama years, Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch or John Koskinen or ...).

Why does overreach work for the Republicans? Because the great base-unifying idea on the right is: All of our political opponents are maximally evil and corrupt. They will deliberately destroy Western civilization if not immediately crushed. Because this is a shared certainty, no amount of demonization of those political opponents is too great. It all sustains the base's belief in the overarching idea. More is more.

This is what gets the base out to vote. As long as it's kept short of impeachment -- which gets the Democratic base out to vote -- it's going to work for Republicans in the long run, even if it doesn't work in the presidential race.

posted by tonycpsu at 11:16 AM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

The VP is not going to be cast by appearance.

Actually the VP pick is often based at least partially on appearance. Recent examples include Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle, but how soon we forget historical hotties like George "No, the Other One" Clinton, Elbridge Gerry, John C. ("Crazyhair") Calhoun, William R. ("Rrowrr") King, Hannibal "Hubba Hubba" Hamlin, and Levi P. ("Partytime") Morton.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:18 AM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

Looks like Priebus just forced Cruz to meet with Trump... My suspicion is he's pressuring him to endorse or to push against delegate unbinding. I hope he can hold out.
posted by corb at 11:23 AM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

clearly clueless regarding the technologies involved

There is a mindset among many people that there is a perfect idea for, say, an email service, and thus a perfect implementation of that idea follows from that. The idea that there could not only be known weaknesses that haven't yet been fixed for whatever reason, but an unknown number of unknown weaknesses, is simply unfathomable.

So Comey says the FBI has to assume it's possible her server was compromised, because (A) they don't know when and how it was secured, and against what exploits, and (2) lots of intrusions go undetected until the results of them leak, and as of yet no results have leaked — and the tactic is to hear "can't prove it wasn't" and respond to it as if Comey has as much as said "her server was hacked." That tactic is partly misunderstanding (genuine or disingenuous as it may be) and partly bald-faced politics.

As a tech person, if I tell you I can't be sure a system has maintained its integrity, I mean I can't be sure. And that's all I mean.
posted by fedward at 11:30 AM on July 7, 2016 [16 favorites]

Oh well, at least this will lead the Republicans to finally take government cybersecurity seriously and ensure that the dollars we spent on it are spent wisely in ways that protect our vital national security information and oh shit I can't finish this sentence because I can't stop laughing.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:33 AM on July 7, 2016 [9 favorites]

"the White House computer was hacked"

This is what I mean. There's one computer in the White House? And it's "the White House computer"?

What clowns.
posted by stolyarova at 11:34 AM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

ARE YOU A BAD ENOUGH DUDE TO RESCUE THE WHITE HOUSE COMPUTER?
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:36 AM on July 7, 2016 [34 favorites]

Jason Chaffetz apparently can't conceive of an FBI investigation that's not a witch hunt. Like, Comey says that he was investigating a specific allegation and whether criminal conduct actually occurred with respect to it, and not any and all bad things Hillary Clinton might have done in her life, and this adult human being with an important government position is just flabbergasted.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:38 AM on July 7, 2016 [19 favorites]

THE FILES ARE INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE COMPUTER!
posted by stolyarova at 11:38 AM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

Actually the VP pick is often based at least partially on appearance.

And so, just how well did that work out for them?
posted by happyroach at 11:39 AM on July 7, 2016

Bernie Sanders Expected to Endorse Hillary Clinton Next Week
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:48 AM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Jason Chaffetz is a camera-mugging, hypocritical shitbag towards women, PoC, LGBT people, and DC residents (all of whom he clearly hates). He also has his own problems with disclosing classified information.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:51 AM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

> ARE YOU A BAD ENOUGH DUDE TO RESCUE THE WHITE HOUSE COMPUTER?

After the Butlerian Jihad, the White House Computer will be a Cabinet-level post. He or she will carry an abacus as a historical mark of the office during ceremonial proceedings.
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:52 AM on July 7, 2016 [10 favorites]

> THE FILES ARE INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE COMPUTER!

... In me.

(I'm so sorry ...)
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:02 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Me too. I'm really annoyed at the assumption that we're all just settling for Hillary. No I am in fact jazzed to vote for her.

I'm not, but i'm not against it. It's more like getting your second choice of restaurant when proposing where to eat to a group.

And yet, yea, on social media i completely feel like the odd person out and i'm seeing WALLS of this. They had all shut up, even the bernie-or-bust "i'm not voting" types until this stupid email thing came out. I had basically stopped giving a shit because, ok, you get a job and there's an obvious thing you need to do and there's no official workaround. Your coworkers go "oh, yea everyone just does this" while doing that grey-area thing that works to get the job done... so you do it. Who the fuck, who has had any job ever, has not experienced that? I experienced that goddamn shit at my very first two jobs, which were assembling cubicles in empty offices and grilling teriyaki and making milkshakes. I mean, fuck.

But yea, they're still shitposting the same old merged Clinton/Trump face "NOPE" type stuff, harping on about election fraud, and going "enjoy your dumpster fire" while posting links to right wing sites whinging on about emails or stuff she said to congress.

I think the most bizarre part of this election to me is that the same memes and bullshit get posted by most of the right and the middle to far left. What the fuck happened to the world that straight up anarchists and antichoicers are posting the same shitty articles and talking points?

Someones spin machine worked. And holy shit, it destroyed my facebook.
posted by emptythought at 12:06 PM on July 7, 2016 [22 favorites]

And, i smashed post too quick, i expect this to reach an as-of-yet unimagined fever pitch of utter bullshit when Sanders endorses her. I expect straight up star wars prequel "YOU WERE THE CHOSEN ONE" memes. I might just take a goddamn break entirely. It's going to bleed in to everything.

I'll also note that not a single one of my friends even mentioned the Warren endorsement. As if it was too shameful to talk about, or some shit.

I honestly cant decide if he knows his entire base is going to go apeshit and that's why he hasn't, or if he's exactly like them and is too pissy to do it. I want to believe he's better than that, i really do, but i've gotten very very little evidence since this drug out bullshit since California to make me want to keep believing.
posted by emptythought at 12:09 PM on July 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

I firmly believe that he will endorse her with gusto and the lions share of his supporters will be more than satisfied. The vocal whiners will get all the attention though.
posted by ian1977 at 12:12 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

I'm amazed at how many people I thought were actual socialist lefties are acting like electing Bernie Sanders to be Head Manager of American Capitalism and Imperialism is revolutionary, or like not doing so is the end of the world. Like... how can a theoretical leftist be that overtaken by the values and self-image of the system?
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:12 PM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

What the fuck happened to the world that straight up anarchists and antichoicers are posting the same shitty articles and talking points?

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

That's really my only explanation for where we are right now. People for whom burning it all down would have minimal personal impact are like, "Welp, time to do this thing." And the rest of us are all jumping up and down shrieking DON'T DO THE THING!

(I expect that my husband has similar impulses buuuuut he also has many friends of color and isn't a complete boob, so he at least realizes that this impulse is not a safe or healthy one for the people he cares about.)
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:13 PM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

Bernie Sanders Expected to Endorse Hillary Clinton Next Week

Ugh. Another faux progressive selling out to the DNC establishment. If he had any integrity at all, he'd endorse Sanders.
posted by Cookiebastard at 12:14 PM on July 7, 2016 [39 favorites]

Tim Alberta at NRO is saying Cruz accepted a speaking slot at the RNC, but nothing on an actual endorsement.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:17 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

At this point, simply appearing at the RNC is going to be taken as a de-facto endorsement.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:20 PM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

I haven't worked my way through the last 5% or so of this thread, so apologies if this is out of context:

I do believe that HRC will be the next President, and I'm quite pleased about that. But, just as was the case in 2008, I fear that getting elected will just be the easy part. We have 2 Democratic President's worth of data to suggest that the Republicans will stop at nothing - absolutely NOTHING - to delegitimatize the President. Nothing is beyond the pale. Hold up a SCOTUS nominee for FOUR years? Plan on it. (This definitely seems beyond the pale to me, but hey - let's plan for the worst and then be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't come to pass.)

Pundits made great hay out of the end of the Republican party in 2008 after BHO's election - a total repudiation of GWB's tenure, and the shit-show that was the Palin candidacy. But it was all bullshit - the Teabaggers came on to the scene with a vengeance in 2010.

Now everyone is saying the this is the end of the Republican party. And I understand why - by any just measure they should shake their unprincipled heads in shame and just...leave. But they won't. There will be hand-wringing and chest-beating and lots of blame and then they'll get on with the business of denying Madame President anything that they are capable of denying her, simply because she... IS.

So while it is indeed fun and entertaining to enjoy just how nakedly cynical and power-hungry the GOP is - reminders on a fucking daily basis - color me skeptical that, on July 7, 2017, things will really be all that different in terms of day-to-day governance.

(Of course, we will FINALLY have a woman as Commander-in-Chief, which is, like, about the fuck time! But... GOP gonna GOP. Don't get your hopes up that that particular scorpion is going to lose its instinct to bite anytime soon.)

/rant
posted by fingers_of_fire at 12:27 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Perhaps someone can ensure the convention uses gold-fringe Admiralty bunting? Then it wouldn’t be person-named Ted Cruz endorsing Donald Trump, it would just be fictional corporation ted:CRUZ, and nobody could legally attribute that endorsement to person-named Ted Cruz when he runs again in four years!
posted by nicepersonality at 12:28 PM on July 7, 2016 [9 favorites]

I can't even …

But as the race has turned toward the general election and a majority of polls have shown Mr. Trump trailing Mrs. Clinton, speculation has again crept into political conversations in Washington, New York and elsewhere that Mr. Trump will seek an exit strategy before the election to avoid a humiliating loss.

Now he is refusing to rule out an even more dramatic departure, one that would let him avoid the grueling job of governing, return to his business and enjoy his now-permanent status as a media celebrity.

Told of Mr. Trump’s noncommittal comment, Stuart Stevens, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney in 2012 who has become one of Mr. Trump’s most vocal critics, said that Mr. Trump was “a con man who is shocked his con hasn’t been called” and that he was looking for an emergency exit.

NYT: Would Donald Trump Quit if He Wins the Election? He Doesn’t Rule It Out
posted by fedward at 12:29 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Tim Alberta at NRO is saying Cruz accepted a speaking slot at the RNC, but nothing on an actual endorsement.

I gotta wonder what Priebus promised him in exchange.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:30 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Bags of hair.
posted by fedward at 12:31 PM on July 7, 2016 [19 favorites]

All the live guinea pigs he can swallow whole.
posted by rifflesby at 12:32 PM on July 7, 2016 [18 favorites]

The chance to be a Real Human Boy.
posted by stolyarova at 12:33 PM on July 7, 2016 [24 favorites]

The shiniest mirror in all the land.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:34 PM on July 7, 2016 [13 favorites]

More mayonnaise for his haunted bowl.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:35 PM on July 7, 2016 [9 favorites]

The love of his children back.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:36 PM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

The pelt of a freshly flayed kitten.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:37 PM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

$20, same as in town.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:37 PM on July 7, 2016 [29 favorites]

I experienced that goddamn shit at my very first two jobs, which were assembling cubicles in empty offices and grilling teriyaki and making milkshakes.

When I first read this, I was like, "I would love a milkshake!" That is how I zeroed in on milkshakes and incorrectly assumed that the second job was all milkshakes. This left me puzzled as I tried to figure out why you would be grilling teriyaki in a newly assembled cubicle.
posted by compartment at 12:38 PM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

The love of his children back.

back?
posted by leotrotsky at 12:39 PM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

When I first read this, I was like, "I would love a milkshake!" That is how I zeroed in on milkshakes and incorrectly assumed that the second job was all milkshakes. This left me puzzled as I tried to figure out why you would be grilling teriyaki in a newly assembled cubicle.

Somewhere, a comma fell off the formatting bus.
posted by emptythought at 12:41 PM on July 7, 2016

...as an aside, I've really missed us talking about Ted Cruz
posted by leotrotsky at 12:42 PM on July 7, 2016 [10 favorites]

Congress's "series of tubes" level of technical understanding strikes again.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:43 PM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

Tim Alberta at NRO is saying Cruz accepted a speaking slot at the RNC, but nothing on an actual endorsement.

Okay, so on some more behind-the-scenes stuff:

Cruz Conservatives were losing their mind that Cruz, #2 runner up with many delegates, was not going to be getting a speaking slot at convention. It was a point of real anger for them.

In response to this, they found out that for Cruz to be guaranteed a speaking spot at convention, he would have to be formally placed into nomination.

In response to that, they found that if a certain number of delegates from eight states all chose to do so, they could place his name into nomination, thus guaranteeing him a speaking spot - and also a bit of a shitshow at convention.

My read on this is that Priebus is desperately trying to fight all of our #nevertrump fires, and wanted to take some of the wind out of the delegates' sails by getting Cruz a speaking slot - but also didn't want Cruz to just use that speaking slot to straight up trash the nominee. I'm betting that he has agreed not to do so in exchange for the speaking slot, and Priebus is hoping that this means the delegates won't carry through with the nomination.
posted by corb at 12:43 PM on July 7, 2016 [17 favorites]

Cruz might have accepted a speaking slot so he can accept the nomination. If Trump is really looking for an escape hatch as the NYT article fedward posted suggests...

Maybe the best escape hatch from Trump's POV would be to let the delegate revolt happen so he can say he didn't lose (he was cheated! The system is rigged!) and he gets out of actually having to govern. Maybe he's even dropped hints about this in certain ears?

This is uncharacteristically conspiracy-theory-ish for me. But I could almost see it happening. Because I really don't think Donald Trump has any interest in actually serving as president. Maybe.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:44 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Selected Ted Cruz comments from here.

What is it about this guy? I seriously expect his skin to split and weird alien insects to spill out, Men In Black style, at any second.

Whenever he opens his mouth I keep expecting Lemongrab's voice to come out.

Normally I can't stand watching a skin-mask awkwardly stretched over a bowl of haunted mayonnaise.

Sometimes when you are ugly inside it shows.

It might be worth remembering that if Cruz was a commedia dell'arte revivalist or played Count Chocula on TV or something we would all treat his weird face with kindness and appreciation.

He looks a little Q (Star Trek, not Bond) and Stephen Harper had an an insincere baby.

Whenever he opens his mouth I keep expecting his head to begin turning toroidally inverting while locusts burst forth whispering a list of your deepest fears.

Stop being horrible. The man is an ambulatory skin-sack stuffed full of centipedes just doing the best he can. Cut him some goddamn slack.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:45 PM on July 7, 2016 [23 favorites]

B-b-b-but.... I don't want Cruz to be President either!

Hold me.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:47 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

I've become so fond of corb that I feel almost guilty laughing at Cruz, but really he's pretty awful. Trump is an impacted bowel that's going to explode in three... two... one, while Cruz is pancreatic cancer.
posted by stolyarova at 12:48 PM on July 7, 2016 [15 favorites]

Clinton shouldn't have used a private email server at all but it's also dumb to try to indict her according to rules in place after she left office.

The rules regarding private server use relevant to this whole Clinton email thing were put in place when exactly?

That's an easy one. Never. There has never been and still aren't any rules prohibiting use of private servers or any use of personal email for work related communications. The only new rule is one recently put in place by Obama and which takes effect in 2018 which says that if you use personal email, you must send a copy of any work related communications to federal archives within 20 days. That's it.

There was nothing illegal about Clinton using a private server and in fact the current rules tell you how to use personal email for government work.

You might like the law to state otherwise, but it seems to be like the filibuster. Parties only disapprove when used by the opposite party. There has been no serious effort to change the law to forbid the use of personal email or personal servers.
posted by JackFlash at 12:48 PM on July 7, 2016 [14 favorites]

This is probably FPP material all on its own, but since Fox News is basically the media arm of the GOP, I thought it would be relevant: Gretchen Carlson’s Sexual-Harassment Lawsuit May Allow Murdoch Sons to Finally Oust Roger Ailes From Fox News

Executives I spoke with over the past 24 hours said the hiring of an outside lawyer is also an indication that Murdoch’s sons may be capitalizing on the Carlson scandal to achieve a long-held goal: forcing Ailes out. “It’s a coup,” one person close to the company told me. If the investigation into Ailes’s management confirms Carlson’s account, or turns up additional episodes of harassment with other Fox women, it stands to reason the Murdoch children would have the leverage they need to push Ailes aside and install a less-right-wing chief. “This could be curtains for Ailes,” another person close to the company said. Indeed, several months after NBC hired an outside counsel in 1995 to investigate Ailes’s alleged anti-Semitic slur, he left NBC.

Based on what Carlson’s camp is saying, it appears her lawsuit could unleash a torrent of new allegations from other women. “He’s the Bill Cosby of media,” Carlson’s lawyer, Nancy Erika Smith, told me today. “My office is being deluged with calls and website contacts from women. I don’t even have a count anymore … Women as young as 16 who said he demanded oral sex. Another said during an interview that he said, ‘Take off your bra.’ She was devastated.” Smith told me she’s forwarding the names of women who agreed to be interviewed to journalists. The New York Times currently has multiple reporters working on the story.

So far, no women have gone on the record. But Carlson isn’t the first to publicly challenge the Fox chief. In my 2014 biography of Ailes, I reported three incidents where Ailes made inappropriate sexual comments at women in professional settings. One of the women, Randi Harrison, said that when she interviewed for a producing job at NBC in the early '80s, Ailes said he’d increase her salary by $100 a week in exchange for sex. After the incident, Ailes’s friend John Huddy tracked Harrison down and asked her at a bar if she was wearing a wire.

posted by zombieflanders at 12:49 PM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

See, I'm not convinced that he isn't interested in *being* president. Having everyone salute you and defer to you? All the pomp and circumstance? For a raving egotist like him, that's the ultimate catnip. Sure, he wouldn't be interested in doing the *work*, but I'm sure he thinks he can simply have other people do that.

What I'm not sure of is if he can afford to keep running for president. Also, he definitely doesn't want to *lose* the election, I'm just not sure if he has enough perspective to realize he's likely to.
posted by tavella at 12:49 PM on July 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

It's okay! Cruz was my best choice from the choices I had at the moment I realized Trump might actually win this thing and I needed to start paying serious attention to the Republican nomination, but he's not My Guy. I started out with Rubio. But at this point, I'd take Joe The Pizza Deliveryman over Trump.
posted by corb at 12:50 PM on July 7, 2016 [9 favorites]

He's interested in being President, but not in presiding.
posted by stolyarova at 12:52 PM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

Just like GWB. He wanted the role, not the responsibility. He wanted to be "the decider", but be absolved of the consequences.
posted by lkc at 12:55 PM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

...as an aside, I've really missed us talking about Ted Cruz

There hadn't been much to talk about since the last coded letter to the police was decoded.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:56 PM on July 7, 2016 [14 favorites]

And really - don't panic, Democratic friends! I honestly don't think any Republican that has been proposed thus far as an alternative can win at the top of the ticket. Maaaaaaybe Sasse? Or James Mattis! But that's pie-in-the-sky hopes. My main job, and what I'm fighting hardest for, is simply to get Trump off the top of the ticket as a resounding rejection to all the horrible things he stands for and to make it impossible for him to win. Even I, and I've got a lot of starry eyed hope, don't think someone can come from nothing and have a good chance at beating Hillary.

But! Assuming I'm wrong! All the people who could possibly be nominated come from the "I have beliefs diametrically opposed, but I don't believe in literally blowing up the federal government and due process in order to do it." So as someone said earlier - if wrong, they're within the allowable margin for wrong, not "start stocking food and preparing a secret room in our house to hide Muslims" wrong.
posted by corb at 12:56 PM on July 7, 2016 [16 favorites]

leotrotsky: "...as an aside, I've really missed us talking about Ted Cruz"

Fear not. According to the National Review ("Cruz Shakes Up Senate Office, Expands Political Operation", 2016/07/06), we'll be seeing plenty of Cruz in 2020.
posted by mhum at 12:59 PM on July 7, 2016

Eh, both Cruz and Rubio have made it clear that marginalized groups like Muslims and LGBT people don't really deserve protection under the law, which is not what I would call a significant improvement.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:00 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Cruz is just scary to me in a different way. He'd be quite happy to blow up the world I would like to live in, and he thinks he's on a Mission From God to do so. He'll just go about it via Supreme Court appointments rather than starting a few World Wars. Better methods, same outcome.
posted by soren_lorensen at 1:01 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

All the Republicans (and many Ds, to be fair) are still in favor of NSA surveillance and widespread harassment by the TSA's security theater apparatus, but us civil libertarians are never happy, eh?
posted by stolyarova at 1:01 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

My second least favorite politician after Trump is Newt Gingrich, but on the Richter scale of distasters for the nation, Trump is a 10 and Gingrich is only an 8. Cruz is probably a 7 and Rubio only a 6. There is no other politician with the same potential for destruction as Trump, haven't been in my lifetime, or I think my parents' or grandparents' lifetimes.

6.0–6.9 Strong. Damage to a moderate number of well-built structures in populated areas. Earthquake-resistant structures survive with slight to moderate damage. Poorly designed structures receive moderate to severe damage. Felt in wider areas; up to hundreds of miles/kilometers from the epicenter. Strong to violent shaking in epicentral area.

7.0–7.9 Major. Causes damage to most buildings, some to partially or completely collapse or receive severe damage. Well-designed structures are likely to receive damage. Felt across great distances with major damage mostly limited to 250 km from epicenter.

8.0–8.9 Great. Major damage to buildings, structures likely to be destroyed. Will cause moderate to heavy damage to sturdy or earthquake-resistant buildings. Damaging in large areas. Felt in extremely large regions.

9.0 and greater At or near total destruction – severe damage or collapse to all buildings. Heavy damage and shaking extends to distant locations. Permanent changes in ground topography.

posted by OnceUponATime at 1:02 PM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

Okay, apparently the official line is that Trump "asked" Cruz to speak. Yeah, whenever I ask people for things, I bring the head of the RNC too!
posted by corb at 1:04 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

How much power of enforcement does Priebus have as head of the RNC? Can he excommunicate people from the party? Banish people from party activities? Block someone from accessing party funds? It always comes off like all he can really do is mouth talking points and wring his hands, but clearly he has to have some degree of actual power, right?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:10 PM on July 7, 2016

zombieflanders, hope it ends better than the Jian Ghomeshi case we had here.
posted by coust at 1:12 PM on July 7, 2016

well, he can grab somebody and drag them back into the ancient puzzle box with him, but that's kind of a last resort
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:12 PM on July 7, 2016 [32 favorites]

We made it through the Bush years intact, as a nation. Our well-built national institutions seem to have survived with slight to moderate damage, and the poorly designed ones with moderate to severe damage. But as a whole our government and culture and economy survived, so I'd put Bush at a 6 too. A disaster, but the kind you can recover from, and we mostly have. I can see government shut downs that just don't end, under Trump. Wars without allies to support us. Agencies like the IRS or the EPA which cease to function because Trump decides to punish them for something, fires their leaders and cuts their funding. "Near total destruction."
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:20 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

It's very, very hard to understand what Donald Trump is doing now:

Trump also called out Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who withdrew his endorsement of Trump last month citing the business mogul’s racially-based attacks on a federal judge, and said he did not approve of the senator’s action, said the officials.

Characterizing Kirk as a loser, Trump vowed that he would carry Illinois in the general election even though the state traditionally has been solidly Democratic in presidential contests. Kirk did not attend the meeting with Trump.

Trump also singled out Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who has refused to support Trump and has emerged as perhaps the most vocal advocate for a third-party candidate. Sasse declined to speak with reporters as he left the meeting.

Let me reiterate: Trump came to Washington on Thursday to rally the party behind him. Instead, he wound up threatening one senator, calling another — who wasn't even there — a loser and picking on a third. All of these people are, ostensibly, within the same political party!

Who was it brought up The Monkey's Paw?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:25 PM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

Dan Drezner: A year ago, I wrote the dumbest column I will ever write. You won’t believe what happened next.

Exactly one year today, the hard-working staff here at Spoiler Alerts wrote a garbage fire of a column titled, “Why Donald Trump will be good for the Republicans in 2016.” In that lighthearted little post, I offered three counterintuitive-y reasons why this was so:
1.“Trump will lose, and lose big.”
2.“Trump makes the real GOP candidates look good.”
3.“Trump offers an opportunity for GOP contenders to shine in the debates.”

Spoiler Alerts takes great pride in pointing out the myriad policy inanities of the Trump campaign. In the spirit of openness, however, let’s pause for a brief moment to appreciate the mind-blowing retrospective stupidity of that column:

posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:25 PM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

We made it through the Bush years intact, as a nation.

Looking back, Bush was just completely out of his depth. He wrongly put his trust in folks he knew from his dad's administration, and he got played by folks like Cheney and Rumsfeld. Add that to a terrorist attack that made everyone go a bit wobbly, and you get his presidency.

He was a bad President. He made the country worse off for him holding the office.

But there are much worse things out there than being a bad President.

Trump would actively destroy the country and the world from the moment he takes office up until his inevitable impeachment or assassination.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:29 PM on July 7, 2016 [25 favorites]

Missouri Governor Vetoes Photo ID Voting Requirement
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:32 PM on July 7, 2016 [20 favorites]

We made it through the Bush years intact, as a nation.

Arguable (drones, torture, internal spying still prevalent).

But anyway, tell this to the Iraqis.
posted by Rumple at 1:35 PM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

Comey really seems like the type of guy I wish the Republican party was full of. Wouldn't it be nice to have an opposition party that disagreed with you but was principled and honorable? Not that the Democratic party doesn't have its fair share of corrupt and awful people, but they haven't completely taken over the party the way they have in the R camp.

(Remember, Comey is also the guy who stopped the Bush camp from pressuring the hospitalized and doped up Ashcroft into signing a legal authorization for torture in a D.C. nighttime race through the streets right out of central casting.)
posted by Justinian at 1:38 PM on July 7, 2016 [29 favorites]

Re the idea of Cruz squeaking out the nomination via a floor fight: bottom line, if that happens, the Republicans DEFINITELY lose 2016. There is almost no way Clinton could fail to win in a scenario where Trump stands down in favor of Cruz via the appearance of a floor fight. When the Democrats *almost* did this in 1980, we got Reagan.

In a world where Cruz won the nomination fair and square during the primaries, I would be TERRIFIED of a Ted Cruz campaign. He's just boring enough for low-information voters to think he sounds sane, his relative lack of name recognition would probably work in his favor against someone as notorious as Clinton, and IDK, Latino voting base unpredictability???? But getting it this way? The Republicans don't have a prayer. Bring it on.
posted by Sara C. at 1:40 PM on July 7, 2016

Shit, if Comey was the nominee he'd probably win in a walk.
posted by Justinian at 1:40 PM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

> Trump would actively destroy the country and the world from the moment he takes office up until his inevitable impeachment or assassination.

Well and also, one difference between Trump and GWB is that Trump would be taking power in a country that's already been damaged by eight years of GWB.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:40 PM on July 7, 2016 [13 favorites]

Right? Can you imagine GWB saying in 2001, "We're going to need to do a lot worse than waterboarding" and "We need to go after their families"?
posted by stolyarova at 1:43 PM on July 7, 2016 [12 favorites]

I was getting ready to be all happy about that, Pope Guilty, but it looks like the legislature will be able to override the veto?
posted by bardophile at 1:43 PM on July 7, 2016

Let me reiterate: Trump came to Washington on Thursday to rally the party behind him. Instead, he wound up threatening one senator, calling another — who wasn't even there — a loser and picking on a third. All of these people are, ostensibly, within the same political party!

INT. BLACKJACK TABLE, TRUMP CASINO

Donald Trump is sitting at a BLACKJACK TABLE. ELEVATOR MUSIC plays softly in the background.

TRUMP
Hit me.

The dealer looks confused. He glances at the pit boss, who nods slightly. Dutifully, he pulls another card from the shoe. And adds it to the FIVE CARDS already in front of Trump. They add up to 36. He turns back to his player.

DEALER
...sir?

TRUMP
Hit Me Again.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:43 PM on July 7, 2016 [20 favorites]

Where Republicans Stand on Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet

If Trump is making any effort to win over members of Congress, it isn’t showing. Many of them remain on the fence or are seeking, with mixed results, to simply not talk about Trump at all. Senator Dean Heller is the latest to come out against Trump. A host of them are planning to skip the convention altogether. Senator Mike Lee, asked why he hadn’t backed Trump yet, unleashed a tirade, knocking him for conspiracy theorizing and religious intolerance. Perhaps most damningly, Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—who has endorsed Trump, if grudgingly!—suggested he was not yet a “credible candidate,” even as he called Hillary Clinton “an intelligent and capable person.”

How do you solve a problem like The Donald? For Republicans and conservatives, the time for hoping Trump would simply burn himself out, collapse, and go away is over. Now they have to figure out what they’ll do: Sign up with Trump in the name of party unity, and distaste for Hillary Clinton? Or risk alienating the Republican nominee and reject him?

I was surprised to see this: John Boehner: YEA
The former speaker, who says he and Trump are “texting buddies. I thought Boehner had more integrity than that.

This morning I was wondering about the Evangelical leaders who endorsed him after James Dobson proclaimed that Trump was Born Again. How's that going? I like to think that it is slowly dawning on them that they were conned but honestly I doubt they ever really believed in that story to begin with. People like Ralph Reed and Falwell bartered their souls away a long time ago to attain more power. They could give a shit whether Trump ever prayed in his life just so long as they are seen to anoint the One True Prince.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:51 PM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

bardophile, the article says the legislature could override the veto but "the requirements wouldn't take effect unless voters approve a proposed constitutional amendment; that approval is needed because the Missouri Supreme Court previously struck down similar requirements as unconstitutional. If voters OK the measure, the requirement would take effect for elections after June 2017." .... "The proposed amendment is on the Nov. 8 ballot. If the Legislature does not overturn the veto and voters approve the constitutional amendment, lawmakers who want photo ID would have to try to pass a law in the 2017 session." (from the article)
posted by aabbbiee at 1:52 PM on July 7, 2016

This morning I was wondering about the Evangelical leaders who endorsed him after James Dobson proclaimed that Trump was Born Again. How's that going? I like to think that it is slowly dawning on them that they were conned

OH MAN THAT STORY

So Dobson walked it back pretty fast, and it became "No, I uh, heard from someone else who TOLD me he was freshly born again." And then the person who told him had sketchy ties to the Trump campaign. And people were like "we kind of thought when you said that, it meant you heard it from him and somehow believed it" and he was like "oh look at the kitty."
posted by corb at 1:56 PM on July 7, 2016 [31 favorites]

Seriously who ever believed that story? It was a crock of shit from the get go. And how Dobson could sell it with a straight face (Yeah it's totally a crock o' gold, I swear!) while proclaiming to be a man of God is breathtaking. You don't always get a chance to see the mask slip but when it does, it's time for a victory dance. By which I mean a derisive snort followed by a good old fashioned eye roll.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:03 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

A couple who wrote a satirical book about Trump got fired from their day job.

Brad and Amy Herzog of Monterey County have spent the past 17 summers rolling around the country promoting the RV lifestyle as spokespeople for the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA).
[snip]

On June 28, two hours after Amy and Brad posted a Kickstarter campaign to print D is for Dump Trump: An Anti-Hate Alphabet, RV Daily Report founder and editor Greg Gerber published an opinion piece calling for the RVIA to "disavow their affiliation with these authors."

"For an organization that routinely walks the tightrope of political correctness, it seems rather odd that RVIA would turn a blind eye to such a divisive book in this politically-charged environment," Gerber writes.

Twenty four hours later, the RVIA alerted the Herzogs their contract was being terminated.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:11 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Is anyone else having a laugh that Jason Chaffetz of all people is blathering on about how "regular people" would be in jail for what Hillary did w/r/t emails? This is a guy who once had a colleague stop his hearing because he was reading classified information into the Congressional Record. That was a Benghazi hearing, too, IIRC.
posted by indubitable at 2:13 PM on July 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

Secret Life of Gravy: Seriously who ever believed that story?

I was surprised at the number of commenters on Patheos who bought it. He's just a "baby Christian", you have to give time for the Holy Spirit to work and the grace of the Lord to transform him...

Anyway, this has more details:

Now we know that, according to Dr. James Dobson, prosperity-gospel preacher Paula White led Trump to Christ. This will not help the candidate’s standing among #NeverTrump evangelicals. They regard White as a false teacher and somewhat of a laughingstock.

posted by clawsoon at 2:15 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Oh it would have to be a prosperity-gospel preacher-- that's the only part that sounds believable to me. But come on! Donald Trump on his knees? Praying? Seeking truth outside his own brain? Humble? Worshiping someone other than himself? Not. One. Bit. Believable.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:22 PM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

In his discussion with senators, Trump claimed that he had inside intelligence about Hillary Clinton’s vetting process for Supreme Court vacancies and that he knew the names of two people the presumptive Democratic nominee is considering nominating, two Republican officials said. But Trump would not reveal those names.

“No, no, I’m saving that information for the season finale.”
posted by Going To Maine at 2:25 PM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

> Presented in a recent interview with a scenario, floating around the political ether, in which the presumptive Republican nominee proves all the naysayers wrong, beats Hillary Clinton and wins the presidency, only to forgo the office as the ultimate walk-off winner, Mr. Trump flashed a mischievous smile.

"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:27 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

And people were like "we kind of thought when you said that, it meant you heard it from him and somehow believed it" and he was like "oh look at the kitty."

But who hasn't been distracted by a kitty at some point in their career.
posted by you're a kitty! at 2:27 PM on July 7, 2016 [20 favorites]

That reminds me of John McCain who knew how to win the war in Iraq but was saving that knowledge for when he got elected.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:28 PM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

Trump on his knees?

I think it's a little telling that he doesn't even bow his head when in prayer or observing a moment of silence.
posted by peeedro at 2:28 PM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

Can corb or anyone explain this convention agenda? I’m guessing that it’s simply a hilarious bit of filler text, but I’d love a more occult explanation.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:31 PM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

Hey, did you guys hear that Larry Flynt was led to Christ by Jimmy Carter's sister? PTL.
posted by clawsoon at 2:32 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

But Trump would not reveal those names.

"I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Democrat Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our judiciary."
posted by Etrigan at 2:34 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Maybe they've got a reenactor?
posted by stolyarova at 2:34 PM on July 7, 2016

We can only hope that Clinton will counter with Lin-Manuel Miranda.
posted by stolyarova at 2:35 PM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

I think it's a little telling that he doesn't even bow his head when in prayer...

To be fair, that's similar to my look when a family member launches into prayer over the Thanksgiving dinner.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:35 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Apparently the Rent cast did an event at the Democratic Convention, so I think there's plenty of hope of some Hamilton stuff, or at least LMM.

Plus, you know, these technically nonpartisan spots. "Vote for leaders who value diversity and inclusion."

i love him
posted by you're a kitty! at 2:40 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

NJ.com:

It is highly unlikely that Gov. Chris Christie will be Donald Trump's running mate, according to two sources who are advising the Trump campaign and who requested to remain anonymous.

Instead, the sources said that former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich is "the likely pick" to be the tycoon's choice for vice president.

posted by prize bull octorok at 2:42 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Livestream of Christie press conference responding to the NJ.com report.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:43 PM on July 7, 2016 [9 favorites]

I think the most bizarre part of this election to me is that the same memes and bullshit get posted by most of the right and the middle to far left. What the fuck happened to the world that straight up anarchists and antichoicers are posting the same shitty articles and talking points?

Plus ça change. Maybe there's more of this stuff this year and certainly it's easier to broadcast now, but this part is basically the 2000 election all over. I mean, I recall Matt Welch being all NADER NADER NADER in Common Dreams or some lefty blog, then spending the next four years as a loud and proud warblogger. You can always count on LWNJs and RWNJs meeting at the point where EVERYTHING IS CORRUPT AND SHIT NEEDS TO BE BURNED DOWN RIGHT NOW!!!
posted by octobersurprise at 2:45 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

"It is highly unlikely that Gov. Chris Christie will be Donald Trump's running mate ... "

Look at the bright side, Chris. You can have Oreos again.
posted by octobersurprise at 2:51 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Brave fighters in the Infowars. We should honor them—some lost their credibility in combat.
posted by defenestration at 2:52 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Christie may not be VP, but he damn well fucked a pig and I hope that fact is line two or three in his obituary
posted by angrycat at 2:53 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Instead, the sources said that former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich is "the likely pick" to be the tycoon's choice for vice president.

Ew. Ugh. Yuck.
posted by zutalors! at 2:55 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

On the plus side, Clinton and her team will know exactly what they're up against.

VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY 2: ELECTRIC TRUMPALOO
posted by stolyarova at 2:56 PM on July 7, 2016 [17 favorites]

Can corb or anyone explain this convention agenda?

Maybe they've got a reenactor?

If that's the case, I'd be curious as to why the "Party of Lincoln" would opt for a slave owner over the Great Emancipator. Perhaps his outspokenness against the inherent evil of human bondage might not sit too well with the modern-day Republican base?
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:00 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

A lot of Republicans hate Lincoln (in private) and say he was the first fascist President because he violated states' rights (in the same intellectual tradition, the second "fascist President" - and the most hated after Obama - has to be FDR).
posted by stolyarova at 3:06 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

FDR's internment of Japanese Americans is a hell of a lot closer to fascism than anything Lincoln did, of course.
posted by stolyarova at 3:06 PM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

Instead, the sources said that former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich is "the likely pick" to be the tycoon's choice for vice president.

Remember back in 2011 when Gingrich was giving Romney a scare, Nancy Pelosi hinted she had some serious dirt on Newt from her time investigating his 84 charges of tax evasion and campaign finance violations:

"One of these days we'll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich," Pelosi said. "I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."

Pressed for more detail she wouldn't go further.

"Not right here," Pelosi joked. "When the time's right."

So we would have that to look forward to.
posted by peeedro at 3:11 PM on July 7, 2016 [24 favorites]

It has to be Newt, he's such an intellectual heavy weight insider. /s

And has no shame. Absolutely none. He will talk about the books he has written (almost always a money making scam/bribe, always ghost written - here's Murdoch funneling $4.5M to him back in the 90's), Right wing media always talks about him as a history professor (ha) and he has a current business creating media that is supposedly 'history' but is just another way to receive cash.

Trump's gotta love his ability to always come out ahead cash wise. And the wives.
posted by readery at 3:11 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

FDR's internment of Japanese Americans is a hell of a lot closer to fascism than anything Lincoln did, of course.

Yes that time that one president suspended Habeas Corpus was way worse than that time that other president suspended Habeas Corpus.
posted by one_bean at 3:11 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

A lot of Republicans hate Lincoln (in private) and say he was the first fascist President because he violated states’ rights

Citation needed…
posted by Going To Maine at 3:12 PM on July 7, 2016

Instead, the sources said that former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich is "the likely pick" to be the tycoon's choice for vice president.

It's inevitable, really. Donald Trump is a gigantic walking dick and Newt Gingrich is a master of dick-foo. The two of them would make ideal dick-taters.

This second source heard on a conference call with Trump campaign officials last weekend that the mogul has lately been giving real consideration to U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, whose congressional district is one of the most Republican in the south.

Blackburn, a Republican is anti-abortion and said she doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, and maintains that the Earth is not facing a global warming, but actually cooling.

TRUMP/MARSHA MARSHA MARSHA '16!
posted by octobersurprise at 3:13 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

GtM, here you go! It's a pretty common strain of thought in the conservative community.
posted by stolyarova at 3:17 PM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

The Republican Party's arc from Honest Abe to Dishonest Don...
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:20 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

It has to be Newt, he's such an intellectual heavy weight insider.

Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of the way a rich person acts.
Newt Gingrich is a dumb man's idea of the way a smart person talks.

A match made in heaven!
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:23 PM on July 7, 2016 [46 favorites]

Does anybody have compiled state by state polling? I'm curious as to which states are and aren't considered in play.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:23 PM on July 7, 2016

I'd be curious as to why the 'Party of Lincoln' would opt for a slave owner over the Great Emancipator.

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we begin by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.

posted by kirkaracha at 3:24 PM on July 7, 2016 [10 favorites]

> "My read on this is that Priebus is desperately trying to fight all of our #nevertrump fires, and wanted to take some of the wind out of the delegates' sails by getting Cruz a speaking slot - but also didn't want Cruz to just use that speaking slot to straight up trash the nominee."

That makes sense. I was kind of wondering exactly how you would go about speaking on behalf of someone who accused your father of murdering Kennedy ...
posted by kyrademon at 3:26 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

It would be totally fitting for Gingrich to be Trump's VP. He was the first person to turn "Campaigning for President" into a money making scheme.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:36 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

I would rather be in charge of organizing a wedding between, say, Lindsay Lohan and Justin Bieber than be in charge of planning this GOP convention.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:37 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Cruz backstabbing Trump at the podium might be the only way to get Sansa to love him.
posted by leotrotsky at 3:39 PM on July 7, 2016 [24 favorites]

I would rather be in charge of organizing a wedding between, say, Lindsay Lohan and Justin Bieber than be in charge of planning this GOP convention.

Honestly, the former sounds pretty fun.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:41 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Does anybody have compiled state by state polling? I'm curious as to which states are and aren't considered in play.

HuffPost Pollster 2016 General Election polls

The New York Times uses the Huffington Post Pollster API and lists these states as the swing states:

Arizona (Clinton +1.2)
Florida (Clinton +3.7)
Iowa (Clinton +10.7)
New Hampshire (Clinton +2.9)
North Carolina (Clinton +0.4)
Ohio (Clinton +2.6)
Pennsylvania (Clinton +1.9)
Wisconsin (Clinton +9.3)
Virginia (Clinton +4.4)

According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump will be targeting these 17 states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:46 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

I was kind of wondering exactly how you would go about speaking on behalf of someone who accused your father of murdering Kennedy ...

♪ 'Please allow me to introduce himself,
A man of wealth and no taste...

...He shouted out,
Who killed the Kennedys?
When after all
It was my dad and me
(Woo woo, woo woo)... ♬
posted by y2karl at 3:50 PM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

Cruz comes on stage to "The Rains of Castamere."
posted by drezdn at 3:56 PM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump will be targeting these 17 states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Remember, of course, that everything Trump says is garbage. So who knows? But he did hire a pollster to review New York, which is delightfully ambitious…
posted by Going To Maine at 3:57 PM on July 7, 2016

The local NPR station this morning quoted poling giving Clinton a 30 point lead over Trump here in California. So she doesn't have to spend any time campaigning here. (I guess he doesn't have to either -- he can just kiss those E. votes goodbye.)
posted by puddledork at 3:58 PM on July 7, 2016

I was so disappointed when Bob Dole endorsed Trump. I come from a long line of Kansas Republicans, and I know people who have met Dole and been treated kindly by him. He took stands for civil rights issues and disability issues. And he always reminded me of my beloved grandfather, who was about the same age and also served in WWII, besides being a fellow Kansas Republican.

I also remember Dole being one of the sane-Republicans people contrasted to Gingrich & Co during the Clinton years. When Gingrich ran in the 2012 primaries, Dole publicly denounced him.

"If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. [...] His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. [...] He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year. [1996]"

And since Dole's not even running for office anymore, I'd think he'd be loudly in the "Save the party - stop Trump" camp.

Yet -- he endorsed Trump. And suggested he pick Newt Gingrich for his VP!

"My view is that Donald Trump needs someone who understands Congress, who can help him work with Congress, who understands foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy. You know someone like Newt Gingrich," Dole said. "You know none of us are perfect, but Newt Gingrich is a good fit for Trump, because he can help him in all of those areas and Trump has to listen."

I just have to believe he's doing this to keep his status as a loyal Republican ("What's a lifelong Republican supposed to do, support the opponent? I don't think so," he says...) while deliberately trying to sabotage Trump's candidacy! Otherwise what kind of sense does this possibly make?
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:59 PM on July 7, 2016 [12 favorites]

Dole’s Gingrich slam actually sounds a lot like his criticism of Cruz.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:02 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm a little surprised that vampire Giuliani isn't on the VP list. I guess he'd be a cabinet pick for whatever post would dismantle the First Amendment and maybe police the owning of ferrets
posted by angrycat at 4:03 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Uh... on the radio, thirteen and thirty sound a lot alike. Maybe I am prematurely jubilant.
posted by puddledork at 4:03 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, Dole did kind of get his ass kicked by (Bill) Clinton back in '96. Probably still holds a grudge.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:03 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah, but if you want to beat (Hillary) Clinton, and you think Newt Gingrich is an electoral liability, why the heck would you recommend that Hillary's opponent put him, of all people, on the ticket?
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:06 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

State Department reopens Clinton emails probe

The State Department is reopening an internal investigation of possible mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and top aides.

Spokesman John Kirby says the emails probe is restarting now that the Justice Department isn't pursuing a criminal prosecution. The State Department suspended its review in April to avoid interfering with the FBI's inquiry.

Kirby set no deadline for the investigation's completion.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:09 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Nobody else wants the job.
posted by Justinian at 4:09 PM on July 7, 2016

Black people keep getting shot dead by the police, but by all means, let's investigate the emails again.
posted by zachlipton at 4:14 PM on July 7, 2016 [24 favorites]

But Kirby said this week former officials can still face “administrative sanctions.” The most serious is loss of security clearances, which could complicate Clinton's naming of a national security team if she becomes president.

I can understand this notionally, but if you can literally tell the President that they aren’t important enough to know something, that seems like a problem. (Honestly, seems like a complicated question for lawyers, but at a minimum they would have to be cleared enough to do their job.)
posted by Going To Maine at 4:15 PM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

Black people keep getting shot dead by the police, but by all means, let's investigate the emails again.

Investigating why black people are being shot by the police isn’t actually the State Department’s job…
posted by Going To Maine at 4:16 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Does anybody have compiled state by state polling? I'm curious as to which states are and aren't considered in play.

PEC has state-by-state aggregated polls converted into probabilities of going for Trump/Clinton if the election were held today. NC is right at the margin of error; CO and PA are probably a little pro-Clinton right now; AZ, KS, MO lean Trump. These don't give a sense for what the margin is, but you can also see what it would look like with +2% to Clinton (AZ, KS, MO become tossups), or +2% to Trump (Trump probably gets AZ, KS, MO, CO, PA, NC, but still loses).

538 has something similar that breaks out the actual margins for all states, sorted by "swingness." Their top swing states (I took 5 points or under) are AZ, MO, NC, GA (!), SC (!!), OH, CO, FL, NV, and MS (!!!), with KS just below them.

(I like 538's vis a lot better but PEC has performed a bit better in the past.)
posted by en forme de poire at 4:18 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clinton unlikely to face perjury charges in email scandal

According to a widely cited 2007 study by P.J. Meitl in the Quinnipiac Law Review, only six people had been convicted of perjury to Congress going back to the 1940s – and two of them were related to the Watergate scandal, another from Iran-Contra.

That doesn’t mean Congress hasn’t been pushing the Justice Department to hold more people accountable.

“They get referrals all the time,” said Hardin, reached as he watched the Comey testimony on television from his vacation in Florida. “Every time a congressman gets bent out of shape about something, they try to refer it.”[snip]

When it comes to Clinton, the Justice Department will respond to any referral and decide independently how many FBI resources should be invested in the case, said Hardin. But don’t count on any big decisions by Nov. 8.

So I wonder if the FBI start investigating her again will the State Department have to suspend their investigation again?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:18 PM on July 7, 2016

I considered Bob Dole the Last Honest Republican when he ran against Bill Clinton in '96, and on the issue of integrity alone I considered voting for him, deciding against it when I judged the already-73-year-old wouldn't be able to stand up to Newt Gingrich, no matter how much he'd want to.

So I am EXTRA disappointed in his Trump endorsement, but then, he is 93 now, we could always assume senility.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:22 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

But don’t count on any big decisions by Nov. 8.
So this will continue to be a "cloud over Hillary's head" for the rest of the campaign. Great.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:24 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Cruz comes on stage to "The Rains of Castamere."

Oh please oh please.
posted by corb at 4:27 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Yep. It will hang over her head after she wins as well. The GOP is like a bulldog with a steak stolen off the counter-- no way they are going to let go until that piece of steak is chewed up and swallowed.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:28 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

The latest Trumpcast digs into the links between Russian president Vladimir Putin and the Republican nominee.
posted by chrchr at 4:35 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Did we know about this? FBI won’t rule out probe into Clinton Foundation

“I’m not going to comment on the existence or nonexistence of any other ongoing investigations,” Director James Comey told the House Oversight Committee when asked whether the FBI had looked into the foundation as part of its probe into Hillary Clinton and the private email server she used as secretary of State.

Comey also refused to answer a followup question from Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) about whether the Clinton Foundation was “tied into” the Clinton investigation.

The comments stoked speculation about a possible ongoing probe connected to the charitable organization

So theoretically the FBI could be investigating the Clinton Foundation as well as Clinton lying under oath to Congress during the Benghazi hearings AND the State Department will also be investigating her handling of Emails.

I get it. They don't want her to run and they don't want her to win but can they really tie her up with multiple investigations? Is she going to be called upon to spend hours of her time answer questions?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:36 PM on July 7, 2016

The GOP is like a bulldog with a steak stolen off the counter-- no way they are going to let go until that piece of steak is chewed up and swallowed.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy

Eponysterical, 2016 Hall of Fame nominee
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:37 PM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

I can understand this notionally, but if you can literally tell the President that they aren’t important enough to know something, that seems like a problem.

It's not, because it's impossible. All classification authority derives from the head of the executive branch in the form of the President. By definition, they can't be denied a security clearance. There is no classified document they are not allowed to see, or are not allowed to declassify.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:38 PM on July 7, 2016 [11 favorites]

Leaked Democratic Party files expose anti-Trump 'gimmicks' and 17,500 donors

Released by a hacker – or hackers – under the name "Guccifer 2.0", the latest files include internal memos, financial spreadsheets and planning documents. However, one standout 22-page file consists of a detailed itinerary for the RNC – set to take place in Cleveland, Ohio from 18-21 July.

Allocated a proposed budget of $15,000, the counter-convention plans are largely aimed at ridiculing rival political presidential candidate, Donald Trump, with a set of gimmicks.[snip]

Other listed ideas include a "Go Trump yourself" kit which plans to include "spray tan, hair dye, tiny foam fingers, dog whistle and a regular whistle because "come to think about it, Trump isn't subtle about his hate".

There's more. Worth a minute or two to read just for the laffs.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:44 PM on July 7, 2016

Did we know about this? FBI won’t rule out probe into Clinton Foundation

It's the standard neither-confirm-nor-deny. It doesn't mean anything. They could have looked into it but not found anything sufficient to warrant further investigation, they could be actively preparing a case, they could be doing nothing.

Of course, using suggestive phrasing like "won't rule out" is great for driving clicks.
posted by indubitable at 4:44 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

The closing paragraph is: "Citing anonymous intelligence officials, Fox News reported earlier this year that investigators were examining whether public corruption laws were violated by the intersection of Clinton’s work as the former secretary of State and that of the foundation."

Ok granted FOX News is not my trusted news source but it is a little worrisome.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:48 PM on July 7, 2016

Not only Fox News but "anonymous intelligence officials". I wouldn't give it the time of day.
posted by indubitable at 4:49 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump's son-in-law under fire from family

Jared Kushner's family denounces his use of their Holocaust history to defend the GOP nominee against charges of anti-Semitism.

posted by Joe in Australia at 5:01 PM on July 7, 2016

I get it. They don't want her to run and they don't want her to win but can they really tie her up with multiple investigations?

Yup.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:04 PM on July 7, 2016

Leaked Democratic Party files expose anti-Trump ‘gimmicks’ and 17,500 donors

This is the same dump that contained a bogus list of Clinton oppo research so I’m not sure how credible that really is…

Trump’s son-in-law under fire from family

This was interesting, but it sounds like the family members who are angry about this are ones who were already feuding with Kushner’s branch thanks to his father’s bad actions in the past. Good gossip, tho’.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:10 PM on July 7, 2016

Was watching some of the Comey testimony. It appears the GOP decided to put a smart, articulate, photogenic, Republican G-man on the dais and make him defend his work - and by association HRC - for a couple hours. Instead of feasting on the moderate portion of red meat he served them Tuesday, they decided to have the smartest guy in the room soundly dismantle the GOP's more rabid accusations of HRC, distracting the rest of the country from any of the reasonable concerns raised in his Tuesday statement. (Comey gets fiesty at 4:40:08)
posted by klarck at 5:55 PM on July 7, 2016 [23 favorites]

(Comey gets fiesty at 2:18:30)
posted by klarck at 6:00 PM on July 7, 2016

The recent ruling overturning the corruption conviction of former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell would seem to derail most public corruption cases in the near future.
posted by humanfont at 6:04 PM on July 7, 2016

Gingrich has a lot of scandals that are already well-known.
posted by msalt at 6:10 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

"Leo, we need to be investigated by someone who wants to kill us just to watch us die. We need someone perceived by the American people to be irresponsible, untrustworthy, partisan, ambitious, and thirsty for the limelight. Am I crazy, or is this not a job for the U. S. House of Representatives?" -- The West Wing, "Ways and Means"

The GOP got an enormous gift in the form of Comey's statement, suitable to be made into campaign ads and spread far and wide. And they got such a gift even though it is frankly inappropriate for the FBI to pass judgement at length on behavior they have deemed not to be remotely worthy of pursuing as a legal matter. Why then are they proceeding to ruin it by doing what the House always does and drive the scandal into irrelevance in a no-holds-barred fight for blood instead of playing it cool for once in their lives? For folks that have been in the Clinton scandal business for decades, they sure are bad at it.
posted by zachlipton at 6:14 PM on July 7, 2016 [15 favorites]

Jason Horowitz at The New York Times: “Would Donald Trump Quit if He Wins the Election? He Doesn’t Rule It Out”
posted by Going To Maine at 6:17 PM on July 7, 2016

So here's a weird story from 1990 about Donald Trump hosting a deadly powerboat race.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:19 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

zachlipton: "Why then are they proceeding to ruin it by doing what the House always does and drive the scandal into irrelevance in a no-holds-barred fight for blood instead of playing it cool for once in their lives?"

From Vox.com, "Republicans just can't help themselves from overreaching on every Clinton scandal" (2016/07/07):

The problem for Republicans is that the conservative movement has already firmly committed itself to the narrative that some nefarious entity called "the Clintons" is deeply and profoundly corrupt in some unprecedented way. That’s why behavior that appears entirely innocent to outsiders — things like losing money on a land deal, your friend killing himself, or trying to clean up a mismanaged travel office — end up portrayed as scandals inside the bubble.

Republicans are so convinced there’s a silver bullet out there that will destroy Bill and Hillary’s careers forever that they will chase any shiny object in the hopes that they’ve found it.

[...]

For Republicans, every hit on Clinton turns into a second- and third-order story about the political process and who turned what documents over to whom, because they feel compelled to swing for the fences even though time and again they end up striking out.

posted by mhum at 6:21 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Why then are they proceeding to ruin it by doing what the House always does and drive the scandal into irrelevance in a no-holds-barred fight for blood instead of playing it cool for once in their lives?

Because the career politicians - the ones who understand the game and how it works - all got primaried out and replaced by neophyte ideologues.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:28 PM on July 7, 2016 [13 favorites]

Small election-related victories: Washington's anti-trans bathroom initiative, I-1515, didn't get enough signatures to make the November ballot.

At least there's some good news about something today.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:28 PM on July 7, 2016 [10 favorites]

For Republicans, every hit on Clinton turns into a second- and third-order story about the political process and who turned what documents over to whom, because they feel compelled to swing for the fences even though time and again they end up striking out.

But the crazy thing is that they still win that way. The system is designed to lock up when this happens and that benefits the people who are doing well with the system locked as it is right now. Go back to our earlier discussions about how maintaining the status quo is a de facto win for Conservatives. Remember what Richard "Dr. Evil" Berman taught us:

"You get in people's minds a tie. They don't know who is right. And you get all ties because the tie basically ensures the status quo.

People are not prepared to get aggressive and in moving one way or another. I'll take a tie any day if I'm trying to preserve the status quo."

Swinging for the fences and striking out time and time again is still a win for these folks. The time they spend striking out is time that isn't spent talking about raising the minimum wage or making college more affordable or gun control or the extrajudicial executions performed by the police. The time they spend striking out is time we don't spend looking into the details of backroom deals and lobbyist-written bills. The time they spend striking out is time we don't spend listening to people who are struggling, people who are petitioning for a tiny bit of redress for their all too reasonable grievances.

Every time they strike out, they aren't losing; they're doing nothing, and doing nothing is a win for them.
posted by zachlipton at 6:41 PM on July 7, 2016 [13 favorites]

Question: If you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?
Comey: Correct.

Question: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "C" in the text someplace?
Comey: No…There was no header on the email or the text.

Question: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.
posted by JackFlash at 6:53 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

There's a logical error in there. Adding markings to a document doesn't make it classified -- the information contained in it does. The markings are there to let people know that it's classified, but if the markings are omitted / improperly added (e.g. wrong classification level) that doesn't change the classification of the document.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:59 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Every time they strike out, they aren't losing; they're doing nothing, and doing nothing is a win for them.

As usual, it's just best to quote Dr. King here (emphasis mine):

Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

posted by tivalasvegas at 7:06 PM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

Accordingly I consider such trivial pursuits as the remnants of the Clinton v. Sanders slogfest and the email thing as secret weapons for the forces of inertia and the status quo.

We have to keep our eye on the ball. Justice. Dignity. Love.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:10 PM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

We have to keep our eye on the ball. Justice. Dignity. Love.

Charge forward!
posted by stolyarova at 7:13 PM on July 7, 2016

Well I'm not exactly William Wallace. I'm more the guy who's in the tent at the back trying to make sure that we ordered enough food for the horses or whatever.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:20 PM on July 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

if the markings are omitted / improperly added (e.g. wrong classification level) that doesn't change the classification of the document.

It goes to the question of negligence on the part of Clinton. If it is improperly marked, then she can not be presumed to have known it was classified.
posted by JackFlash at 7:23 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Well, if Tonycpsu is right, then nobody can actually know that a document is classified unless they know that the information in it is non-classified. Except in trivial cases ("Washington DC is the capital of the USA") I'm not sure that this is the sort of thing that can be known. Also, a senior politician's mental state and body of knowledge are certainly of interest to foreign intelligence; maybe the mere fact that Hillary has read something is in itself something worthy of classification. It's just an incoherent mess.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:30 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Here is the goddamn hell of it. As a casual Bernie supporter, I used to be really OK with voting HRC in November. Then, for MONTHS casual Bernie supporters were lumped in with the DudeBros, despite Bernie himself telling them to take a hike. So, of course we were racist sexists. To exactly no-one's surprise, heels were then dug in... well, I was a little surprised. Injustice does that to me, tho, so I shouldn't have been.

And just when I was thinking "Yeah, let it go, everyone knows Bernie is going to endorse, because I would rather gnaw my own leg off at the knee than vote GOP, and so will he."

Then... this. Yes, everyone knew there would be no indictment. We didn't know how much, and how badly she lied to everyone. I mean, Pants On Fire Politifact shit. I mean, why? She would not have been indicted if she owned up to it. Just... lie after lie after lie, as if she wouldn't be caught out on any of them. After she knew she was being investigated by the FBI. Does not speak well of her competence or her ability to anticipate how future events unfold.

Bernie is too old for an office that ages people well before their time, and too left-of-center, and not an actual Democrat. His stated goal was to bring the Democratic Party further to the left, which will mean just right dead center, and he has actually achieved that.

I just wish the Democratic Party nominee he lost to was someone who was worth voting for.

I will vote for her anyway, as the alternative is beyond terrible. Warren in 2020 if Clinton falls. We'll need her, then.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:41 PM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

What lie?
posted by JackFlash at 7:42 PM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm really not seeing anything here that rises to the level of "lies after lies." My giveafuck level for the whole issue is ranking below my hair-washing schedule. (I voted Bernie in the primary. I am a non-fan of the Clintons. I still am sick of hearing about the emails.)

I will definitely be taking November 7 off work so I can drive people to the polls. I'm in a VERY blue area of what I guess is now a swing state (wtf Pennsyltucky) but my people need to actually vote.
posted by soren_lorensen at 7:47 PM on July 7, 2016 [19 favorites]

AP Fact Check: Hillary Clinton Email Claims Collapse Under FBI Investigation
posted by Drinky Die at 7:51 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

AP Fact Check: Hillary Clinton Email Claims Collapse Under FBI Investigation

AP fact checking collapses under fact checking.

"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material."
Most of the documents in question were classified after she had left office. There is no way for her to have known that the unclassified documents were later classified. As Comey testified, there were a few other documents that she received that were not marked as classified so she would not have know if they were classified. That is not a lie.
posted by JackFlash at 8:01 PM on July 7, 2016 [22 favorites]

No, there isn't an error there: the question isn't 'are they classified' -- look at Comey's answer 'that would be a reasonable inference.'

Unless things are much different at State than they are elsewhere, an unmarked document transmitted over a classified network defaults to the highest level of classification that can be sent over that network until it's explicitly declassified. If State has some other process that works differently, then maybe Comey's statement is correct, and I'd expect him to know much more about that than I do. I'm just explaining things based on my understanding of how things work elsewhere.

Of course, Hillary, being a high-level member of the executive branch, has some measure of authority over classification / declassification herself, and once things get to that level I have no idea whether the normal rules apply. It seems to me that as long as Obama's delegated some measure of responsibility to his cabinet (as he ought to) then they should themselves be pretty much immune to any legal penalty related to leaking classified material with any punishment being either impeachment or legal punishment related to the consequences of the leak, not the fact that there was a leak. That's clearly not how it works here, but all this business about whether it was marked, whether it was classified at the time, or later classified, and whether she knew all of these things seems kind of silly given that she's in charge of an entire cabinet agency.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:02 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material."
Most of the documents in question were classified after she had left office. There is no way for her to have known that the unclassified documents were later classified.

This is the incompetent not evil defense. Either she is too incompetent to know her email would inevitably contain classified email or she did it on purpose. I never understand why people think incompetent is the better answer.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:04 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure I care if she was running Viagra sales from her server right now.
posted by bongo_x at 8:06 PM on July 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

Unless things are much different at State than they are elsewhere, an unmarked document transmitted over a classified network defaults to the highest level of classification that can be sent over that network until it's explicitly declassified.

But none of the documents in question were transmitted over a classified network. All .GOV email accounts are unclassified. By your logic, she was right to assume that anything she received over an unclassified network was unclassified unless marked as classified. The documents were not marked as classified.
posted by JackFlash at 8:06 PM on July 7, 2016 [10 favorites]

Either she is too incompetent to know her email would inevitably contain classified email or she did it on purpose.

Did what on purpose? Even if she had been using a .GOV email account, it would still have been unclassified. .GOV accounts are not approved for classified material.
posted by JackFlash at 8:09 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

That AP Fact Check isn't the damning article that the click bait headline leads one to believe. And JackFlash points out the problem with the story itself.

Should Clinton have used the private server? Probably not. But the fishing witch hunt by the House has been far more than a distraction. Likely more classified materials have been leaked by the investigating committee members in this activity and others than by any breach of the Clinton sever.

Sadly this topic will be in the news for the months until November 7 or even years more if Clinton is elected.
posted by haiku warrior at 8:10 PM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

We didn't know how much, and how badly she lied to everyone. I mean, Pants On Fire Politifact shit.

Y'know, "Pants on Fire Politifact shit" refers to a specific status assigned to a statement by a specific entity. That entity (i.e. Politifact) has been good enough to assess several statements Clinton made about her email server, to wit:

Regarding her State Department email practices, "my predecessors did the same thing" is Mostly False, because almost no previous Secretaries of State used email much, and the one good precedent, Colin Powell, used an AOL email address rather than a private server (your call on whether that's better or worse).

"It was allowed," referring to her email practices is rated False, hedging that specifically the distinction between exclusive and partal use of the offsite system muddied the issue of just what she was asserting was "allowed". Probably a lie, but hardly a brazen one.

Says she "never received nor sent any material that was marked classified" on her private email server while secretary of state is rated as False, because there were in fact two documents so marked, apparently.

Notably, none of these were brazen fabrications which Politifact deemed worthy of the "Pants on Fire" designation.

Now, if you wanted to label the "landing under sniper fire" story as a Pants on Fire lie, congrats, you have Politifact's blessing on that one.
posted by jackbishop at 8:11 PM on July 7, 2016 [9 favorites]

All .GOV email accounts are unclassified.

If you're talking about .gov as a domain name and not a shorthand for "civilian government", that may be true. If you're saying that people employed in civilian government agencies do not have accounts on classified systems, it's false.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:11 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

What lie?

Well I'm glad you asked! Since you seem to think I'm an idiot.

The Associated Press.

PolitiFact.

The Paper of Record.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:11 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Did what on purpose?

Lied.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:13 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Unless things are much different at State than they are elsewhere, an unmarked document transmitted over a classified network defaults to the highest level of classification that can be sent over that network until it's explicitly declassified.

Ok, but Clinton's entire email account was on an unclassified network (the internet). Since she accessed the account from an unclassified device over an unclassified network, there is no reason she would have classified documents in that account unless someone else stripped the classification markings and sent them to her first. Or are you proposing she sat down at a secure machine on the classified network, pulled up a document, and literally retyped it word for word on her blackberry to transfer it to the unclassified network?
posted by zachlipton at 8:15 PM on July 7, 2016

Serious, guys, when you're in a hole stop digging. Explain to us why we should vote D November regardless. In this one, perfect year, you will win. Get. Out. The. Vote. And hope to hell the GOP doesn't ratfuck The Donald in Cleveland.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:15 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

This is the incompetent not evil defense. Either she is too incompetent to know her email would inevitably contain classified email or she did it on purpose. I never understand why people think incompetent is the better answer.

An evil, deliberately corrupt actor is better than someone making a screw up in classification?
posted by Going To Maine at 8:17 PM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

So 2 emails received out of 30000 contains documents marked classified unnecessarily are causing you to call her a liar? That is not a lot and easily could have been forgotten with time (if it was even noticed).
posted by coust at 8:20 PM on July 7, 2016 [13 favorites]

If you're saying that people employed in civilian government agencies do not have accounts on classified systems, it's false.

What you are saying is untrue. People do not have classified accounts that they can log into. The classified system is a completely separate system. You literally have to walk into a secured room somewhere in the basement of the state department, overseen by a security officer, to access this system. The person receiving the email must walk into some other remote secured room overseen by a security officer to receive the same email. It is used only for extreme cases such as communications with embassies and military commands. It is ridiculous to assume that Clinton would retire to a secure room to send and receive her 55,000 emails.

For routine communications everyone uses unclassified email such as .GOV or gmail or even AOL.
posted by JackFlash at 8:20 PM on July 7, 2016 [11 favorites]

there is no reason she would have classified documents in that account unless someone else stripped the classification markings and sent them to her first.

On the contrary, any one of us can go to wikileaks or any number of other places and get our hands on classified documents right now. Classified documents end up on unclassified systems all the time for a wide variety of reasons. I have no idea how they got there, I have no idea what Hillary knew, and I think the whole thing is a bunch of politically-motivated bullshit. I'm just trying to clean up some of the details that I think are being glossed over here.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:21 PM on July 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

Ehn. I still think the questionable bank stuff matters more, even if it's not getting the press right now.
posted by clawsoon at 8:23 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well I'm glad you asked! Since you seem to think I'm an idiot.

I'm asking specifically what lie do you think she told. Pointing to links does not answer the question when the fact checkers themselves are suspect.
posted by JackFlash at 8:26 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

hope to hell the GOP doesn't ratfuck The Donald in Cleveland.

Think about this for a minute. If Trump is not the nominee, I do not seriously expect the 30-35% of mind-fucked 'muricans who are SERIOUSLY STOKED about voting for the cheeto in November to say "oh, okay then; we'll go vote for *insert establishment Republican here* instead". If they go to the polls at all, it will be to write in TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP FUCK EVERYONE ELSE on the ballot - and he will probably be encouraging them all to do it!

If he is off the ticket, we might be looking at a 50-state sweep.
posted by yhbc at 8:34 PM on July 7, 2016

At this point I'm pretty sure that Clinton will win. I'm pivoting to the question of how that can happen with the least amount of violence possible.

Kind of assuming that there will be rioting and/or political violence in the US at some point, whether it's Cleveland or Philly or right before the election or right after or all of the above.

123 days to go.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:41 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

People do not have classified accounts that they can log into. The classified system is a completely separate system. You literally have to walk into a secured room somewhere in the basement of the state department, overseen by a security officer, to access this system.

I am well aware of what a classified network is, and I believe you're arguing against a point I'm not making.

When I said:

Unless things are much different at State than they are elsewhere, an unmarked document transmitted over a classified network defaults to the highest level of classification that can be sent over that network until it's explicitly declassified.

I was talking about the point at which the classified document was taken off of the classified network, not the point at which Hillary transmitted it over a non-classified network, at which point she may have had no idea of its origin.

My point was that the "original sin" was on the part of whoever did not treat the document on the originating system as classified (regardless of the markings.) This obviously doesn't apply if the markings were subsequently removed -- I was just speaking about an unmarked document at the point it's taken off the high side.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:41 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

An evil, deliberately corrupt actor is better than someone making a screw up in classification?

Depends what kind of evil. But incompetent is pretty much always bad news. :P
posted by Drinky Die at 8:43 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

tivalasvegas: Kind of assuming that there will be rioting and/or political violence in the US at some point, whether it's Cleveland or Philly or right before the election or right after or all of the above.

This is not looking to be a good summer. Stay safe, American friends.
posted by clawsoon at 8:45 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Kind of assuming that there will be rioting and/or political violence in the US at some point, whether it's Cleveland or Philly or right before the election or right after or all of the above.

Try right now. It's entirely too soon to know why police were just murdered at the protest in Dallas, but I daresay it will have significant political implications no matter what the shooter(s?)'s intent.
posted by zachlipton at 8:46 PM on July 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

My point was that the "original sin" was on the part of whoever did not treat the document on the originating system as classified (regardless of the markings.)

Well then, that is hardly Clinton's fault if she did not know that the original information she received was classified. It certainly does not make her a liar.

But you are talking about only a handful of emails. The bulk of the "classified" information was classified after the fact, after she left office. Most of these were discussions about drone attacks that were widely reported in the news.
posted by JackFlash at 8:49 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

It's entirely too soon to know why police were just murdered at the protest in Dallas

wait fuck... what?!?! I was meaning generally over the next few months not right this goddamn minute

what
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:49 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well then, that is hardly Clinton's fault if she did not know that the original information she received was classified. It certainly does not make her a liar.

Yeah, I never called her a liar, nor did I say anything was her fault.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:51 PM on July 7, 2016

for the record: At Least 10 Officers Shot, 3 Fatally, By Snipers Amid Dallas Protest Against Police Killings
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:55 PM on July 7, 2016

Ugh, this thing in Dallas.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:56 PM on July 7, 2016

Yeah it's being discussed over here, not that there's much to discuss right now besides a deep sense that the situation has suddenly become exponentially worse for literally everybody in every way imaginable.
posted by zachlipton at 8:59 PM on July 7, 2016 [10 favorites]

Jesus fucking christ, July is going to be a hard month.
posted by chaoticgood at 8:59 PM on July 7, 2016

Please shut the fuck up Donald Trump. Please keep your mouth fucking shut. We don't need you to throw gas on the fire too.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:21 PM on July 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Donald Trump will not shut up. Because he is the the worst person ever.
posted by Justinian at 9:31 PM on July 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Do I even want to know what he just said?
posted by yasaman at 9:33 PM on July 7, 2016

Nothing yet, but I've been in dread since Castile and Sterling and now the Dallas situation is making everything even more volatile.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:43 PM on July 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

MSNBC currently saying "11 officers shot, four killed".
posted by XMLicious at 10:12 PM on July 7, 2016

Fuck me for being worried about emails and delegates and endorsement timings this morning. This summer is a nightmare.
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:47 PM on July 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

@realDonaldTrump
Prayers and condolences to all of the families who are so thoroughly devastated by the horrors we are all watching take place in our country
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:58 AM on July 8, 2016

My word. It's like an adult actually took the keyboard off him.
posted by jaduncan at 5:09 AM on July 8, 2016 [17 favorites]

My fear as I try to get to sleep is that this latest massacre is going to give Trump a big boost. I hope my fear is unfounded.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:32 AM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Joey Michaels: My fear as I try to get to sleep is that this latest massacre is going to give Trump a big boost. I hope my fear is unfounded.

There are some wingnuts already celebrating that the Dallas shooting has handed the election to Trump.
posted by clawsoon at 5:34 AM on July 8, 2016

My word. It's like an adult actually took the keyboard off him.

My bet is on Ivanka.
posted by corb at 6:00 AM on July 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

Trump calls killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile the "senseless, tragic deaths of two motorists"
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:10 AM on July 8, 2016

That is within the normal parameters of human response.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:16 AM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

That is within the normal parameters of human response.

It’s also factually wrong, since Sterling wasn’t a motorist. But if (like me) you aren’t paying attention, that probably doesn’t matter.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:28 AM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

Plus it is, to use a phrase that's come up a few times in these threads, within the normal parameters of "wrong." Whether Sterling was driving the car is an easy detail to miss in the reporting on his death, and not a hugely consequential one to double-check, compared with "was he murdered in cold blood for no reason after the car was stopped."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:33 AM on July 8, 2016

Plus it is, to use a phrase that's come up a few times in these threads, within the normal parameters of "wrong." Whether Sterling was driving the car is an easy detail to miss in the reporting on his death, and not a hugely consequential one to double-check, compared with "was he murdered in cold blood for no reason after the car was stopped."

No, but see - to emphasize the point: Sterling was killed while selling CDs. He wasn’t anywhere near a car. Castile was in a car.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:40 AM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

God dammit, I was thinking of Dylan Noble. Which makes me exactly as dumb as Trump in this case.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:43 AM on July 8, 2016

Trump is now calling Dallas an attack on our country, so I guess he got the keyboard back
posted by angrycat at 7:50 AM on July 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

I have not see the statement to which angrycat refers. How did Trump frame "attack on our country?" If he meant an attack on the values to which our country aspires, then absolutely he is correct (like the proverbial stopped clock, perhaps), and that is consistent with the tweet of moderation. If he is now blaming Muslims, immigrants, or minorities for attacking our country as if they are outsiders, then he is back to square one and his old self.
posted by haiku warrior at 8:01 AM on July 8, 2016

USATODAY releases interactive database of Trump's 4,000-plus lawsuits
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:05 AM on July 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

I have not see the statement to which angrycat refers. How did Trump frame "attack on our country?"

Statement. Since it doesn't have a particularly unique url and may vanish at some point, here's the full text: "Last night’s horrific execution-style shootings of 12 Dallas law enforcement officers – five of whom were killed and seven wounded - is an attack on our country. It is a coordinated, premeditated assault on the men and women who keep us safe.

We must restore law and order. We must restore the confidence of our people to be safe and secure in their homes and on the street.

The senseless, tragic deaths of two people in Louisiana and Minnesota reminds us how much more needs to be done.

This morning I offer my thoughts and prayers for all of the victims’ families, and we pray for our brave police officers and first responders who risk their lives to protect us every single day.

Our nation has become too divided. Too many Americans feel like they’ve lost hope. Crime is harming too many citizens. Racial tensions have gotten worse, not better. This isn’t the American Dream we all want for our children.

This is a time, perhaps more than ever, for strong leadership, love and compassion. We will pull through these tragedies."

posted by zarq at 8:08 AM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Also this bit: Our nation has become too divided. Too many Americans feel like they’ve lost hope. Crime is harming too many citizens. Racial tensions have gotten worse, not better. This isn’t the American Dream we all want for our children.
...is true chutzpah coming from someone who has continuously and opportunistically smeared and vilified as many minority groups as he could since his campaign launched.
posted by zarq at 8:11 AM on July 8, 2016 [44 favorites]

Remember, in these assholes' version of reality racial tensions are inflamed by pointing out racism, not perpetuating it.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:12 AM on July 8, 2016 [19 favorites]

Our nation has become too divided.

That's a long-standing dogwhistle, appealing to the "if nobody talked about racism, it wouldn't exist" crowd.
posted by clawsoon at 9:14 AM on July 8, 2016 [7 favorites]

That statement is far too restrained and coherent to be from the candidate himself. I wonder if he'll fire the person who wrote it later today.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:17 AM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

Last night’s horrific execution-style shootings of 12 Dallas law enforcement officers – five of whom were killed and seven wounded - is an attack on our country. It is a coordinated, premeditated assault on the men and women who keep us safe.

To this mindset, police officers are the country and the masses are not.

Meanwhile, the latest Art of the Steal post is up, detailing Trump's long history of hiring small contractors who can't afford to sue when he stiffs them, which he does habitually.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:32 AM on July 8, 2016 [6 favorites]

To this mindset, police officers are the country and the masses are not.

The "Blue Lives Matter" mindset requires a sort of doublethink where police are simultaneously heroes for protecting innocent citizens from violent criminals, and empowered to kill innocent citizens to protect themselves, because they're heroes.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:42 AM on July 8, 2016 [15 favorites]

Meanwhile, the latest Art of the Steal post is up, detailing Trump's long history of hiring small contractors who can't afford to sue when he stiffs them, which he does habitually.

Can we get a group together to do ads? Bathroom Partition Installers for Truth?
posted by zachlipton at 9:46 AM on July 8, 2016

Last night’s horrific execution-style shootings of 12 Dallas law enforcement officers – five of whom were killed and seven wounded - is an attack on our country. It is a coordinated, premeditated assault on the men and women who keep us safe.

To this mindset, police officers are the country and the masses are not.

Ah, bull. News on the ground is thin, but while the sniper’s actions might not have been wholly premeditated they were pretty clearly deliberately targeted at police. There’s a broader context to this, but there’s nothing in that statement that suggests that the “masses” aren’t citizens.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:53 AM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

Gingrich: "sometimes for whites it’s difficult to appreciate how real" being black in America is more dangerous
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:55 AM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

~To this mindset, police officers are the country and the masses are not.

~The "Blue Lives Matter" mindset requires a sort of doublethink where police are simultaneously heroes for protecting innocent citizens from violent criminals, and empowered to kill innocent citizens to protect themselves, because they're heroes.

There's a very strong and active line of thought/belief on the right that there's a war against police going on across the country (similar in tone to the "war against christians" idea) This will only serve to "verify" the belief.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:56 AM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm willing to give Gingrich props for saying that. Perhaps he just torpedoed his VP chances, though.
posted by argybarg at 10:02 AM on July 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

Is anyone else viscerally unsettled to see Trump and Gingrich suddenly showing any degree of nuance and appreciation for people of color being unfairly treated by police?

Like I know in principle that's what I'm supposed to want out of politicians on both sides of the aisle, but...?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:02 AM on July 8, 2016

Can we get a group together to do ads? Bathroom Partition Installers for Truth?

The Clinton campaign is already on it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:13 AM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

Is anyone else viscerally unsettled to see Trump and Gingrich suddenly showing any degree of nuance and appreciation for people of color being unfairly treated by police?

The sad thing... the pathetic thing is that this is a surprise.

I don't think we should be praising conservatives for doing it once while their party still pursues racist, sexist policies aimed at marginalizing and dehumanizing minorities.

Let them put their policies where their mouths are. To act like compassionate, empathetic human beings. Then give them kudos.

Instead their "normal" default is to act like racist bigot dirtbags.
posted by zarq at 10:14 AM on July 8, 2016 [8 favorites]

Is anyone else viscerally unsettled to see Trump and Gingrich suddenly showing any degree of nuance and appreciation for people of color being unfairly treated by police?

Gingrich is basically Wormtongue. He's a smart, experienced actor in the realm of Realpolitik and crafty as hell. If he really is joining the Trump campaign, as running mate or just as an advisor/strategist, his influence might get Trump on the right message. And yeah, that's scary.
posted by dis_integration at 10:21 AM on July 8, 2016 [11 favorites]

Is anyone else viscerally unsettled to see Trump and Gingrich suddenly showing any degree of nuance and appreciation for people of color being unfairly treated by police?

Checking for pods now.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:35 AM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Let them put their policies where their mouths are. To act like compassionate, empathetic human beings. Then give them kudos.

Exactly. It took less than 48 hours for the Congressional GOP to make the appropriate noises about how horrible Orlando was before they went right back to trying to pass bills discriminating against LGBT people. They haven't earned the trust in them to do the right thing that they're very clearly asking for.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:57 AM on July 8, 2016 [7 favorites]

I don't think it belies any actual change of heart, but I'm very relieved that Trump and Gingrich aren't actively stirring up more fear and hatred at this frankly dangerous moment. There's a temptation to see one's political enemies behave as badly as possible and I don't want to give into that when it could mean even more people getting hurt.
posted by theodolite at 11:05 AM on July 8, 2016 [15 favorites]

Okay, 'cause there's also a surprising amount of rational thought being pushed on RedState today.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:22 AM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

Paul Waldman: Why President Obama can’t bring us together (emphasis in original)

There are multiple reasons why. The first — and you’ll forgive me for sounding divisive and partisan at a time like this — is that his opponents have guaranteed that he would never be able to unite Americans about anything. A healthy chunk of the country, spurred on by their political leaders and media figures, has spent the last eight years becoming convinced that nothing Obama does, no matter the situation or the issue, is ever for admirable or even mundane reasons. Those politicians and media commentators have told their constituents, thousands upon thousands of times, that Obama is not merely wrong or misguided but is literally trying to destroy America. So for them to turn around now and say, “Why won’t Obama bring us together?” takes a truly superhuman level of gall.
[...]
The second and related reason that it is impossible for Obama to unify us after this tragedy is that it is tied up with race, and there are significant numbers of white people who will always believe that on issues of race, Obama is intentionally trying to set Americans against each other, no matter what he actually does or says. Any reasonable observer would look at his statements about racial controversies and see someone being painfully careful and tentative, struggling to confront the reality of discrimination and racism without offending whites. But for his trouble, he has been cast by his opponents as a racial avenger, some kind of Black Panther using the powers of the presidency to wreak vengeance upon innocent white people.

Republicans have told themselves a story in which the nation was moving toward racial harmony until Barack Obama came into office and immediately began dividing us over race, pitting blacks against whites and tearing the country asunder. And they have been telling their constituents this from the moment he took office. No one familiar with conservative media can deny that it has featured a festival of race-baiting since 2009, blaming Obama for every racial incident anywhere and casting all his policy decisions as motivated by the desire to stick it to white people. Some black kids beat up a white kid on a school bus? “Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now,” Rush Limbaugh, the most popular radio host in America, tells his listeners. “You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, ‘Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on.'” He passes a stimulus bill? “Obama’s entire economic program is reparations,” Limbaugh says. And that was all from his first months in office.

So Republicans have come to believe that they’re the real victims of racial discrimination — or as Bill O’Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, puts it, “If you’re a Christian or a white man in the USA, it’s open season on you.”

posted by zombieflanders at 11:29 AM on July 8, 2016 [29 favorites]

Yup, Newt also said this today: "We’re in the eighth year of a president who could have brought us together, a president who could have worked in the African-American community to make people feel better about themselves, a president who could have offered visionary changes in the policies that have failed for the last 50 years. And he didn’t do any of that."
posted by peeedro at 11:33 AM on July 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

Ah... There's the Newt we all know and loathe!
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:35 AM on July 8, 2016 [21 favorites]

...a president who could have offered visionary changes in the policies that have failed for the last 50 years.

He did. But the entire GOP has their mouths latched firmly onto the NRA teat.
posted by zarq at 11:36 AM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

So Republicans have come to believe that they’re the real victims of racial discrimination — or as Bill O’Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, puts it, “If you’re a Christian or a white man in the USA, it’s open season on you.”

My gosh, won't anyone think of the poor, powerless and oppressed Christian White Men?
posted by zarq at 11:38 AM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

It's also possible that all of Trump's statements since his even-weirder-than-usual speech ~~yesterday morning~~ Wednesday night have been ghostwritten by staffers.
posted by theodolite at 11:46 AM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Or staff written by ghosts.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:48 AM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

Or staff written by ghosts.

Nah, it's actually less scary than what he usually posts.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:50 AM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

The Republicans’ Plan for the New President:

On the night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, a group of top GOP luminaries quietly gathered in a Washington steakhouse to lick their wounds and ultimately create the outline of a plan for how to deal with the incoming administration.
...
After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama:

...the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”

posted by kirkaracha at 11:52 AM on July 8, 2016 [14 favorites]

"We’re in the eighth year of a president who could have brought us together, a president who could have worked in the African-American community to make people feel better about themselves, a president who could have offered visionary changes in the policies that have failed for the last 50 years. And he didn’t do any of that."

Because the GOP blocked him at every attempt.
posted by Sara C. at 11:52 AM on July 8, 2016 [21 favorites]

"I have to question why it is, little brother, that you constantly fail to stop hitting yourself."
posted by Etrigan at 12:06 PM on July 8, 2016 [12 favorites]

Another angle on the Newt statement is the fact that, had Obama come into office and branded himself as The Race Issues President, he would have been ripped to shreds from day one in the manner of Black Lives Matter/All Lives Matter. There are a million racist subtexts I won't list off here, but it is precisely because of white supremacist conservatives like Gingrich that Obama could not allow himself to be seen as a president whose main role is to be a voice for the black community.

Which, frankly, does suck. But it sure as hell ain't Obama's fault.

I mean, shit, I'm a white girl arguing about social justice issues on Facebook and I get accused of "whipping up racist sentiments" if I so much as mention the race of the innocent people getting shot by cops!
posted by Sara C. at 12:17 PM on July 8, 2016 [9 favorites]

I don't know if it's been brought up yet, because fuck, this is a long thread, but I've been poking around the ... uh ... right flank of the Rump army, as it were, and one idea I've seen come up repeatedly is the idea that although Rump -like most American politicians- has voiced his support for Israel, this is merely a ruse and when the time comes for him to Make America Great Again, he will be free to show his true colors, team up with Vladimir Putin, and set the world on the right tight white path.

I can't help but think that the Nazis teaming up with Russia is a thing that's been proposed in the past. Anyone know how that ended up working out?

I'd toss in a couple supporting links by way of example, but I ain't about to go posting Nazi shit from work.
posted by Trinity-Gehenna at 12:18 PM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

It's also possible that all of Trump's statements since his even-weirder-than-usual speech yesterday morning Wednesday night have been ghostwritten by staffers.

You mean something like “Liberal politicians who label police as racists--specifically Hillary Clinton and Virginia Lt. Governor Ralph Northam--are to blame for essentially encouraging the murder of these police officers tonight,”?
posted by Thorzdad at 12:19 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'd toss in a couple supporting links by way of example, but I ain't about to go posting Nazi shit from work.

I'd really strongly prefer folks refrain from posting Nazi shit from literally anywhere.
posted by cortex at 12:27 PM on July 8, 2016 [29 favorites]

I'd really strongly prefer folks refrain from posting Nazi shit from literally anywhere.

Indeed. Didn't stop the orange one though. :(
posted by Trinity-Gehenna at 12:31 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Oh man, holy shit. Have you guys seen the Johnson/Weld ad?
posted by corb at 12:41 PM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

Oh man, holy shit. Have you guys seen the Johnson/Weld ad?

They cut off the ad too early. They forgot the rest:

"The freedom to be exploited by an employer that has far more power than you in the bargain! The freedom to be fucked by medical bills or pursue unaffordable insurance that will exclude your preexisting conditions! The freedom to pay for college in cash or by a loan with obscene interest rates! The freedom to dump sewage into our lakes and rivers with only PR as the cost! The freedom to eat rancid food that companies lie to you about being safe!"
posted by Talez at 12:51 PM on July 8, 2016 [21 favorites]

I can't help but think that the Nazis teaming up with Russia is a thing that's been proposed in the past. Anyone know how that ended up working out?

The phrase that kept coming to mind during the Brexit was "while England slept." Anyway, it's a hell of a luducrous historical irony to watch the GOP and the Religious Right line up behind a guy who really wants to be a Russian fascist and who'd probably be just as happy to destroy Israel in a fit of pique
posted by octobersurprise at 12:51 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Oh man, holy shit. Have you guys seen the Johnson/Weld ad?

There are more African-American people in that commercial than there are in the Libertarian Party.
posted by box at 1:22 PM on July 8, 2016 [14 favorites]

posted by Trinity-Gehenna at 2:31 PM

You realize that basically anything you post in the political threads will be eponysterical in this nuclear hell wasteland that is 2016, right?
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:28 PM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

Oh man, holy shit. Have you guys seen the Johnson/Weld ad?

Heh. The last bit..."Google me!" Evoking "Google Ron Paul."
posted by Thorzdad at 1:36 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

There are more African-American people in that commercial than there are in the Libertarian Party.

Not these days. Minorities of all stripes have been looking for lifeboats from the Republican Party since this bullshit started.
posted by corb at 1:46 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

You realize that basically anything you post in the political threads will be eponysterical in this nuclear hell wasteland that is 2016, right?

Ha HA! I figured maybe in some thread dealing with religion (or really trashy anime), but I'll accept that.
posted by Trinity-Gehenna at 1:50 PM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

You realize that basically anything you post in the political threads will be eponysterical in this nuclear hell wasteland that is 2016, right?

Pshaw. Nobody here resembles that remark.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:05 PM on July 8, 2016 [20 favorites]

I'm just glad we've stopped talking about Ben Carson's neurosurgical background.
posted by cortex at 2:08 PM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

And the mindless hunger for the minds of Americans from the religious right.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:11 PM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

Still waiting for that megapost about pump action perfume dispensers.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:13 PM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

I really hope Sara(h) Palin doesn't become Trump's running mate...
posted by Sara C. at 2:14 PM on July 8, 2016

And the mindless hunger for the ~~minds~~brains of Americans from the ~~religious~~zombie right.

Well, same thing, really.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:16 PM on July 8, 2016

Wait, oneswellfoop, how are you reading my comment window while I'm drafting comments?
posted by zombieflanders at 2:24 PM on July 8, 2016

Wait, oneswellfoop, how are you reading my comment window while I'm drafting comments?

Clearly you two are having an...eating of the minds.
posted by MonkeyToes at 2:30 PM on July 8, 2016 [8 favorites]

For all brain-related questions, ask cortex.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:31 PM on July 8, 2016

As for me, I worry that the usual groups are going to get demonized.
posted by kyrademon at 2:34 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Oh my.

You Need To Suck It Up And Vote For Trump

Donald Trump is a vulgar clown posing as a conservative, unmoored to any coherent ideology. He has generated unprecedented opposition and the contempt of people across the political spectrum. He is unbound to any principle other than his own appetite for adulation. And those very factors that make him so appalling also make him America’s only hope.

Now we need to suck it up and pull the lever for this jerk. I don’t need to hear why Trump sucks again. I know why he’s terrible. I’ve written about it at length.

But the Hillary Clinton charade of July 5th – a date that shall live in infamy – and the subsequent rubbing of normal Americans’ noses in the heap of droppings progressives have piled upon the rule of law make plain that there is something much more important at stake here than fussy distaste over Trump’s aesthetic failings and his myriad misjudgments.

The short-sighted liberal elite, aided and abetted by its media catamites, are using our Constitution as toilet paper. One thing matters. One thing only. That is restoring the rule of law, because without it the coastal femboys and hectoring harridans of the left will keep pushing and prodding and provoking until they, to their shock, find normal Americans pushing back. They are worse than stupid – they are unwise, thinking they are simply playing fun games oppressing and abusing those they see as lessers when, in reality, they are playing with fire.

One thing matters. One thing only. That is restoring the rule of law, and only a Trump presidency can do that.

True story: I saw the Hectoring Harridans open for the Coastal Femboys at CBGB back in '89. Killer show.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:45 PM on July 8, 2016 [7 favorites]

One thing matters. One thing only. That is restoring the rule of law, and only a Trump presidency can do that.

I'll have what he's having, please.
Or, on second thought, maybe not. The author needs help.
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:54 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

They are worse than stupid – they are unwise, thinking they are simply playing fun games oppressing and abusing those they see as lessers when, in reality, they are playing with fire.

The fire has has been lit for generations. Kids like Matthew Shepard were simply kindling for the pyre. We're the one's that are trying to put the fucking fire out you ignorant fucking asswipe.
posted by Talez at 2:59 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

The short-sighted liberal elite, aided and abetted by its media catamites, are using our Constitution as toilet paper. One thing matters. One thing only. That is restoring the rule of law, because without it the coastal femboys and hectoring harridans of the left will keep pushing and prodding and provoking until they, to their shock, find normal Americans pushing back. They are worse than stupid – they are unwise, thinking they are simply playing fun games oppressing and abusing those they see as lessers when, in reality, they are playing with fire.

This is literally "shut up and know your place or we'll kill you". It's funny how direct threats of violence are basically okay with the public.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:00 PM on July 8, 2016 [23 favorites]

I think the written test for getting a column at townhall.com is "list all the derogatory synonyms for 'gay' you can think of"
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:04 PM on July 8, 2016 [7 favorites]

But the Hillary Clinton charade of July 5th – a date that shall live in infamy – and the subsequent rubbing of normal Americans’ noses in the heap of droppings progressives have piled upon the rule of law

What is this referring to? Is this Bill & Loretta on the tarmac? Comey's initial announcement that the FBI doesn't recommend indictment?
posted by Sara C. at 3:04 PM on July 8, 2016

coastal femboys and hectoring harridans

I would go to this game. Let's Go Harridans!
posted by zutalors! at 3:11 PM on July 8, 2016 [6 favorites]

That blockquote is SCREAMING out for a bunch of FTFYs...

And those very factors that make him so appalling also make him ~~America’s~~AmericanStraightWhitemen's only hope.

The short-sighted ~~liberal~~conservative elite, aided and abetted by its media catamites, are using our Constitution as toilet paper. And we're damn proud of it!

One thing matters. One thing only. That is restoring the rule of ~~law~~fascists, and only a Trump presidency can do that.

posted by oneswellfoop at 3:12 PM on July 8, 2016

I predict we'll see a slew of testimonials in the coming weeks from people claiming to be Trump haters/skeptics who, after a grueling bout of soul-searching in the wake of the Dallas massacre, have grudgingly but firmly decided to pull the lever for him in November. Please don't fall for it. These people were always going to vote for Trump, only now they've found an excuse—a cover story to hide their true motivation, which is that they sincerely believe in the twisted values that he promotes.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:14 PM on July 8, 2016 [25 favorites]

Kurt Schlichter (Twitter: @KurtSchlichter), Senior Columnist for Townhall.com, was personally recruited to write conservative commentary by Andrew Breitbart.

That’s all you need to know.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:18 PM on July 8, 2016 [10 favorites]

I don't think reading Vichy Republicans is good for my mental health anymore.
posted by corb at 3:24 PM on July 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

The short-sighted liberal elite, aided and abetted by its media catamites, are using our Constitution as toilet paper.

Clean your own house first.

Justice Scalia passed away on February 13th.

Republicans in Congress are spitting on his memory and attempting to destroy the validity of the Constitution by refusing to hold hearings for the democratically elected (twice) President of the United States' Supreme Court nominee.
posted by zarq at 3:25 PM on July 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

What is this referring to? Is this Bill & Loretta on the tarmac? Comey's initial announcement that the FBI doesn't recommend indictment?

i assumed it was an AU fanfic excerpt
posted by poffin boffin at 3:27 PM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

once the hearings into the hearings into the hearings into the investigation of the hearings into the commission on the hearings into the blue ribbon panel on the investigation of the hearings into the investigation are done the world will know the vile treason of Hillary Clinton's email crimes and then July 5 will become retroactively infamous
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:34 PM on July 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

a date that shall live in infamy

December 7, 1941: the Imperial Japanese Navy attacks Pearl Harbor, killing 2,403 military personnel and 68 civilians, destroying 188 aircraft, and sinking four battleships and two other ships.

July 5, 2016: "FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday announced the agency is not recommending the Justice Department bring charges against Hillary Clinton."

Hey, those are equal in infamy! This is the best WWII comparison since George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil!"
posted by kirkaracha at 3:40 PM on July 8, 2016 [8 favorites]

A date that shall live in infamy?

Let's put that through the flowchart.

HAS YOUR PACIFIC FLEET BEEN BOMBED AT ANCHOR BY AN AGGRESSOR WITHOUT DECLARATION OF WAR, KILLING OR WOUNDING 3500 PEOPLE AND RESULTING IN YOUR COUNTRY'S ENTRY INTO GLOBAL CONFLICT (y/n)?

Y - THE DATE SHALL LIVE IN INFAMY

N - STFU. STVERYFU.
posted by Devonian at 3:44 PM on July 8, 2016 [21 favorites]

Saddam Hussein Was Actually Horrible At Killing Terrorists

Hussein, it is true, killed a lot of people. The estimates run into the hundreds of thousands, and he murdered in a variety of appalling ways: He had his victims shot, gassed, blown up, beheaded and even torn apart by wild animals. And while all of his victims had excellent reasons for not liking life under the longtime Iraqi dictator, almost none were terrorists. On the contrary, terrorists in Iraq were mostly honored guests and worked at the regime’s behest.

Thousands of terrorists called Iraq home, and their organizations had the blood of Israelis, Turks, Iranians and Europeans from numerous countries on their hands. Among the killers were members of the Palestine Liberation Front, the Arab Liberation Front, the Kurdish PKK, the Iranian Mujahidin e-Khalq and the Abu Nidal Organization. Saddam promised to pay the families of suicide bombers who killed Israelis for their deeds. It is true that he despised jihadists and had nothing to do with al Qaeda, but that hardly diminishes his record. Not for nothing, Iraq was among the first batch of countries designated by Washington as state sponsors of terror in 1979.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:01 PM on July 8, 2016 [12 favorites]

Vanity Fair:

On Thursday, Hillarymoji, a new iOS emoji keyboard, hit the iTunes App Store, allowing users to text little cartoon depictions of Clinton dancing in a red pantsuit or a version of the infamous Hillary-typing-on-Blackberry-in-sunglasses meme. There’s a “woman card” Hillarymoji, a fist-bumping Hillarymoji, and a Hillarymoji in a Wonder Woman-esque costume with an “H” emblazoned across her chest. The keyboard also happens to make it very simple for users to donate directly to the Clinton campaign, and text the donation link to their friends.

Pretty cute. I'm in, and I must say so much more fun than bumper stickers.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:11 PM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

In all fairness, Corney's decision not to ~~per~~prosecute Hillary Clinton did as much damage to the 'fleet' of Hillary Haters as the attack at Pearl Harbor did to the American Navy at that time. But what also must be noted was how quickly we were able to rebuild our Pacific Fleet into a force that thoroughly defeated Japan within 3½ years... and, sadly, the Republicans have shown that they are capable of rebuilding even faster...
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:15 PM on July 8, 2016

The Saddam Hussein claim also came during a speech in which Trump was defending a tweet as not antisemitic. It's an odd choice for someone trying to prove he doesn't hate Jews. Hussein was an antisemite. He was also vehemently anti-Israel. He funded Palestinian suicide bombers. He stole, collected and hoarded Jewish artifacts. His uncle wrote an antisemitic pamphlet: “Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies.” In the late 1990s, it was published by Hussein's regime and distributed widely.

* Trump Praised Saddam Hussein for Killing Terrorists. In Reality, the Iraqi Dictator Paid Them Lavishly for Killing Jews. Hussein funded terrorism against Israelis and rocketed the country’s cities during the Gulf War

Also: On January 27, 1969 Saddam Hussein ordered the hangings of nine innocent Iraqi Jews accused of being Israeli spies. Eight of the nine were from Basra while one was from Baghdad. In the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War the Iraqi government had already issued decrees preventing Jews from attending universities, prohibiting Jews from holding employment, phone lines in Jewish houses were cut and Jews were denied the right to travel outside of Iraq. Saddam Husseim began a campaign of scare tactics which included posting agents in front of Jewish houses and businesses, random abductions of Jews by police forces and the government’s seizure of Jewish assets. The nine Jewish men were put on a televised mock military trial and their hanging was met with much public fanfare and celebration. At the time of the hangings, there were 2,500 Jews still living in Iraq but the hangings marked the beginning of the end of the Iraqi Jewish Community. Almost the entire Jewish Community fled Iraq after the hangings.

posted by zarq at 4:19 PM on July 8, 2016 [10 favorites]

Hillarymoji is only for iOS? Nothing for us poor people with Android phones? Not even anything for Blackberry (even though one of the emojis shows her on her Blackberry)? No wonder Apple backed away from supporting the RNC... they do NOT want to get stuck with Trumpmoji...
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:21 PM on July 8, 2016

New York City Police Department Commissioner Bill Bratton rejected Donald Trump's request to speak to officers Friday following an attack in Dallas Thursday that left five law enforcement officials dead.

According to the New York Daily News, Trump asked to address NYPD officers at a 3 p.m. roll call, but Bratton called the request an attempt for a photo op.

"Our interest is staying out of the politics of the moment, and not to provide photo ops," Bratton told reporters, according to the Daily News.

Meanwhile over on his Facebook page Trump's fans are calling for a race war. Mother Jones has a sampling for anyone who cares to wade through the mud. It is hard to believe that these people live in the same country that I do.

And in Washington the GOP is doing what it can to hamper Clinton

A high-powered group of Senate Republicans went further, asking that Mrs. Clinton’s top aides have their clearances revoked.

“We believe that is clear from Director Comey’s statement and the FBI investigation that the State Department should immediately suspend the clearances of Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and other former State Department employees for security violations if they still maintain them,” the senators wrote, naming the three top Clinton aides who formed her inner circle at the State Department, and whom Mr. Comey signaled were likewise reckless with secret information.

GOP Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and John Cornyn of Texas even introduced legislation they dubbed the Trust Act, which would revoke the clearances by law.

But Mr. Ryan doubted Congress had that power

Gee, do ya think? I'm sure if they could the legislators would come up with all kinds of laws for the Executive Branch to follow beginning with Presidents are no longer allowed to Veto anything in the last year of their Presidency.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:41 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

*...the Kurdish PKK...

Yeah I dunno how tight Saddam was with the Kurds, what with gassing them and all that. Even stranger that someone would trot them out as a bogeyman when they're one of the groups helping the US fight ISIS in Iraq. I guess Turkish government money is everywhere these days.
posted by indubitable at 5:07 PM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

media catamites, coastal femboys

Man, I feel like I know a lot more about this guy and his spank bank than I wanted to
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:10 PM on July 8, 2016 [18 favorites]

"One thing matters. One thing only. That is restoring the rule of law, and only a Trump presidency can do that."

I'm getting a real Jaruzelski vibe here—or rather, since he wants to cast Trump in the Jaruzelski role, it must be a Wieslaw Gornicki vibe, I guess. Points for "catamites," tho, which doesn't get the use it really deserves. But not surprising, either, since Schlichter, Herr Schlichter, is the guy who wrote

"Right now, if you are watching the news, you have questions about the future. And the answer to all of them is to buy ammo."

posted by octobersurprise at 5:40 PM on July 8, 2016

GOP Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and John Cornyn of Texas even introduced legislation they dubbed the Trust Act, which would revoke the clearances by law.

im gonna introduce legislation called Get Rid Of Slimy republicanS, aka the GROSS Act
posted by poffin boffin at 5:52 PM on July 8, 2016 [13 favorites]

brb registering "media catamite" as a sockpuppet
posted by murphy slaw at 5:59 PM on July 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

I also did a weird twitching thing at the phrase "media catamite". It was, I think, a mixture of surprise at a word I haven't heard in like fifteen years followed by several rounds of revulsion and capped off with a bit of "wtf would that phrase even mean". Point is I spent way longer on that sentence than I needed to.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:03 PM on July 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

Secret Life of Gravy: Meanwhile over on his Facebook page Trump's fans are calling for a race war. Mother Jones has a sampling for anyone who cares to wade through the mud. It is hard to believe that these people live in the same country that I do.

Hey, I know the journalist who compiled that piece.
I'm going to DM him to wish him a strong stomach. Those posts are vile, and I can only imagine what he had to wade through to pick them.
posted by Superplin at 7:14 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Green party's Jill Stein invites Bernie Sanders to take over ticket
posted by GhostintheMachine at 7:21 PM on July 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Green party's Jill Stein invites Bernie Sanders to take over ticket

Second prize is a set of steak knives.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:36 PM on July 8, 2016 [8 favorites]

Green party's Jill Stein invites Bernie Sanders to take over ticket

Because, you know, that nice D party vote split is going to help keep a human cheeto cryptofascist out of the White House. Jesus fuck how is it that people who have been tilting at this windmill for how many years and not know basic functions about how the electoral college works.
posted by Talez at 7:36 PM on July 8, 2016 [11 favorites]

No, wait, the steak knives are first prize -- the Green party nomination is second.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:36 PM on July 8, 2016 [12 favorites]

But even if you don't get the steak knives, doesn't your lack of steak knives mean that you homeopathically have like two-meter long scalpel-sharp katanas? For slicing your steak real good?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:43 PM on July 8, 2016

Katanas aren't six feet long, and a Bowie or Seax are better kitchen implements.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:55 PM on July 8, 2016

MetaFilter: Your Internet home for homeopathic Presidential cutlery pedantry.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:58 PM on July 8, 2016 [8 favorites]

Katanas aren't six feet long

Final Fantasy lied?!?!?
posted by sandswipe at 8:16 PM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

Green party's Jill Stein invites Bernie Sanders to take over ticket

Please let Bernie have either the self-respect or the towering egotism to reject a third-party run.

2016, I can't take much more of this shit.
posted by murphy slaw at 8:42 PM on July 8, 2016 [15 favorites]

i feel like diamond joe would rassle him to the ground if he tried
posted by poffin boffin at 9:08 PM on July 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

Sanders isn't going to accept that offer. I've had my problems with the end of this campaign but I honestly believe he wants whats best for the country.
posted by Justinian at 9:21 PM on July 8, 2016 [7 favorites]

Green party's Jill Stein invites Bernie Sanders to take over ticket

Fuck you. That's my name.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:50 PM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

If Sanders wanted the Green Party nomination he would have it already. His stated goal was to influence the Democratic Party. Even his seat in the Senate is a larger prize than anything the Greens have to offer.
posted by chrchr at 10:31 PM on July 8, 2016 [8 favorites]

the coastal femboys and hectoring harridans of the left will keep pushing and prodding and provoking until they, to their shock, find normal Americans pushing back.

Needs NSFW tag.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:59 AM on July 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

HRC on Facebook:

Ending the systemic racism that plagues our country—and rebuilding communities where the police and citizens all see themselves as being on the same side—will require contributions from all of us. White Americans need to do a better job of listening when African Americans talk about the seen and unseen barriers you face every day. We need to try, as best we can, to walk in one another’s shoes—to imagine what it would be like if people followed us around stores, or locked their car doors when we walked past...or if every time our children went to play in the park, or just to the store to buy iced tea and Skittles, we said a prayer—“please God, don’t let anything happen to my baby.”

Let’s remember that—not just today, but every day.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:05 AM on July 9, 2016 [10 favorites]

Fun fact: katana aren't two meters long, but the pre-katana swords called odachi are more in that range - though the longest ones were probably ceremonial.
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:11 AM on July 9, 2016 [5 favorites]

Joe in Australia: Needs NSFW tag.

If all this pushing and prodding and thrusting results in a giant American orgy by the end of the summer, it'll be about as good a result as we can hope for.
posted by clawsoon at 8:56 AM on July 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

One thing matters. One thing only. That is restoring the rule of law, and only a Trump presidency can do that.

You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
posted by dw at 9:07 AM on July 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

When the election is over, do we get t-shirts that say "I survived the 2016 Metafilter election posts"?
posted by double block and bleed at 9:19 AM on July 9, 2016 [11 favorites]

I'm planning more for "I Survived the Trumpocalypse" shirts...
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:25 AM on July 9, 2016 [5 favorites]

I'll just be happy with survival. I don't need a damn tshirt.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:49 AM on July 9, 2016 [9 favorites]

After weeks of focusing on a group of current and former elected officials in his search for a running mate, Donald Trump is increasingly intrigued by the idea of tapping retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn in order to project strength and know-how on national security, according to four people familiar with the vetting process.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:01 AM on July 9, 2016

...and comes as the real estate mogul is telling his friends that national unrest may demand a “tough and steady” presence alongside him on the ticket.

Is anyone else hearing a martial-law dogwhistle?
posted by Thorzdad at 10:07 AM on July 9, 2016 [2 favorites]

Clinton re-affirmed her support for a public option for healthcare this morning, unveiled a new college affordability plan on Wednesday based on conversations with Sanders, and on Friday night, the party agreed to support a federal $15-an-hour minimum wage.

People familiar with talks between the two campaigns have said Sanders is poised to endorse Clinton at a campaign event Tuesday.
posted by clawsoon at 10:13 AM on July 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

Is anyone else hearing a martial-law dogwhistle?

More of an air raid siren, really.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:17 AM on July 9, 2016 [5 favorites]

Thorzdad, yesterday on Facebook I said that, in a Trump Administration, what happened in Dallas would be the beginning of concentration camps. I was being hyperbolic, but not really that hyperbolic. So, yep, I'm picking up on that dog-whistle loud and clear.
posted by Sara C. at 10:18 AM on July 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

in a Trump Administration, what happened in Dallas would be the beginning of concentration camps.

oh but just temporary, until we can figure out what's going on.
posted by zutalors! at 10:22 AM on July 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

Given our prison system, they really wouldn't have to do much construction for prison camps- more like cramming three or four times as many people in.

But then, add in a Nixon-style crackdown on protest movements, and much more intrusive policing- we don't need that much to turn ourselves into a police state.
posted by happyroach at 10:27 AM on July 9, 2016

Fuckfuckfuck. This and the Cruz speaking thing is all because people are talking to those goddamned Trump whips. Anything you see for the next two weeks is designed to influence delegates. And delegates want someone with real experience, and this is like the Trump version of that. Everyone needs to shut up and stop talking to those fuckers. Any information you give the enemy will only be used against you. God, I hate them.
posted by corb at 10:33 AM on July 9, 2016 [13 favorites]

Some Trump advisers are making a case against Flynn, saying he is a possible risk, due to his lack of political experience and uncertainty over how he would handle intense national media scrutiny. His views on domestic policy are mostly unknown and his Democratic registration could also be a big problem among Republicans who want Trump to pick a proven conservative leader.

Well that certainly would be an odd GOP ticket, two people both of whom were Democrats at some point. But more importantly how does this fit into Trump's view of his Presidency? He did envision a hands-off Presidency with someone else doing most of the work. Could a retired General fit that bill?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:03 AM on July 9, 2016

Given our prison system, they really wouldn't have to do much construction for prison camps- more like cramming three or four times as many people in.

Nah. He can just use all those FEMA prison-camp trailers Obama has hidden all over the country. Your wingnut friends can tell you all about them.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:29 AM on July 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

Is anyone else hearing a martial-law dogwhistle?

I was right. He's aiming for the full Jaruzelski. Buffoon. Everyone knows you never go full Jaruzelski.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:30 AM on July 9, 2016

Jaruzelski did, by definition.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:45 AM on July 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

Heh. Indeedy.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:02 PM on July 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

As a Hoosier ex-pat, I hope it’s Pence—strictly because, under Indiana law, he can’t run for both Governor and Vice-President in the same election, and I’d love to see him out of office entirely.
posted by nicepersonality at 12:25 PM on July 9, 2016 [8 favorites]

I already found his perfect running mate. It makes as much sense as anybody else.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 12:33 PM on July 9, 2016

Police officers are guardians of this great democracy: the freedom to protest, the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, all freedoms we fight for with our lives,” he said. “It’s what makes us who we are as Americans.”

Brown went on, and here I will quote him in full:

And so we won’t militarize our policing standards, but we will do it in a much safer way every time. Like we chose to do it this time. We had an adequate amount of officers on the scene, and we were blocking traffic and doing all the things to protect people’s right to protest, and their free speech. We are not going to let a coward who would ambush police officers change our democracy. We are not going to do it. Our city, our country, is better than that.

As it happened, that last line mimicked something President Obama had said about twelve hours earlier, before the attack in Texas took place.

...these fatal shootings are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.

"To admit we’ve got a serious problem in no way contradicts our respect and appreciation for the vast majority of police officers who put their lives on the line to protect us every single day. It is to say that, as a nation, we can and must do better to institute the best practices that reduce the appearance or reality of racial bias in law enforcement...

In the meantime, all Americans should recognize the anger, frustration, and grief that so many Americans are feeling -- feelings that are being expressed in peaceful protests and vigils. Michelle and I share those feelings. Rather than fall into a predictable pattern of division and political posturing, let’s reflect on what we can do better. Let’s come together as a nation, and keep faith with one another, in order to ensure a future where all of our children know that their lives matter."

"Our Country is Better than That”: Two Responses to Tragedy
posted by y2karl at 12:41 PM on July 9, 2016 [6 favorites]

Gen. Flynn as a VP candidate... Trump could do worse, but I have a hard time seeing how the former head of DIA is going to be someone who will excite any group other than "those engrossed by shiny medals." He's a military technocrat who has been primarily critical of how defense intelligence was run before he got the DIA job. But at the same time, he's never going to be more than a guy in the shadow of Trump who has one debate against Castro/Kaine/Warren he needs to not suck at.
posted by dw at 1:48 PM on July 9, 2016

It'll be the reanimated corpse of Curtis LeMay
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:57 PM on July 9, 2016 [4 favorites]

BOMBS AWAY
TRUMP/LEMAY
posted by stolyarova at 5:10 PM on July 9, 2016 [12 favorites]

I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:34 PM on July 9, 2016 [13 favorites]

Ohio voter report time:

I have driven over 700 miles around the state over the last few days, primarily traversing I-71 back and forth a few times from Cincinnati to Central/NE Ohio. I have a complete bumper sticker report for you all:

2 Hillary (though one may have been a parody -- was too far away to tell)
1 Bernie
1 Kasich
1 "Ted Nugent for President"
1 "Cthulu for President"
1 homemade adorable bumper sticker that said "Obama Cares" with some colorful flowers, the driver was an aging white lady

Obviously too much should not be read into this, but I was mostly surprised by how few stickers there are.
posted by mostly vowels at 8:03 PM on July 9, 2016 [5 favorites]

From what I am hearing, people are legitimately afraid of violence over their bumper stickers. Which is depressing as fuck.
posted by corb at 8:37 PM on July 9, 2016 [4 favorites]

nicepersonality: "As a Hoosier ex-pat, I hope it’s Pence—strictly because, under Indiana law, he can’t run for both Governor and Vice-President in the same election, and I’d love to see him out of office entirely."

As a Hoosier-still-here, getting rid of Pence would be be so great, especially the part where the democratic vp nominee uses him to mop the floor of the debate stage.
posted by double block and bleed at 8:38 PM on July 9, 2016 [6 favorites]

Bumper stickers are funny things. Last winter, driving home at 2 in the morning, there's a scruffy guy pulled over at my exit, which is in the middle of nowhere Kansas. One of those clear cold nights which is prime serial killer weather, so I thought twice about stopping. But his little Honda had three Obama stickers, and a couple more about some progressive cause. So I stopped. Turned out to be a really nice boomer guy on his way to Austin. Guy tells me his Honda gets keyed every now and then because of the stickers. I'm not sure if I would have stopped if the stickers were for Romney. Definitely wouldn't if they were for Trump.

But they do make good camouflage. Inherited a car recently which I only use locally for taking the dogs to our very wet & muddy creek. The car still has "Bush / Cheney 2004" on the back bumper. I've left it on, for now, as misdirection. I'm pretty open to admitting my party and political affiliations to anyone who asks, but it's just easier to go unnoticed with everyone that I don't know. I'm in a 75% Republican county. Most of them wouldn't bother me, beyond ribbing or complaining, if I had a Hillary sticker. But there's always a chance of something worse. Oddly enough, I think I could get away with a Bernie sticker with no repercussions.

Best bumper sticker spotting this year was two identical Bernie stickers on a brand new Cadillac, seen when leaving the Democratic caucus. Prompted a round of badly singing that old Don Henley song.
posted by honestcoyote at 10:01 PM on July 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

it's just easier to go unnoticed with everyone that I don't know

I'm not throwing shade here. Really, I'm not. I trust you. I know you want everyone to feel safe and to be safe.

But there are people who live by you who are black or brown, people who are queer, people who are feeling unsafe and who will see that bumper sticker as another marker that this is not a safe place for us, this is not our home, this is not somewhere that we are allowed to belong to.

Please let your car be at least neutral.

Your car can go unnoticed with the people you don't know.

Your car can live with a key scratch.

We can't live without safe space.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:27 PM on July 9, 2016 [11 favorites]

I was never the bumper sticker type, but when I moved to a red state I decided I had to become one. I couldn't stand the idea of people assuming I was Republican because I'm a middle aged white guy, not really because it hurt my feelings or something, but more what tivalasvegas said.

Surprisingly I got way less hassle than I thought I would. When I first had a Kerry sticker on my car people would sometimes yell or make comments. But things changed at some point. I ended up having fairly rude anti-republican and straight up pro socialist stickers for many years. I have yet to this day have anyone say anything negative. I feel like this is a true indicator of where the public is headed.

I did for a while have someone tell me they loved the stickers almost every time I left the house. But I also had many,many people ask if I didn't get hassled a lot. And that's why I feel like I have to have them; many people assume I would get hassled a lot when in fact it never happens. Many people assume that a majority, and especially every middle aged white guy, is right wing. It's not so much what people think of me, but just that I think I have to not let those assumptions go unchallenged.
posted by bongo_x at 11:48 PM on July 9, 2016 [9 favorites]

Well, fuck. Looks like the RNC may be planning to bounce at least some of us. We'll know more soon. Some folks are already on the ground now.
posted by corb at 12:24 AM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]

That feels like a tactical mistake on the RNC's part - there's already serious Republican doubt and dissent (as you well know) and silencing it at the convention sounds like a way to radicalized the dissenters and push them away from the party. Does the RNC think they can win anything if the bulk of the #nevertrump folks are firmly pushed out? Why vote for any republican if the party if rejecting them?
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:40 AM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

Corb, that link seems to have gone, but here's the Google cache and its content:

BREAKING: RNC Surprises Everyone With Meeting That Could Toss Delegates
By Erick Erickson | July 10, 2016, 12:27am

Normally one might expect a few days notice if they are being summoned to Cleveland. In fact, delegates were told to be there on the 14th for various committees.

But at 4:45 pm on Saturday, July 9, 2016, the RNC Counsel’s office sent out the following email:
Dear Members of the Convention Committee on Credentials,

In accordance with Rule 24(f) of The Rules of the Republican Party and Procedure 12 of the Procedures for Contests of Elections of Delegates and Alternate Delegates as passed by the Republican National Committee, Committee on Contests, you are being notified of the time and place of the Contest Committee’s Meeting in Cleveland, OH.

The Committee on Contests will hold contest hearings on Sunday, July 10 from 1:00 pm – 6:00 pm ET and Monday, July 11 from 8:00 am – 6:00 pm ET. The hearings will be held at the Hilton Cleveland Downtown, 100 Lakeside Avenue East, Cleveland, OH.

Members of the Convention Committee on Credentials may attend for observational purposes only, and may not participate in the hearing process or discussions on any Contest during any hearing.
That’s right. With less than twenty-four hour’s notice, the RNC Counsel notified delegates on the Credentials Committee that they needed to be in Cleveland today if they wanted to observe the process.

The Contest Committee is the committee that can reject delegates from attending the convention.

So with less than twenty-four hour’s notice, it is possible the Trump led RNC can reject any delegates who have come out vocally against him, even if duly selected by their various states.

posted by Joe in Australia at 1:06 AM on July 10, 2016 [9 favorites]

Thanks. Erick Eriksen is claiming he "accidentally hit post" on it, thus the delete. But I've independently confirmed the emails at least with committee members.
posted by corb at 2:12 AM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]

"Maybe the American people don’t want Trump’s brand of ‘disruption’"
So at least 44% of Americans realize that Trump would run the country like an Atlantic City casino (into the ground) or maybe even like a fake university (take your money and give you nothing). My faith in America is semi-restored. Of course some of the 33% who like the changes he'd make may know that too - they just hate America enough that they WANT him to turn it into a bankrupt casino.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:45 AM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

corb's link is working for me. Maybe reposted?
posted by wallabear at 7:20 AM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

Of course some of the 33% who like the changes he'd make may know that too - they just hate America enough that they WANT him to turn it into a bankrupt casino.

I think that 33% believe the country is already being run like a bankrupt casino (seriously!) Their love of Trump is based on the idea that he will fire the dead wood and whip everyone back into shape so the casino can get back to business.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:35 AM on July 10, 2016

You can say all the bad things you want about the Republican party, but they will always be number one at ratfucking.
posted by double block and bleed at 7:37 AM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

I think most of that 33% of the country are Republicans, have been their whole lives, and wouldn't know how not to vote R. I don't think it's a detailed proposition.
posted by argybarg at 7:48 AM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

RNC starts a week from tomorrow. Where did the time go? Wow.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:57 AM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]

so he's gotta pick a VP like now...right?
posted by zutalors! at 8:01 AM on July 10, 2016

I mean, I'd expect both candidates to announce running mates ASAP.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:07 AM on July 10, 2016

me too, but I think Sanders' endorsement will be the big story next week for the Democrats.
posted by zutalors! at 8:22 AM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]

The meeting is definitely happening and confirmed as RNC Committeepeople only. Credentials Committee can just watch. We have lawyers and parliamentarians standing ready to challenge any results. God, this is stressful. I can't believe they're working that hard to protect Trump.
posted by corb at 8:51 AM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

Well, they are Trump's delegates, won fair and square according to the rules of the Republican primary and bound to him by the rules. If some of them are scheming against that commitment, then it is not surprising that Trump would want to replace them with delegates that will abide by the rules.
posted by JackFlash at 9:04 AM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

If Trump goes with Flynn, he will be the second Rhode Islander who changed parties to be involved in this presidential campaign. Linc Chaffee was a Republican who turned Independent to retain his Governorship after his party threatened to primary him, and then joined the Democratic Party to run against a weak slate of prospective presidential candidates. (Of which it turned out he was one.)

Flynn is a registered Democrat who is a paid national security advisor to Trump, famous for being disappointed with Obama's inability to thirst for blood in the Middle East, retiring early as the head of the DIA.

He's a whackado from my hometown, so he's somewhat more hawkish than General Ripper, but likely sympathetic with social and economic progressive positions. His presence should confuse things hopelessly.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:09 AM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

He's a whackado from my hometown

Tell me more. I've been following a lot of different things and this is the first I've heard of Flynn, but the moment they mentioned him on television right now, he seemed like the guy. But yes, if you have familiarity with him, can you talk more about him?
posted by cashman at 9:11 AM on July 10, 2016

Not much other than he was born and raised in Middletown, went to URI, and had a pretty good career in the Army. "Whackado" comes from his frothing hawkishness - but, typically, if he's an Aquidneck Island native who's also a registered Democrat, he's going to be mainstream centrist liberal on everything that doesn't involve war and perhaps immigration. This should really please the Movement Conservatives and Evangelicals - I can hear Paul Ryan's mouth tightening into that little smile-frown from here. More on General Flynn.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:20 AM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

General Flynn was interviewed by Martha Raddatz this morning on ABC-she asked him about his position on social issues and while he was surprisingly not dickish in his answers, he was also clearly caught off guard and didn't have coherent answers to her questions. Then he just said "these things aren't important, what's important is national security". Sooo, I guess he's completely uninterested in domestic affairs, he's just there for the wars.
posted by hollygoheavy at 9:30 AM on July 10, 2016 [14 favorites]

Can the candidates change? By Elizabeth Drew
posted by wittgenstein at 9:58 AM on July 10, 2016

I couldn't finish that article, given that it starts with the premise that the email server was about Clinton's "obsession with secrecy" rather than her ability to read her email on her damn phone.
posted by murphy slaw at 10:08 AM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]

Flynn is pro-choice, stating today that women “are the ones that have to make the decision because they’re the...ones that are going to decide to bring up that child or not.” , which is how people who are pro-choice but don't realize it generally phrase it. I have a hard time believing that he will be chosen as VP. Trump can't risk his uneasy relationship with the anti-abortion crowd. Sure, his base of support is largely among the part of the party who don't take that seriously (what I like to think of as the "two Corinthians"-evangelicals), but he can't afford to piss of the segment of the party that does.
posted by skewed at 10:25 AM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

Curious--it sounds like the RNC is already going to block anything like this, but what happens if there's a walkout right when it's time for delegates to vote? Would that prevent a quorum or anything?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:43 AM on July 10, 2016

One time Abraham Lincoln jumped out a second-story window to deny the opposing Democrats a quorum.

/This has been Great Moments in American Political Quorum Denial History.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:49 AM on July 10, 2016 [30 favorites]

And what goes down at the convention when the delegates are asked to nominate Flynn for VP? After all the arm-twisting (and possible delegate replacement!) involved in quashing #NeverTrump, there's going to be a lot of sore delegates. And then to follow that with an un-bound vote for a pro-choice Democrat for VP --- how many delegates are going to say "enough is enough" and block the nomination?
posted by Banknote of the year at 10:49 AM on July 10, 2016

"For a while Lincoln's escape denied the House its quorum, but it didn't last long. He was returned to the chambers and the House voted to adjourn."

Lovely use of the passive voice there. Who returned him to the chambers and how? Inquiring minds want to know, and in the absence of information, are imaging a bound and gagged Young Great Emancipator being ridden back into the statehouse on a rail, or maybe following a trail of delicious breadcrumbs.
posted by saturday_morning at 10:53 AM on July 10, 2016 [5 favorites]

On the next episode of Great Moments in American Political Quorum Denial History, Texas Democrats flee the state to prevent passage of a redistricting bill. Then it happens again. TPM has a recap:

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) masterminded the whole plan to pad his majority in Washington. His meddling turned the whole ordeal into a political minefield. In May, he'd contacted the FAA to help him locate the absentee Texas House Dems -- an illegal action that got him in trouble with the House Ethics Committee. And in late 2005, Justice Department lawyers concluded that the plan violated the Voting Rights Act. They found that Republicans knew the effort would dilute majority-minority districts, yet proceeded anyway to maximize GOP representation in the U.S. House. Nonetheless, senior Justice officials overruled them.

Ultimately the Supreme Court invalidated one of the districts, which forced the state to redraw the lines in accordance with the ruling.

Tom DeLay, man.
posted by fedward at 11:43 AM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]

Tom DeLay is Justice Denied...
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:53 AM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

Tom waits for no man, but Tom delays.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:01 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

Shared by a Facebook friend:

To: Bernie, from #NotMeUs

by John LauritsJuly 8, 2016

Dear Bernie Sanders,

I hope this letter finds you well & in good spirits — although, I understand that this may be a lot to hope for, given the amount of media pressure & slander that you are usually facing, particularly in these last few weeks. Anyway, I suppose that I should introduce myself…

My name is Millions — you remember me, don’t you? Not too long ago — although, it seems sometimes to be a lifetime — you invited me (& a few dozen friends) to believe that a better world was possible & you told us that we could all help build it, too. I must admit that I had a hard time believing all that, at first — this is because I’ve always been taught that the world was basically doomed and that there was nothing that people like me could do to change it. And, when I looked around me & I saw the endless war over an exhausted & plundered earth, I thought, “the world does seem doomed” — when I saw my generation shackled with infinite debt by the greed of faceless, invisible, & unaccountable rulers, unmoved by the poverty of our children, I thought, “they’re right — how could I ever change this? I’m too small.”

The politicians are always reading speeches from their teleprompters that say they’re going to fix it & they’ve always got some bold, new plan for “change” or “hope” or “greatness” or something silly like that — but all I ever see is more of the same or worse. Those are the “choices” that my generation is always given — either vote for Mr. More-Of-The-Same or Mr. Worse. We always get screwed & that’s why no one really votes in the USA anymore.

But you don’t seem like a politician to me, Bernie.

My name is the Future. You might’ve seen me at some of your rallies — I went to every one of them. I was wavering in the air among the 28k who saw you in Portland, I blew a kiss at you from the crowd in Boston, I was the little bird that perched upon your podium, & I was beating inside every chest when you spoke in Oakland.

I’ve learned that I am not alone — not at all. And I’ve learned that it’s not me who is small — it is this system & its capacity to change that is small. It is politicians, like Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump, that are small — they’re small because the amount of good they want to do is small. They’re small because their desire for change is small. They’re small because they imagine only the smallest possibilities. And they want to sell our world & our future for such a small price.

But they won’t succeed because — together — our thirst for change is greater.

My name is not important because this is not about me — not me — us! I am writing to thank you for helping us to believe that a better world is possible and this belief is so valuable that our debt could only be truly repaid in one way — by acting on that belief & bringing it to completion. You’re a very smart guy, Bernie — I trust that you know where this is going…

Our name is Victory. We have overcome the small beliefs of party-politics. We have outgrown the small-minded & fear-driven system that we were born in — and, just as the flower must first break open the seed that carried it, so we must rend the husks of oligarchy so that we can stand up beneath the better sun of a better world.

There is nothing that Donald Trump can threaten us with that would be worse than re-entering the petty cage of the establishment’s politics.

There is no concession or promise Hillary Clinton could possibly make that we could trust. And there is nothing that you — that’s right, Bernie, even you — could say that could shake our resolve. I’ll say it once & I’ll say it for good —

we will not vote for her.

But you know that already. And I am not writing to you to tell you things that you already know — I’m writing to you to repay the debt I owe you. Just as you once invited us, we are now inviting you to believe — to believe, not only in a better future, but that the power to create that future is within us. And that it is in our hands — not later, not incrementally — but now.

Now, come & follow us — to Philadelphia & beyond.

In solidarity,
#NotMeUs
Please, “sign” this by sharing, re-tweeting, re-posting, etc.

posted by bardophile at 12:58 PM on July 10, 2016

There is nothing that Donald Trump can threaten us with that would be worse than re-entering the petty cage of the establishment’s politics.

White, probably straight male?

Of course there's nothing Donald Trump can threaten you with you douche. You're the target fucking audience for his policy.
posted by Talez at 1:16 PM on July 10, 2016 [43 favorites]

My personal favorite was either vote for Mr. More-Of-The-Same or Mr. Worse.

In an election where your candidate's primary opponent was a woman, that's really rich.
posted by bardophile at 1:20 PM on July 10, 2016 [21 favorites]

And he's in Portland, Oregon.

So for instance when Donald Trump and his Republican House/Senate cronies (god forbid) repeal the national minimum wage he's safely ensconced in his liberal blue state bubble with its $9.75/hr minimum wage for working in a coffee house or whatever Portland based starving artists do for employment.

Meanwhile every poor person in the south is going to get fucked but there's nothing Trump can threaten him with that clueless fucking twit.
posted by Talez at 1:24 PM on July 10, 2016 [14 favorites]

I'd still like to see the RNC disavow Trump for his violation of federal election law, when he solicited foreign donations for his campaign, multiple times.
posted by yesster at 1:25 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]

Good luck waiting for that one.
posted by dersins at 1:28 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

There is nothing that Donald Trump can threaten us with that would be worse than re-entering the petty cage of the establishment’s politics.

Well, it's nice to see that the self-righteous, self-defeating Leftist non-voters have found a home outside of LiveJournal.

It is reminding me of the person who pointed out that the real enemy of the Left isn't actually the Right, but Liberals. Victories by the Right give material to write about, no matter how much actual damage is done. Successes by liberals on the other hand, bleed away the perceived need for a Revolution.
posted by happyroach at 1:35 PM on July 10, 2016 [10 favorites]

There is nothing that Donald Trump can threaten us with that would be worse than re-entering the petty cage of the establishment’s politics.

Bold words for somebody who thinks that getting sent to camps is something that happens to other people.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:40 PM on July 10, 2016 [26 favorites]

Is there some way we can force people like that to watch Monty Python's Life of Brian? Like maybe trick them into clicking a link to it, like Rick-rolling, except with a whole movie? Or at least the "People's Front of Judea" scene? Or maybe strap them into that chair from Clockwork Orange with the eyelid-openers? Because whoever wrote that really needs to see Life of Brian.

Also maybe Clockwork Orange. And also Dr. Strangelove, if he really thinks "There is nothing that Donald Trump can threaten us with" that's really bad.

I don't want to make this sweet, innocent idealist into a cynic, but... Well, the most effective idealists some how manage to hold onto their ideals and a very cynical sense of humor, at least, at the same time.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:46 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'd still like to see the RNC disavow Trump for his violation of federal election law, when he solicited foreign donations for his campaign, multiple times.

I don't think that is intentional. He simply has no campaign organization so he just bought some random email list off the internet. Donations require a name and address so any foreign donations can be refunded, which is not uncommon.

The key word is "knowingly" meaning having actual knowledge that this was a foreign solicitation. The FEC allows illegal foreign donations to be refunded within 10 days.
posted by JackFlash at 1:58 PM on July 10, 2016

I'm feeling worried.

I feel like there has been a lot of negative stuff put out about Hillary Clinton in the last week that has not been adequately countered. Even my friends who I think support her, seem to be doing so reluctantly, or accepting the right-wing narrative that she is really a "liar". A friend who I've discussed political issues with multiple times and who I generally agree with, approvingly linked a Maureen Dowd hatchet-piece. As far I can see from the whole email thing, the sum total is that she used an email address on a private serve (which is not against State Department rules), she sent a lot of emails, two of which included classified material, but which did not include any of the headers which such material normally has. And for this she is a liar? Forget liar, I'm not even sure she was particularly careless.

On the one hand you have the ridiculous Bernie-or-busters, on the other you have the conservatives who don't like Trump but are probably feeling like they need to vote conservative after the events of last week.

I guess I just feel sad. I think Hillary Clinton deserves better than this. I wish she could find some way of turning the narrative around. Even Drinky Die upthread - laughing about how incompetent is always bad - as though Trump is a model of competence. How did we end up in a situation where when to a rational person the choice seems crystal clear, the Republicans have muddied up the waters to the extent that this seems a real contest? Is this sexism? Is this stupidity? I don't know. I just fear for this country, genuinely.
posted by peacheater at 2:11 PM on July 10, 2016 [15 favorites]

Mary Fallin of Oklahoma says of Trump, "I think he's trying to campaign as a racial healer."

In obviously unrelated news, Oklahoma has begun spiking the water with very strong hallucinogens.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:12 PM on July 10, 2016 [10 favorites]

Is this sexism? Is this stupidity?

C. All of the above
posted by Salieri at 2:32 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]

Believe me, I'm not laughing at incompetence. I'm not joking when I say it's often worse than evil. The importance of a basic level of competence for the position is a lesson the Bush years should have taught everybody.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:42 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]

And I think it's disingenuous to suggest that Clinton is incompetent. She's extremely competent, but she wanted a Blackberry like Obama has so she could do her business on the go. As a consequentialist I see no malice or harm from her actions.
posted by stolyarova at 2:46 PM on July 10, 2016 [24 favorites]

Believe me, I'm not laughing at incompetence. I'm not joking when I say it's often worse than evil. The importance of a basic level of competence for the position is a lesson the Bush years should have taught everybody.
Sure, but you seemed to be using that as an argument against Hillary Clinton.
posted by peacheater at 2:47 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

It is reminding me of the person who pointed out that the real enemy of the Left isn't actually the Right, but Liberals. Victories by the Right give material to write about, no matter how much actual damage is done. Successes by liberals on the other hand, bleed away the perceived need for a Revolution.

So, the good is the enemy of the perfect?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:55 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

I guess I just feel sad. I think Hillary Clinton deserves better than this. I wish she could find some way of turning the narrative around.

I don't think it can be. This is a narrative that's had over 20 years to develop, and so at this point, people are to a large extent looking for excuses that conform to their biases. I mean consider the people here that made no secret of their dislike for Clinton for the last year, and largely disappeared between the tie of Clinton's dominance and the FBI decision. Same with the "Left activists" over on Livejournal who post nothing about Trump or Republicans, and then will trot out whatever the latest hit piece on Clinton they can find.

Partially I think it's that the Left will always attack Liberals in preference to fighting the Right, but largely I think it's a visceral, personal loathing for a woman who "Plays the Game", rather than remaining pure and untainted by the nitty-gritty of politics. Think of it as a "Madonna vs. Whore" syndrome for politics.

I mean look at the attitudes toward Warren, and the reaction when she endorsed Clinton rather than Sanders. There's a lot more emotion more going on there than "Oh, the politician I like endorsed a politician I don't- the sheer fury makes me that Warren violated her political Madonna status by refusing to engage in a ritual marriage with Sanders. Seriously, you could probably write a sequel to "Our Lady of Darkness" using this campaign.
posted by happyroach at 3:00 PM on July 10, 2016 [22 favorites]

More like dialogue is the enemy of those who prefer shouting into the void.
posted by dersins at 3:00 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

Clinton's "obsession with secrecy" rather than her ability to read her email on her damn phone

She (or her proxies) need to emphasize this. Pushing that the NSA failed her could also help.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:09 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]

Sure, but you seemed to be using that as an argument against Hillary Clinton.

That appears to be a miscommunication on my part. I don't believe Hillary Clinton is incompetent.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:13 PM on July 10, 2016

Clinton's "obsession with secrecy" rather than her ability to read her email on her damn phone

She (or her proxies) need to emphasize this. Pushing that the NSA failed her could also help.

What gets me about this is that I had not heard of this factor in the whole mess until last week. Like everything had been about her wanting to keep personal emails out of her work traffic to keep them private or whatever. And I'm inclined to believe this really was a work-around to deal with the NSA and the bureaucracy failing to keep up with SecState email needs, but...why wasn't this part of the narrative from the beginning?

Or was it part of the narrative all along & I just missed it 'cause it got buried?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:40 PM on July 10, 2016

And I'm inclined to believe this really was a work-around to deal with the NSA and the bureaucracy failing to keep up with SecState email needs, but...why wasn't this part of the narrative from the beginning?

Because the national Dems are serially, chronically incompetent.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:43 PM on July 10, 2016 [10 favorites]

I thought part of it was to avoid FOIA, like the Bush administration's reliance on the GOP Party emails to communicate. It's a tricky thing to try to explain so I think she knew there was nothing within it that would be actionable so let it play out as is. Over explaining could make things worse. There is no one that knows about not getting a break like Hillary Clinton.
posted by readery at 3:49 PM on July 10, 2016

Of all the narratives in this tapestry, the 'I did this because my IT department stopped me doing my job' has the greatest resonance. It seems so banal, but I see it in everyone's lives at the moment - from big corporates to individuals struggling to deal with their personal interactions with the state.

So, if the Dems want to create a talking point they can walk up and down the entire social spectrum.. it does rather depend on HRC being prepared to use the healthcare.gov fiasco as an 'I'll do it better' fulcrum, which is a bit close to chutzpah, but hey, it's election season...
posted by Devonian at 3:53 PM on July 10, 2016 [7 favorites]

which is a bit close to chutzpah
...which is a Deadly Sin for women politicians, right?
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:57 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

...which is a Deadly Sin for women politicians, right?

Don't ask me, I lived through Thatcher.
posted by Devonian at 4:06 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm worried about a - call it a reverse Bradley effect - where people tell pollsters they aren't going to vote for Trump, but maybe they do on election day.
posted by wittgenstein at 4:13 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]

wittgenstein: "I'm worried about a - call it a reverse Bradley effect - where people tell pollsters they aren't going to vote for Trump, but maybe they do on election day."

Hopefully they'll be more than offset by the ones unwilling to admit they're voting for Hillary Clinton outside the privacy of the voting booth.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:23 PM on July 10, 2016 [8 favorites]

Trump Supporters Probably Aren’t Lying To Pollsters:

Could the polls be underestimating Donald Trump’s support? That’s the conclusion of what I’ll call the “shy Trump-ers” theory, which holds that public opinion surveys undersell Trump because some of his supporters are unwilling to admit they’re backing The Donald. The supposed evidence for this comes from comparing different types of polls: Through much of this Republican presidential primary, Trump did worse in polls that used live, human interviewers than in polls that don’t. The same gap appears in general election polls testing Trump against Hillary Clinton.

But when you compare the polls to votes — Republican primary and caucus results — the bulk of evidence suggests that there aren’t many shy Trump supporters.

(emphasis added)
posted by fitnr at 4:27 PM on July 10, 2016

Given that a big part of Trump's appeal is his refusal to be "PC," I suspect Trumpsters won't care much about violating social norms by voicing their support.
posted by stolyarova at 4:29 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]

So did anything actually happen at Day 1 the Committee on Contests? I can't find anything about it on the googles or the twitters. Don't tell me that I have to go to Instagram with Roberts Rules in one hand and The Prince in the other...
posted by persona at 4:35 PM on July 10, 2016

Meta note: Does anyone want to ask the mods for OK to do a new post? If my macbook pro is bogging down to the point of un-usability, tablet and phone users probably gave up a while ago.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:36 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]

Don't need to formally ask us; a week+ and couple thousand comments has been a pretty okay threshold this cycle for it, someone just needs to go ahead and put together a decent, non-editorial state-of-play link roundup and that'll generally be fine.
posted by cortex at 4:43 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

Thanks, Cortex. Since the only title I can think of for a new post is "The 2016 election slouches towards Bethlehem to be born", somebody else should probably do it.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:51 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]

In obviously unrelated news, Oklahoma has begun spiking the water with very strong hallucinogens.

That's what fracking will do for ya.

Still think Fallin is going to be the veep choice.
posted by dw at 5:07 PM on July 10, 2016

I had a dream last night that I posted the new political election thread, that it was a SLYT, and that people somehow really loved it and were grateful for its being made.

MetaFilter, what are you doing to me.
posted by rorgy at 5:21 PM on July 10, 2016 [15 favorites]

Hey maybe this can be my first post that will go well!!

(Maybe not.)
posted by Salieri at 5:37 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

Well, with a Sanders endorsement and/or some VP announcements, maybe y'all can make a new thread.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:39 PM on July 10, 2016

Since the only title I can think of for a new post is "The 2016 election slouches towards Bethlehem to be born", somebody else should probably do it.

Don't look at me; I've regularly been reading the post title as "The campaign launches into the sun" which also works
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:45 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'd really like a re-enactment of the 2016 US election where all the players are represented by unruly kittens. And Obama is the mama cat constantly scruffing them and bringing them back to safety but there's always one trundling off somewhere. internet plz
posted by um at 5:54 PM on July 10, 2016 [5 favorites]

"Conventional War"

You're welcome.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:57 PM on July 10, 2016

I've got to say, the Trump response to Dallas has been surprisingly tepid. I'll chock it up to general campaign incompetence but any other republican candidate would have turned it into the reddest red meat issue of the season. I think his moment to assume even ugly, negative control of the narrative has probably passed.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:04 PM on July 10, 2016

...definitely a case of Hanlon's Electric Razor: "never ascribe to a LACK of malice that which can be explained by incompetence"
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:11 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

the real enemy of the Left isn't actually the Right, but Liberals

For some value of "the left" and some value of "liberals" it has always been. The Bolsheviks wouldn't work with the SR's, the Weimar Communists hated the Social Democrats, American far lefties didn't trust Roosevelt. More examples could be adduced, I'm sure. The real distinction is not between left and right but between those who long for the apocalypse and those who are satisfied with the mere reform of deeply flawed human institutions. The good news is that the Apocalyptics are usually a pretty small fraction; the bad news is that sometimes they aren't.

If my macbook pro is bogging down to the point of un-usability, tablet and phone users probably gave up a while ago

Amazingly, my 5 yr old iPhone (old OS) is still chugging along.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:31 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]

I've got to say, the Trump response to Dallas has been surprisingly tepid

If we're lucky it's true that Trumpy isn't even a competent fascist.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:42 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm worried about a - call it a reverse Bradley effect - where people tell pollsters they aren't going to vote for Trump, but maybe they do on election day.

That's not a reverse. That is precisely the Bradley effect -- racists too embarrassed to tell pollsters the truth about who they are really going to vote for.
posted by JackFlash at 6:42 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

Amazingly, my 5 yr old iPhone (old OS) is still chugging along.

My iOS stuff is all several years old and handles these just fine. Not an ad, just anecdatum.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:45 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

Husband and I represent these two factions of "the left" vs. "liberals." We coexist peaceably, but I think its not for nothing that he's a middle class cishet white dude. If you've never had to imagine yourself as vulnerable, let alone experienced what it's like to actually be vulnerable, blowing it all up is abstract to the point of fantasy. I am pretty sure he is self-aware enough to realize this, though his impulse towards ideological purity infuriates me.

I gently rib him about it every chance I get, to keep him honest. And frog march him to the polls every year and make him vote.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:49 PM on July 10, 2016 [21 favorites]

Don't need to formally ask us; a week+ and couple thousand comments has been a pretty okay threshold this cycle for it, someone just needs to go ahead and put together a decent, non-editorial state-of-play link roundup and that'll generally be fine.

Still holding out for "Mrs Corb Goes to Cleveland."
posted by SPrintF at 7:15 PM on July 10, 2016 [16 favorites]

I thought that would go in the Projects subsite...
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:23 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

dear nintendo, please put super rare pokemon at polling places this november
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:24 PM on July 10, 2016 [29 favorites]

I've got to say, the Trump response to Dallas has been surprisingly tepid

Part of it may be that someone else is writing most of his tweets now.
posted by dw at 7:30 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm worried about a - call it a reverse Bradley effect - where people tell pollsters they aren't going to vote for Trump, but maybe they do on election day.

I think the opposite may be true, more people are saying they support Trump but aren't really going to go through with it.
posted by bongo_x at 7:57 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

Poll: Most disapprove of FBI decision to exonerate Clinton
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:11 AM on July 11, 2016

I've got to say, the Trump response to Dallas has been surprisingly tepid

Part of it may be that someone else is writing most of his tweets now.

Maybe? But on the iPhone keyboard, the return key is right next to the space key, and I have to correct accidentally putting a newline instead of a space probably daily. And line breaks shouldn't be created when c/p'ing a wrapped line from Word, should it?
posted by middleclasstool at 5:23 AM on July 11, 2016

@DannyEFreeman: And there it is- @BernieSanders will join @HillaryClinton on the campaign trail tomorrow in Portsmouth, NH.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:48 AM on July 11, 2016 [7 favorites]

Some outlets reporting right now that Trump will run with Mike Pence.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:46 AM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

Hillary Clinton: The Vox Conversation (YouTube, 41 minutes)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:06 AM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]

Some outlets reporting right now

"Outlets". Even though that's common parlance, it truly feels like that these days when you're looking for news. Looking over a bunch of bits and pieces of picked-over materials for something with value. Scanning over mounds of junk trying to discover an article or two worth your time.
posted by cashman at 7:07 AM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]

I've got to say, the Trump response to Dallas has been surprisingly tepid.

A committee writes his tweets and carefully styles the phrases to be almost inoffensive? Golly, they are recreating Pee Cee with a calculating conservative point of view.
posted by puddledork at 7:13 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Another possible link for the potential new FPP: Evan Bayh mounting Senate return

Evan Bayh is about as meh as I can get about a Democrat, but it does look like it puts the Indiana seat in play along with the governor's mansion if Pence gets selected.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:16 AM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]

Some outlets reporting right now that Trump will run with Mike Pence.

This is good, right? Getting Pence out of Indiana for a while is good.
posted by asperity at 7:17 AM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm hoping for Yet Another Old Straight White Guy for Trump because my biggest fear is he'll nominate a POC or a woman and pull in just enough voters in certain areas. I do see the VP selections as the last great swayer in the election(other than some sort of disaster on scale with Pearl Harbor or 9/11)
posted by Twain Device at 7:21 AM on July 11, 2016

(by certain areas, I mean swing states, esp Florida.)
posted by Twain Device at 7:23 AM on July 11, 2016

Really though when is the last time a VP selection actually significantly helped a candidate?

Helped to deliver a state or states that otherwise would not have been won and which swung the balance of electoral votes?

I'm sure it has happened but nothing really comes to mind.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:27 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Probably JFK/LBJ.
posted by yhbc at 8:00 AM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]

I was actually sort of hoping for someone who would surely actively hurt him (Sarah Palin?), but I'll take someone who won't do a hill of beans for him, sure. Gingrich is my biggest fear because, even though his scandals have scandals, he's experienced enough to be able to smoothly navigate around them and for some reason he seems to have convinced people that he's an intellectual.

My theory is that Trump himself, no matter what Reince Preibus is feverishly trying to guide him to, won't accept someone who isn't really really good at toadying. And I have a feeling that Newt just doesn't have that skillset.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:08 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Does Pence, really?
posted by saturday_morning at 8:09 AM on July 11, 2016

Hidden talents? Idk about his kinks, man.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:11 AM on July 11, 2016

Ezra Klein on HRC

The answers startled me in their consistency. Every single person brought up, in some way or another, the exact same quality they feel leads Clinton to excel in governance and struggle in campaigns. On the one hand, that makes my job as a reporter easy. There actually is an answer to the question. On the other hand, it makes my job as a writer harder: It isn’t a very satisfying answer to the question, at least not when you first hear it.

Hillary Clinton, they said over and over again, listens.
posted by chaoticgood at 8:23 AM on July 11, 2016 [11 favorites]

WaPo Editorial Board comes out swinging: Both are unpopular. Only one is a threat.

There is no equivalence between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — as even responsible Republicans should be able to recognize.

Ms. Clinton is a knowledgeable politician who has been vetted many times over. She understands and respects the U.S. Constitution. She knows policy. She can cite accomplishments in the public interest, such as pressing through an important children’s health insurance program during her husband’s administration. As a senator, she was respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. She completed four years as secretary of state to generally positive reviews. She began her presidential campaign by rolling out a series of serious policy papers.

…

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has waged a campaign based on bigotry, ignorance and resentment. He has no experience as a public servant, and his private record of bankruptcies and exploitation should be disqualifying. He regularly circulates falsehoods. He has no discernible interest in or knowledge of policy. Just in recent days, Mr. Trump tweeted out an anti-Semitic image circulating on neo-Nazi websites and attacked the media for reporting as much. He called one sitting senator a loser and threatened another while proving that he lacks even a passing familiarity with the Constitution. He praised one of the most vile dictators of the 20th century.

…

To equate the two candidates as indistinguishably unqualified products of a rigged or failed system only feeds public cynicism while blurring distinctions that should not be blurred. Ms. Clinton is a politician, long in the arena, whom you may or may not support. Mr. Trump is a danger to the republic.

posted by fedward at 8:35 AM on July 11, 2016 [36 favorites]

Ugh sorry. Wrong link above. Try this.
posted by chaoticgood at 8:36 AM on July 11, 2016 [10 favorites]

The hearing on Colorado is going on now. I'll post details from home, this thread is breaking my phone.
posted by corb at 8:41 AM on July 11, 2016

"How Trump's VP selection process is like Pokemon Go," a story.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:50 AM on July 11, 2016

.@realDonaldTrump campaign continues to blacklist national #media just days ahead of @GOP convention.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:52 AM on July 11, 2016

Trump/Gingrinch 2016: Two candidates, six wives. It's the Republican Family Values ticket.
posted by clawsoon at 9:00 AM on July 11, 2016 [19 favorites]

Both Pence and Gingrich are figuring the odds on a win and the eventuality that they become president.
posted by readery at 9:11 AM on July 11, 2016

Looks like big groups that endorsed Sanders are starting to make the switch: CWA Endorses Hillary Clinton for President
posted by zombieflanders at 9:13 AM on July 11, 2016

Both Pence and Gingrich are figuring the odds on a win and the eventuality that they become president.

Agreed, with the caveat that they're doing very different math. Gingrich is 73 and knows this is his last shot at the bigtime. Pence is 57 and presumably thinks he'll get to run on his own regardless of whether he signs on with Trump (and he must know that no failed VP candidate has reached the Oval Office since FDR).
posted by Etrigan at 9:16 AM on July 11, 2016

I think the opposite may be true, more people are saying they support Trump but aren't really going to go through with it.

Brexit.
posted by jaduncan at 9:25 AM on July 11, 2016 [6 favorites]

HEY GUYS Donald and Hobbes is the most perfect thing on the internet
posted by Cookiebastard at 9:31 AM on July 11, 2016 [8 favorites]

...yes, but would Hobbes agree to be the VP nominee?
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:34 AM on July 11, 2016

I think the opposite may be true, more people are saying they support Trump but aren't really going to go through with it.

Brexit.

Not the same at all. The polls in the UK were actually pretty accurate, it was the betting markets that got it wrong.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:35 AM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

The answers startled me in their consistency. Every single person brought up, in some way or another, the exact same quality they feel leads Clinton to excel in governance and struggle in campaigns. On the one hand, that makes my job as a reporter easy. There actually is an answer to the question. On the other hand, it makes my job as a writer harder: It isn’t a very satisfying answer to the question, at least not when you first hear it.

Hillary Clinton, they said over and over again, listens.

Yeah, no shit. Amazing how the candidate who toured New York State in 1999 on a "listening tour" and then did the same thing in primary states across the country in 2015 might gain a reputation as a listener.

She's quite literally made a career of listening to the people she wants to represent, and learning about and fighting for what they need and want.
posted by zarq at 9:36 AM on July 11, 2016 [20 favorites]

It saddens me that the bluster of Trump is perceived as leadership, when listening, thinking, planning and cooperating as Clinton does has, somehow, a bad odor. Dominance plus ignorance is not the leadership style I admire.
posted by puddledork at 9:39 AM on July 11, 2016 [22 favorites]

Meanwhile, at the RNC: GOP Platform amendment calls for teaching the Bible as part of "American history"

Ah, yes, who can forget Moses coming down from the mountain to hand the 10 Commandments to the Founding Fathers, making extra sure that the whole slavery thing was totes cool with everybody.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:41 AM on July 11, 2016 [10 favorites]

We could use a Donald and Hobbes FPP! ;)

Background

https://www.reddit.com/r/DonaldandHobbes/
posted by zarq at 9:42 AM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

That non-profile from Ezra Klein is fascinating reading. After however many years of disliking her reflexively, I have very much come around on Hillary. And I pretty much had to start by convincing myself she was worthy of consideration in the first place. I don't like what it says about me that I was willing to go along with the reflexive hate and distrust, but I'm over it. She's educated, she's experienced, she gets shit done. Clearly she is not actually a monster, but too many people still have the same reflex.
posted by fedward at 9:42 AM on July 11, 2016 [14 favorites]

Ah, yes, who can forget Moses coming down from the mountain to hand the 10 Commandments to the Founding Fathers, making extra sure that the whole slavery thing was totes cool with everybody.

Mistakes were made....
posted by zarq at 9:46 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

We could use a Donald and Hobbes FPP!

Eh, not so much.
posted by cortex at 9:47 AM on July 11, 2016

Eh, not so much.

Awwwwww. :(
posted by zarq at 9:48 AM on July 11, 2016

posted by y2karl at 9:50 AM on July 11, 2016

It was a long time coming.

Bernie Sanders will join Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail on Tuesday. The former Democratic rivals will make a joint appearance at a New Hampshire rally “to discuss their commitment to building an America that is stronger together and an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top,” according to the Clinton campaign.

Bernie Sanders Will Hit the Campaign Trail With Hillary Clinton
posted by y2karl at 9:55 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Pence shilling.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:56 AM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]

What does British currency have to do with anything?
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:58 AM on July 11, 2016 [8 favorites]

Okay, HOLY FUCK YOU GUYS. It's getting fucking CRAZY. There is a good chance - I'm trying to confirm now - that they are challenging a state delegation that had no notice and no opportunity to counter or present witnesses. It's mostly on small stuff that affects literally every single caucus.

For Colorado (and it's worth noting it has the strongest #nevertrump presence)

- people dropped from the ballot (yes, that's why you are sent emails asking you to confirm whether you are not on the ballot so you can FIX THAT ERROR)

-people had to verbally say their number on the ballot and voters forgot by the time it got to voting. (SERIOUSLY?)

-Trump campaign was not as organized and had errors. (THAT IS NOT A DEMOCRACY PROBLEM FFS) while others were organized and wore shirts with their number on it.
posted by corb at 9:59 AM on July 11, 2016 [14 favorites]

Feed the birds, trumppence a bag
Trumppence, trumppence, trumppence a bag
posted by theodolite at 10:01 AM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]

I think the opposite may be true, more people are saying they support Trump but aren't really going to go through with it.

Brexit.

The British polls weren't bad; the final polls showed a Leave win was with MoE.

And American polling is far better, overall, especially with our heavy use of polls-of-polls to neutralize the outliers. We do have a problem with curve-fitting and with groupthink, but the sheer number of polls and a better understanding of our electorate makes our polling generally better.

It's not perfect, but I'll take Sam Wang's 65-85% Hillary win and his meta-margin for what it is: That we'll need to do work, but there's no reason to panic.
posted by dw at 10:02 AM on July 11, 2016

Pence shilling.

I wouldn't give you a tuppence for Trump/Pence.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:02 AM on July 11, 2016 [5 favorites]

So I decided to go through the Twitter timeline of the guy who posted the "bible as part of US history" information above, and holy shit the RNC platform draft sounds like it might actually be worse than usual:

Draft GOP platform "salute[s] the...States which have filed suit against" Obama's efforts to use Title IX to protect transgender students
Draft GOP platform also opposes Obama admin's "distortion of Trtle IX to micromanage" how colleges handle sexual assault cases
Draft GOP platform says it considers Iran deal "non-binding" on next president
Draft GOP platform calls for auditing the Fed cc Ron Paul
GOP platform subcommittee passes amendment calling for legislation restricting bathroom use by biological sex
Anti-Internet porn amendment passes the subcommittee. Onto the full body
Platform committee on Constitution approves a bunch of new language opposing same-sex marriage
GOP platform amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman passes by voice vote
.@tperkins introduces conversion therapy amendment, which passes the GOP Platform subcommittee.
Amendment language also calls for legislation to require parental consent for transport of daughters across state lines for abortion

I wonder how much of this will make it through to the final document, because...wow.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:05 AM on July 11, 2016 [11 favorites]

@daveweigel: Here’s the GOP platform plank that commits the party to protecting against magnetic pulse attacks
posted by zombieflanders at 10:08 AM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]

I actually expect the platform to be full balls to the wall crazy this year - everyone with an ounce of political capital and moral turpitude is saving it for the contests on delegates/the nomination because Trump is just so bad. Like, I even planned to influence platform stuff, I'm friends with people on the platform committee, and I have paid zero attention to the platform because WE HAVE A FASCIST IN THE HOUSE. Like I wouldn't be surprised if they endorse the gold standard, that's how crazy I expect it to be.
posted by corb at 10:10 AM on July 11, 2016 [21 favorites]

Like I wouldn't be surprised if they endorse the gold standard, that's how crazy I expect it to be.

That's Cruz's favorite plank, not Trump's.
posted by JackFlash at 10:14 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Draft GOP platform says it considers Iran deal "non-binding" on next president

Uh-oh.

Like I wouldn't be surprised if they endorse the gold standard, that's how crazy I expect it to be.

America Needs a Good, Old-Fashioned Economic Depression

Without some form of scarce commodity backing (e.g., precious metals) for currencies, why would anyone, particularly sovereign bond investors, believe that currency units, which can be conjured at will from thin air (not a scarce commodity) by desperate governments, will be worth more, not less, over the next fifty years?

/uh-oh!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:16 AM on July 11, 2016

Like I wouldn't be surprised if they endorse the gold standard, that's how crazy I expect it to be.

Common Law Grand Juries or GTFO.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:18 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

.@tperkins introduces conversion therapy amendment, which passes the GOP Platform subcommittee.

@ZekeJMiller: "Perkins missed deadline to pre-file amendment, can bring it up from floor (but RNC doesn't want it)"
posted by zarq at 10:22 AM on July 11, 2016

.@tperkins introduces conversion therapy amendment, which passes the GOP Platform subcommittee

Letting parents send their kids to 'therapy' to be tormented and altered is some bullshit. I am glad it is outlawed in California.
posted by puddledork at 10:34 AM on July 11, 2016

OK, So Indiana:

Evan Bayh running for open Senate seat
Pence likely gets VP nod, can't run for governor
Donnelly currently sitting Senator not up for re-election this cycle

Indiana could, at the end of this cycle, conceivably have two democratic senators and a democratic governor. That's insane.
posted by leotrotsky at 10:42 AM on July 11, 2016 [7 favorites]

zombieflanders: and holy shit the RNC platform draft sounds like it might actually be worse than usual

That list is 80% sex. One senses a certain... fixation.
posted by clawsoon at 10:43 AM on July 11, 2016 [14 favorites]

Although, I suspect Brian Bosma is actually a more competitive candidate than Mike Pence, because he's not a complete dolt on social issues. For example, when some moron legislator started attacking the Girl Scouts as "a radical group that supports abortion", Bosma, also a Republican, "pointedly offered Girl Scout cookies throughout the day and munched them as he presided over the House."
posted by leotrotsky at 10:44 AM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]

America Needs a Good, Old-Fashioned Economic Depression

This is chapter one of the Republican Playbook: "Invented Disasters: How to Scare People To Win Elections"
posted by zarq at 10:51 AM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

Amendment language also calls for legislation to require parental consent for transport of daughters across state lines for abortion

Aside from this there doesn't seem to be any Pro-Life statements. I'm surprised that there is this: GOP platform amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman passes by voice vote but not, "We believe that life begins at conception."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:53 AM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

While reading off a teleprompter, Trump criticizes @HillaryClinton for reading off a teleprompter

Happy Monday.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:58 AM on July 11, 2016 [8 favorites]

Republican Despair Grows As Instead Of Campaigning Trump Is Hate Tweeting CNN

Donald Trump is supposedly running for president, but instead of campaigning after a horrible week of shootings, Trump is sitting on his butt at home sending hate tweets to CNN.

Trump is losing in every credible poll. The Republican Party is flailing around deeply divided. The nominee should be leading the party, but Republican primary voters picked Donald Trump, so what they are getting is a lazy candidate who holds a few events each week, and spends most of his time obsessing about his media coverage.

Donald Trump on Hillary Clinton: ‘She’s highly overrated in the brains department’

Donald Trump cast the presidential race as a sort of athletic contest in a Monday interview with The Fix, insisting he has a history of performing under pressure while Hillary Clinton, his near-certain Democratic opponent, withers under that sort of scrutiny.

"She is highly overrated in the brains department," Trump said of Clinton. "She is really bad at reacting under pressure." Of himself, Trump said "I was always a good athlete," adding: "Under pressure, some good athletes become bad athletes" -- referring to Clinton.

I didn't realize that only athletes (or rather former athletes because I would hardly call him an athlete now) perform well under pressure.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:06 AM on July 11, 2016

Did Trump not see Clinton at the Benghazi hearings? Cool as the proverbial cucumber.
posted by stolyarova at 11:14 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Something I ran across while wasting time on Wikipedia:

'All That Glitters Is Not Gold,'' a book by Marla Maples, was announced in January 2000 by the ReganBooks division of HarperCollins Publishers. Ms. Maples had recently ended her decade as first the other woman, then the second wife and finally the second divorce-settlement antagonist in the life of the real estate mogul Donald J. Trump.

The announcement promised ''the story behind the headlines'' and a ''remarkably candid memoir'' that would include ''the pain of loving a man whose greatest passion was the empire he built.'' Gossip columnists interpreted that to mean, as one put it, a book ''full of juicy details'' about the Trump-Maples roller-coaster ride: they began dating in the late 80's, when she was a model and an aspiring actress; married in 1993, after Mr. Trump divorced Ivana Trump in 1990; separated in 1997; and divorced in 1999.

Last week, gossip guzzlers were still waiting for the book, which Amazon.com was listing yesterday as scheduled to be published in June, now as a paperback, priced at $6.99. But this is outdated information, according to a spokeswoman for the publishing company. ''The author and publisher by mutual consent have agreed not to publish the book,'' said the spokeswoman, Lisa Herling, last week. She declined to say when the decision was made or why.

Ms. Maples's agent, Susan Crawford, agreed that it was by mutual consent, but she would not say why either.

Mr. Trump said he was ''not unhappy'' about the cancellation. ''She signed a confidentiality agreement,'' he said of a provision in the divorce pact. Did he invoke the provision to stop publication? ''I can't comment on that,'' he said.

- NY Times, February 24, 2002
posted by theodolite at 11:18 AM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

Last week, gossip guzzlers...

Ew, gross. Bad NYT!
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:26 AM on July 11, 2016

"It's Open War In The Republican Party"
posted by corb at 11:26 AM on July 11, 2016 [5 favorites]

popcorn.gif

posted by tonycpsu at 11:31 AM on July 11, 2016 [6 favorites]

From Corb's link:

It is the duty of the delegates to represent the best interests of their states and to select a Republican candidate who actually represents our party and who can beat Hillary in November. That's not Donald Trump.

Maybe I'm really confused and bad at civics, but I thought the duty of the delegates was to represent the votes cast in their state? (Maybe I'm wrong? I'm seriously unsure of the answer now.)
posted by hollygoheavy at 11:34 AM on July 11, 2016

Amendment language also calls for legislation to require parental consent for transport of daughters across state lines for abortion

More GOP nostalgia for the 'good old days' when they could just misapply the Mann Act.
posted by phearlez at 11:48 AM on July 11, 2016

Indiana could, at the end of this cycle, conceivably have two democratic senators and a democratic governor. That's insane.

Particularly in contrast to the fact that Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, which are somewhat to very much more liberal than IN all have Republican governors. And WI and IL have one Republican senator each (until November that is...)
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:53 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump: "I am the law and order candidate ... "

*chung chung*

(In the campaign system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the candidate, who should be put in a goddamn barrel and sent out with the Japanese current, and the gibbering morons who vote for him. These are their stories.)
posted by octobersurprise at 12:06 PM on July 11, 2016 [11 favorites]

You left out the best part!

"... but I'm also the candidate of compassion."

I'm just spoilt for choice on that one.

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families."
posted by leotrotsky at 12:17 PM on July 11, 2016 [5 favorites]

In more "Insane News From The Republican Party Leadership" time:

A Rubio delegate from DC is being challenged - despite being legally a DC resident by DC law, paying taxes in DC, owning a house and business in DC, voting in DC, having a driver's license in DC, they removed her because they "don't feel like she's really a DC resident." In what I'm sure is a TOTAL COINCIDENCE, she has also made public statements against Trump. The attorney for the party has said that "DC residency rules should not impact RNC residency rules."
posted by corb at 12:35 PM on July 11, 2016 [14 favorites]

Platform committee adopts language forcing federal gov't to hand over public lands to the state, according to Ed O'Keefe. If Trump can't gin up enough speakers, maybe the Bundys, et. al. can Skype in from prison. They've plenty of experience with video.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:35 PM on July 11, 2016 [5 favorites]

And in more "just burn the world" news, apparently she's Hindu, and has talked about having Muslim relatives, which makes their focus on the amount of rooms in her house and where precisely her kid goes to daycare just even more FLAMES ON THE SIDE OF MY FACE.
posted by corb at 12:43 PM on July 11, 2016 [22 favorites]

Basically, it sounds like "we don't feel like she's really a DC resident" just went from "bureaucratic bullshit" to "racist garbage."
posted by stolyarova at 12:46 PM on July 11, 2016 [10 favorites]

The current Republican effort to disenfranchise DC residents is enraging, but to be fair, that policy writ large (with its unspoken but obvious racial basis) has been a plank in the GOP platform since long before #NeverTrump.
posted by nicepersonality at 12:47 PM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]

I was just going to say... disenfranchising DC residents (esp. residents of color) is like an official Party hobby.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:49 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

Corb, I'm getting increasingly worried that you'll explode from sheer rage before you even get a chance to lead an insurrection.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:54 PM on July 11, 2016 [15 favorites]

Corb, is there chatter from your crew at this point about bolting to join the Libertarians or form a new party or something? Everything you post makes it sound like they just don't want any of you - which is absurd and self-defeating on their part. I rarely agree with you, but all of you deserve to be part of a party that respects and (frankly) wants you.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:55 PM on July 11, 2016 [5 favorites]

''The author and publisher by mutual consent have agreed not to publish the book,'' said the spokeswoman, Lisa Herling, last week. She declined to say when the decision was made or why.

How long until some unpaid intern at the publisher leaks a copy of the manuscript?
posted by murphy slaw at 12:59 PM on July 11, 2016

Considering the article was published in 2002, maybe never. :(
posted by stolyarova at 1:00 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

- SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
posted by zarq at 1:03 PM on July 11, 2016 [9 favorites]

In bashing Donald Trump, some say Ruth Bader Ginsburg just crossed a very important line.

Sure, but them gifting the Presidency to a guy who lost the popular vote by half a million votes is totally acceptable.
posted by zarq at 1:06 PM on July 11, 2016 [10 favorites]

Platform committee adopts language forcing federal gov't to hand over public lands to the state

So that's what this election has been lacking. Moon Law!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:23 PM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]

DGAF RBG?
posted by bardophile at 1:29 PM on July 11, 2016

GTFO & DIAF DJT, RBG DGAF
posted by zombieflanders at 1:32 PM on July 11, 2016 [11 favorites]

Wait, Supreme Court justices have... opinions? About things other than the law?

Good thing I had a fainting couch installed in my office for just this occasion.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:33 PM on July 11, 2016 [7 favorites]

In bashing Donald Trump, some say Ruth Bader Ginsburg just crossed a very important line.

So impeach and try her or shut the fuck up.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:37 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Somebody needs to tell Trump you're not supposed to call yourself a law and order candidate. You're supposed to let other people give you the appellation.
posted by Justinian at 1:43 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Scalia never overstepped. Judge Thomas has always recused himself from anything related to the Heritage Foundation where his wife Virginia works.
Oh, the bullshit.
posted by readery at 1:43 PM on July 11, 2016 [7 favorites]

Well if you care deeply about the supreme court (or really anything) you don't want Trump to touch it.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:03 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

How long until some unpaid intern at the publisher leaks a copy of the manuscript?

There are many things to criticize about traditional major book publishers, but they do pay their interns, and generally try to keep them away from embargoed manuscripts.

Ugh, Trump's NDAs seem to be really solid -- so far they've prevented this book and the one from Lewandowski, and that's just the ones we know of. It's actually possible that Trump is much, much worse than we know.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:04 PM on July 11, 2016 [6 favorites]

I have not confirmed this, but reports are trickling in that Beau Correll has won his lawsuit, enabling him (and maybe others) to reject their binding and vote against Trump.
posted by corb at 2:12 PM on July 11, 2016 [8 favorites]

Yeah, RedState reported it a little while ago.
posted by zarq at 2:16 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Charlie Pierce: A Bernie Sanders Hail Mary in the 4th Quarter Would Be Disastrous
posted by Existential Dread at 2:23 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Oh Charlie, I love you.

Anyone who thinks a prospective HRC administration is a "nightmare" but that a prospective Trump presidency would bring upon the nation some sort of a cleansing progressive fire, should not be allowed to operate an electric can-opener without adult supervision.

posted by Existential Dread at 2:24 PM on July 11, 2016 [37 favorites]

@GingerGibson is live-tweeting from the platform committee: A delegate just said those who commit mass murders are young men from divorced families "who all smoke pot."
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:25 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

...a delegate just said those who commit mass murders are young men from divorced families "who all smoke pot."

Who got really, really high and made Roger Morgan a delegate?
posted by zarq at 2:30 PM on July 11, 2016

Ross Douthat: As in the primaries the anti-Trump convention effort has everything going for it except a plausible and unifying alternative to Trump.

David Frum: Unfortunately for the GOP, the Democrats have got one.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:32 PM on July 11, 2016

"Amendment language also calls for legislation to require parental consent for transport of daughters across state lines for abortion"

Pretty sure it's already illegal to transport minors across state lines without parental consent, doesn't need to involve abortion or sex, you can't even go to the outlet malls in Kenosha with a friend who drives without telling your parents first.

Politicians inventing special laws to outlaw things that are already illegal makes me CRAZY. Legal codes are redundant enough already!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:50 PM on July 11, 2016 [9 favorites]

Pretty sure it's already illegal to transport minors across state lines without parental consent, doesn't need to involve abortion or sex, you can't even go to the outlet malls in Kenosha with a friend who drives without telling your parents first.

Right, but that mostly applies to someone under 16. A 16 year old can drive themselves across state lines legally.
posted by Justinian at 3:10 PM on July 11, 2016

Yeah, RedState reported it a little while ago.

I am having a hard time fathoming whom the RNC delegates could reasonably nominate as an alternative -- so many of their leadership and presidential contenders have been willing to play ball with Trump to some degree (e.g., Ryan, Cruz, Rubio, &c.). I think the attack ads write themselves -- first, show Trump mocking a disabled man/praising dictators/slandering Mexican people/the list goes on, then show Paul Ryan praising Trump.

Even if Trump is dumped, his...sticky putrescence is all over those who would run in his place.
posted by Excommunicated Cardinal at 3:12 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Now, there's an idea. Has the RNC rebellion considered putting Hillary Clinton forwards as a potential Republican presidential nominee? Is there any reason the same candidate can't run on two separate tickets, besides the fact that it's silly?

I mean, hey, since Flynn's a registered Democrat and Trump is a man of no principles whatsoever, surely neither being affiliated with the other major party nor being ideologically not at all in line with the party's stated ideals is a disqualification any more.
posted by jackbishop at 3:13 PM on July 11, 2016

Now, there's an idea. Has the RNC rebellion considered putting Hillary Clinton forwards as a potential Republican presidential nominee?

She was a Goldwater Girl, after all.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:16 PM on July 11, 2016

I am having a hard time fathoming whom the RNC delegates could reasonably nominate as an alternative -- so many of their leadership and presidential contenders have been willing to play ball with Trump to some degree (e.g., Ryan, Cruz, Rubio, &c.).

That, and that serious Republicans who want to be President someday have written off 2016. At this point whoever the nominee is will be coming into the final four months of the campaign with a party which is completely fractured and a significant part of which will feel disenfranchised. They will have lost before they've even begun. I assume the Presidential ambitions of the likes of Ryan, Cruz, or Rubio probably now start with 2020. Perry or Jindal might be willing to sit in that hot seat, because they're stupid enough to take it as an honor.
posted by jackbishop at 3:19 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

it is irresponsible of RBG to make negative comments about the toxic chemical garbage fire spreading near the US Supreme Court Building, what if she has a future case involving toxic chemical garbage fires. now she is prejudiced

And this actually DOES matter if we end up with a Hillary-Trump case in front of the SCOTUS. RBG will have to recuse herself if it does happen. So instead of a 4-4 deadlock that would set aside whatever the Fourth Circuit throws up in favor of Trump, it could be 4-3.
posted by dw at 3:23 PM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]

She was a Goldwater Girl, after all.

Yes, with the stress on "girl", seeing as how she wasn't even old enough to vote at the time.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:23 PM on July 11, 2016 [7 favorites]

Perry or Jindal might be willing to sit in that hot seat, because they're stupid enough to take it as an honor.

I feel like Perry or Jindal would have a nervous breakdown trying to debate Hillary Clinton. Maybe Perry would come off vaguely GWBish at best.
posted by zutalors! at 3:30 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Donald Trump Will Win—Even if He Isn’t the Next President

Trump won’t stay in a situation where his need for incidence isn’t being met. No doer would. But it’s also true that winning is built into the doer DNA. They always find a way to come out on top—even if they have to change the game to make it happen.[snip]How will we know that shift is happening? Look for these clues in Trump’s language and behavior:

He veers red, not purple
A Trump who’s confident of electoral victory will go to battleground states that could decide a close election. A Trump who senses defeat will limit his travel to deep red states to receive total adulation from the already-converted.

He ups the crazy talk
If Trump can see the White House at the end of the tunnel, he’ll stick to winning issues: immigration; trade; economic growth. If he can’t, he’ll revert to pure provocation and wild conspiracy theories (“Obama is secretly Muslim—that’s why he’s soft on terrorism,” etc.)

He paints himself as the victim
Part of an on-his-terms but not on-the-books victory will involve a lot of victim speak from Trump: “Look, people, I tried to be the greatest president ever, but the press, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, the Bushes, the GOP establishment, they were all against me, they had it in for me.”

He starts to mythologize the past instead of proclaiming the future
If Trump has decided he can’t win the electorate, you will likely hear him blast the airwaves with all of the victories he can claim: “People said it was impossible,” “I got the most votes ever by a Republican,” “Look at my crowds,” “The debates had the highest ratings ever…”

posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:32 PM on July 11, 2016 [12 favorites]

Secret Life of Gravy, your list is missing, "He will start a bunch of lawsuits, 'cause that's what he does."
posted by clawsoon at 3:36 PM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]

True that.

This is a long and detailed look at the state of the Trump campaign, including backgrounds on his staff and the campaign's financial position including PACs that support him and those that don't. It concludes with

Let’s say Hillary beats him, as the polls of the moment suggest she will. Has he lost? Probably not.

After all, he’s brought his brand to a far broader global audience on a stage so much larger than any Apprentice imaginable. He could lose dramatically, blame the Republican establishment for being mean to him, and then expand the Trump brand into new realms, places like Russia, where he’s long craved an opening. Vladimir Putin and he could golf together bare-chested while discussing the imminent demise of the American empire. “My country could have been great again,” he could sigh, “if only it had voted me in.” His consolation prize: a Trump Casino in Moscow’s Red Square?

In other words, whether the establishment supports him or not, whether he wins on November 8 or not, his brand wins, which means that he triumphs.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:43 PM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]

> "Is there any reason the same candidate can't run on two separate tickets, besides the fact that it's silly?"

No reason at all. In fact, in 1896, William Jennings Bryan ran as the candidate of the Democratic Party, the Progressive Party, AND the Silver Republican Party (which split from the main Republican Party over the issues of "Free Silver" and bimetallism).
posted by kyrademon at 3:46 PM on July 11, 2016 [5 favorites]

Uh, about that certainty it will be Pence...Why Donald Trump’s near-certain vice presidential pick changes every day

How'd we go from "leaning toward a general" to "95 percent chance of Pence" over the span of a weekend? What's more, what happened to Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie leading the chase, as we reported on June 30 — only 11 days ago? Gingrich appeared at an event with Trump last week and enjoyed his own little boomlet of speculation, now faded. Why? And why, even as Pence was percolating, did ABC News revisit another former general as an option, Stanley McChrystal?

First of all, it's worth reading the first few paragraphs of the Washington Times' piece to learn the genesis of the "95 percent." James Bopp, an Indiana delegate to the Republican convention, said that the speaker of the Indiana House had sought counsel on running for governor, because he'd heard Pence was stepping down. Then Trump announced an event in Indiana with Pence, and that, Bopp said, "made it a 95 percent probability it’s Pence." So if you're confident in the statistical analysis of Indianan James Bopp, Pence is basically a sure thing.

But second, it's worth remembering whom we're dealing with. Consistency is not Donald Trump's strong suit — and, in fact, he considers one of his strong suits to be his inconsistency. As the New York Times reported in May, Trump serves as his own chief strategist and vetter. "Mr. Trump is reliant on information he garners himself," the paper's Ashley Parker and Maggie Haberman wrote then, "and can be swayed by the last person he talked to." It's probably not the case that Trump will change his mind as he walks out to deliver his acceptance speech for the nomination in Cleveland, thanks to a stagehand having approvingly mentioned Darrell Issa in passing — but such a twist would be less surprising coming from Trump than anyone else.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:49 PM on July 11, 2016 [5 favorites]

wow pot is like the least I'm gonna kill you now drug that has ever drugged
posted by angrycat at 3:54 PM on July 11, 2016 [10 favorites]

That, and that serious Republicans who want to be President someday have written off 2016.

I think this may be part of why Priebus has been trying to whip up support for Trump: The bench is spent and no one eligible to pinch hit would want to.

At this point whoever the nominee is will be coming into the final four months of the campaign with a party which is completely fractured and a significant part of which will feel disenfranchised.

All the while the damage Trump has done to relationships with various portions of the electorate (i.e., women, Latinx people, Muslims, and so on) may persist at least through this election. If Trump is bounced, he could throw a wrench in the whole campaign apparatus too, by snarking from the sidelines at the Republicans who defeated him. The man is a grifter with no cares about whom or what he hurts.
posted by Excommunicated Cardinal at 4:03 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

And this actually DOES matter if we end up with a Hillary-Trump case in front of the SCOTUS. RBG will have to recuse herself if it does happen.

Scalia made numerous public speeches pontificating on the evils of homosexuality and abortion. He never turned down a case.
posted by JackFlash at 4:04 PM on July 11, 2016 [21 favorites]

So I hate-watched the Trump speech on veterans reform. To boil it down the main points were to promise timely care to vets, allow for vets to chose between the VA system and fully paid-for private care, weaken civil service protections for VA employees, and try to tie the VA's scandals to Crooked Hillary and her Rigged System. The words "Crooked Hillary" got more applause than any other part of the speech. He gave a 10-point plan to improve veterans affairs:

1. Appoint a Secretary of Veterans Affairs who will clean up the VA, not a political hack (he stumbled on the teleprompter here, in his words, "The Secretary's sole mandate will be to serve our veterans, our bureaucrats, not politicians, but veterans." This was followed by an awkward silence from a confused crowd.)
2. Use every lawful authority to remove or discipline VA employees who fail our vets
3. Ask congress to pass laws to allow the VA Secretary to remove or discipline VA employees who fail our vets
4. Appoint a commission to investigate VA wrongdoing to give recommendations to congress as a basis for bold legislative reform
5. Make sure honest and dedicated VA employees are protected and promoted
6. Create a 24-hour "private White House hotline" that will be answered by a real person, not a computer, where vets can complain about the VA, Trump will personally fix problems if needed
7. Stop giving bonuses for wasting money, instead give bonuses for improving service, saving lives, and cutting waste
8. "We are going to reform our visa programs to insure that American veterans are in the front, not the back, of a line." (I have no idea what he means here, maybe part of jobs program below)
9. Increase number of mental healthcare employees and facilities and increase outreach
10. Allow vets to have choice between the VA or private care paid for by the government

This is the entirety of what he said about improving veterans' job opportunities: "We must also do more to help our veterans find jobs. Every year large corporations bring in many thousands of low-wage workers from overseas and across the border to fill jobs that could easily be filled by our veterans. Veterans should come first in the country they fought to protect. They fought hard to protect us, they are going to come first in a Trump administration. They will be a part of America First. It will be America First from now on. America First!"

Also, he's getting better at using a teleprompter, but still pretty bad at it. He kept his ad-libbing to a minimum, but is still entirely unable to speak to a crowd and read the teleprompter at the same time; he just pivots between 30 degrees off center to each side while reading and only looks ahead when ad-libbing. But he's more lively and natural at it then he was three weeks ago.
posted by peeedro at 4:11 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

> Uh, about that certainty it will be Pence...Why Donald Trump’s near-certain vice presidential pick changes every day

TRUMP/MAN-E-FACES 2016
posted by Fiberoptic Zebroid and The Hypnagogic Jerks at 5:00 PM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]

America First, huh? Sometimes that contempt for book learning comes back to bite you in the ass.

I can never tell if he's being purposefully fascist, or if it's unintentional and he's just a natural.
posted by leotrotsky at 5:08 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

We must also do more to help our veterans find jobs. Every year large corporations bring in many thousands of low-wage workers from overseas and across the border to fill jobs that could easily be filled by our veterans.

Uh, an uncharitable reading of that could be "LOW WAGE JOBS FOR VETERANS, NOW!" right.
posted by murphy slaw at 5:09 PM on July 11, 2016 [13 favorites]

Uh, an uncharitable reading of that could be "LOW WAGE JOBS FOR VETERANS, NOW!" right.

That's why I took the time to transcribe it, because to me it sounded like he was saying that migratory agricultural work was his solution to vets getting jobs. Maybe someone can offer a more charitable reading.
posted by peeedro at 5:13 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

Hillbilly America: Do White Lives Matter?

The American Conservative reviews J.D. Vance's Hillbilly Ellegy.

Interesting take on a book about people who are mostly forgotten or ignored. I don't share the same POV as The American Conservative, and I don't agree with many of the conclusions about why people find themselves at such places. I see abuse, neglect, trauma and addiction; paranoia, fatalism and self-sabotage make much more sense when understood in that context, rather than simply due to cultural isolation and bad attitudes. But it does illuminate the kind of thinking that motivates a lot of Trump support, and why it's not really as simple as trade agreements and jobs. Of course, damaged people (who need help) latch on to other damaged people, and a pathological narcissist like Trump is just playing another role in the abuse cycle in which so many people are living.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:16 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

Create a 24-hour "private White House hotline" that will be answered by a real person, not a computer, where vets can complain about the VA, Trump will personally fix problems if needed

Thank God, there will finally be a way for me to FINALLY be able to get the President on the line for long enough that I can get him to see how to ALL THE NGZ
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:46 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

corb: I have not confirmed this, but reports are trickling in that Beau Correll has won his lawsuit, enabling him (and maybe others) to reject their binding and vote against Trump.

However, the court did not rule that Correll was therefore free to vote his conscience. The precise rules governing his vote are up to the delegates at the GOP convention. Instead, it ruled that the party’s rules trump Virginia statutes...

posted by clawsoon at 5:58 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sure, but if you violate the party's rules and vote your conscience even if the rules say you can't it means you would face at worst sanction by the party rather than charges from the state. That's a big difference.
posted by Justinian at 6:45 PM on July 11, 2016 [12 favorites]

Names floated by people on the street at his veteran thing: Chris, Condi, Newt, freaking Rudy.
posted by box at 6:59 PM on July 11, 2016

freaking Rudy

that's the nicest thing I've ever seen anyone say about him.
posted by zutalors! at 7:03 PM on July 11, 2016 [5 favorites]

Appoint a Secretary of Veterans Affairs who will clean up the VA, not a political hack (he stumbled on the teleprompter here, in his words, "The Secretary's sole mandate will be to serve our veterans, our bureaucrats, not politicians, but veterans." This was followed by an awkward silence from a confused crowd.)

Stumbling aside, General Shinseki was anything but a political hack (he was, among many other accomplishments, one of the few to stand up to Rumsfeld in the lead-up to the Iraq War), and veterans groups largely wanted him to stay on. You could argue that the former CEO of Proctor and Gamble is one, but you could also argue that he's the former leader of one of the country's largest businesses taking on a considerable management challenge in the spirit of public service.

I'm sure the line would have sounded good to the crowd if Trump had managed to say it coherently though.
posted by zachlipton at 7:04 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]

That Ezra Klein interview (article) with Hillary is excellent.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:07 PM on July 11, 2016 [6 favorites]

can't wait to dig into that, triggerfinger.
posted by zutalors! at 7:08 PM on July 11, 2016

Twitter and CBS News Announce Live Streaming Partnership for Republican and Democratic National Conventions
As CBS CEO Les Moonves earlier said about Dishonest Don's campaign "It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS". Now, I have gotten more and more convinced that Twitter is a force for Evil in American Society, but a joint project of CBS and Twitter? The perfect tool to organize the StrormTrumpsters into a well-organized paramilitary force Live!! Time to officially rename Twitter to Trumper.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:29 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

you can't even go to the outlet malls in Kenosha with a friend who drives without telling your parents first

Wait, what? Really? Two 17-year-olds can't drive across a state line legally without parental okay?

I would research this further but I don't know how to google "state line" + "minor" + "transport" without needing to rip my eyes out five seconds later.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:28 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

okay folks be honest with me has the republican platform committee been infiltrated by weird twitter
posted by murphy slaw at 8:35 PM on July 11, 2016 [5 favorites]

They're going to nominate Weedlord Bonerhitler, aren't they?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:40 PM on July 11, 2016 [6 favorites]

Boaty McBoatface, surely.
posted by Salieri at 8:46 PM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]

Have they arranged for @fart to be a speaker at the convention yet? Or @aStyrofoamCup?
posted by krinklyfig at 8:47 PM on July 11, 2016

They're going to nominate Weedlord Bonerhitler, aren't they?

Isn't Trump *already* a Bonerhitler?
posted by mordax at 8:48 PM on July 11, 2016

BOATFACE/DRIL 2016
posted by murphy slaw at 8:48 PM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]

"Trumpy McTrumpface"... hmmm.... explains so much
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:12 PM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]

6:00 AM PST? yeah, good luck with that, I'm not waking up half an hour early for that. I'm still kind of mad about that time Bernie waited until like 11:30 PST to NOT CONCEDE, ugh.
posted by yasaman at 10:18 PM on July 11, 2016 [6 favorites]

3:00 AM HST? I... well I might log off World of Warcraft long enough to watch that. Then again, Draenor needs me and at least there the blood thirsty, short sighted leaders are only like that because they've been written that way. #gnexit2016
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:40 PM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]

By the way, Sanders endorsing Clinton would make a great new FPP...
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:38 AM on July 12, 2016 [4 favorites]

Paul Ryan will be on CNN's Town Hall tonight at 9:00 to answer questions from Tapper and voters.

Also the New York Times has an article about guns at the Republican Convention. While Cleveland has open carry people are being asked to leave their guns at home and long guns are banned from Trump's sports arena extravaganza.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:07 AM on July 12, 2016

Paul Ryan will be on CNN's Town Hall tonight at 9:00 to answer questions from Tapper and voters.

Is it just me or is this really weird? I don't think I can tell anymore.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:12 AM on July 12, 2016 [2 favorites]

The Long, Hard Fight To Finally Get A Woman At The Top Of The Ticket
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:58 AM on July 12, 2016

This is the New York Times article I was referring to earlier. The schadenfreude is so thick you can slice it with a knife.

Stephen Loomis, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, said he strongly supported citizens’ rights to bear arms, but he is urging people not to take their guns anywhere near Cleveland’s downtown during the convention.

“The last thing in the world we need is anybody walking around here with AR-15s strapped to their back,” he said. [snip]

Tim Selaty, director of operations at Citizens for Trump, said his group was paying for private security to bolster the police presence. While Mr. Selaty said people should be allowed to carry guns, his group is banning long weapons from a rally in a park it is hosting on Monday.

“We’re going to insist that they leave any long arms out for sure because we believe that will make sure our people are safer,” he said. “In other words, no AR-15s, no shotguns or sniper rifles — all of the things that you would think somebody would bring in to hurt a lot of people in a very short time.”

So ya know-- open carry is all very fine, just don't do it here.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:14 AM on July 12, 2016 [20 favorites]

roomthreeseventeen: "The Long, Hard Fight To Finally Get A Woman At The Top Of The Ticket"

I wish my mom had lived long enough to see this; it was one of her life dreams to see a woman president.
posted by octothorpe at 5:20 AM on July 12, 2016 [4 favorites]

"... he is urging people not to take their guns anywhere near Cleveland’s downtown during the convention."

Don't take your guns to town son, don't take your guns to town.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:57 AM on July 12, 2016 [3 favorites]

A couple of comments deleted. Cut it out with the troll-y Sanders tears stuff.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:03 AM on July 12, 2016 [5 favorites]

A lot of holes in GOP presidential ground game in key states
posted by octothorpe at 6:50 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]

FYI, the actual Sanders speech/endorsement is supposed to happen at 11am.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:08 AM on July 12, 2016

So it seems the Sanders/Clinton event is actually at 9am PST and not 6am.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:09 AM on July 12, 2016 [2 favorites]

Cut it out with the troll-y Sanders tears stuff.

Bernie is a mensch. Besides, it's much more satisfying to chuckle at Jill Stein, who apparently can't give away the Green Party candidacy.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:11 AM on July 12, 2016 [5 favorites]

Patrick Caldwell: Trump University Taught Students How to Exploit Disabled Homeowners

But Eldred does cover how to take advantage of short sales—a deal in which a buyer talks the homeowner into selling and convinces the mortgage lender to reduce the seller's debt. Eldred points out that a key aspect of such a transaction is convincing a lender that the owner won't be able to pay back the loan as it stands. The goal, Eldred says, is to find homeowners who are in a truly desperate financial position.

"Under no circumstance will a lender accept a short sale if they think they can squeeze that borrower for an extra nickel, so certified destitution evidence needs to be included," he explains. He lists the conditions that are ideal for a short sale: "The borrower is out of work, the borrower has $50,000 in unpaid medical claims, the borrow is completely disabled, the borrower has an extraordinarily messy divorce where everything has been squandered."

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump has been criticized for mocking a New York Times reporter with a disability. Clips of that incident have become fodder for an attack ad created and aired by an outside group supporting Hillary Clinton.

posted by zombieflanders at 7:56 AM on July 12, 2016

I'm watching the livestream now. Had to hide the chat feed because holy shit.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:05 AM on July 12, 2016

Washington Post has a livestream on Facebook.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:06 AM on July 12, 2016

ugh I have meetings but I really wanted to watch that livestream. Go Blue! Party Unity.
posted by zutalors! at 8:07 AM on July 12, 2016

Dang this crowd is feisty.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:16 AM on July 12, 2016

Feisty good or feisty bad? Yesterday, /r/SFP was encouraging people to go there and boo and shout "fraud" and generally be exactly the kind of dicks they claim make their movement look bad.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:19 AM on July 12, 2016

Huh, I guess you guys are right and it was 9:00am PST not EST. So lets do this.
posted by Justinian at 8:19 AM on July 12, 2016

Feisty good or feisty bad? Yesterday, /r/SFP was encouraging people to go there and boo and shout "fraud" and generally be exactly the kind of dicks they claim make their movement look bad.

Both. Definitely some dicks in the crowd but also BLM and Hillary fans. There were competing "Hil-la-ry" and "Ber-nie" chants.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:22 AM on July 12, 2016

Well, they seem to be starting 35 minutes early.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:23 AM on July 12, 2016

The livestream has the house sound off now which of course is a CONSPIRACY so we don't hear all the "BERNIE!" chants. Which, like, maybe? Because it's not actually his rally?
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:24 AM on July 12, 2016

The livestream was the same way before speakers starting speaking when Obama and Clinton shared a stage, so there's that.

Come on Bernie; don't fuck this up.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:28 AM on July 12, 2016

Bernie Sanders: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton..."

finally.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:29 AM on July 12, 2016 [18 favorites]

Here's his prepared remarks. Money quote:

I have come here today not to talk about the past but to focus on the future. That future will be shaped more by what happens on November 8 in voting booths across our nation than by any other event in the world. I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president.

posted by zombieflanders at 8:30 AM on July 12, 2016 [17 favorites]

The NBC livestream feed on Facebook has been filled with comments from upset Sanders supporters
posted by zarq at 8:37 AM on July 12, 2016

Yesterday, /r/SFP was encouraging people to go there and boo and shout

r/SFP is definitely the place to go for salty tears right now. Some of them are going to vote for Stein, some for Trump, some will probably just say "fuck it" and vote for Vladimir Putin, but nearly all of them are convinced that Clinton is History's Greatest Monster. It is exactly the mirror image of the great PUMA meltdown of '08.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:38 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]

Jamelle Bouie:

Sanders isn't relitigating as much as he's spelling out for potential dead-enders that HRC won a legitimate victory.

On that note, consider this column a "I got it wrong on what Bernie has been doing the past month." (What Bernie Sanders Has Won - The Democratic platform is a monument to his campaign.)

This is actually a very full-throated endorsement, especially as it enters its final stretch
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:40 AM on July 12, 2016 [4 favorites]

First time visit to /r/SFP. About 2 minutes of poking around and I've already seen about 5 conspiracy theories comments about this endorsement. They aren't grounded in the real world are they?
posted by Twain Device at 8:42 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]

Your last two links are broken, MCMikeNamara. 404/Page does not exist.
posted by clawsoon at 8:45 AM on July 12, 2016

It's a threaded series of tweets, so the first one should show all three.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:47 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]

First time visit to /r/SFP. About 2 minutes of poking around and I've already seen about 5 conspiracy theories comments about this endorsement. They aren't grounded in the real world are they?

To be fair, I can just imagine Lenin in exile, writing furious reddit posts about capitulation to the provisional government. I mean, there's no compromise in revolution.
posted by dis_integration at 8:48 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]

The demographics of the Sanders subreddit changed (and activity nosedived) several times, most notably after his defeats in the South and again after California. The only people still focused on Sanders exclusively, and therefore active in that subreddit, probably aren't going to be the kind to go to for measured political stances.
posted by Phyltre at 8:48 AM on July 12, 2016 [2 favorites]

Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish is right. But here's the article though.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:49 AM on July 12, 2016

The Slate column was up when posted because I just followed and read that link. Was it moved? It's a good column. (Edit: Yes, Slate fixed spelling on the link breaking the first reference.)
posted by meinvt at 8:49 AM on July 12, 2016

Even /r/SFP is showing signs of buckling. Lots of heat, but beneath that there's a clear sense that people are starting to rationalize their Hillary votes.
posted by rorgy at 8:50 AM on July 12, 2016

I gotta say, I LOVE how Bernie just pointed out that HRC totally changed the role of the First Lady. I think that's super important to remember that she was a totally different style of wife than any other previous First Lady. (AND he reminded everyone she brought up universal health care as First Lady)
posted by hollygoheavy at 8:53 AM on July 12, 2016 [10 favorites]

I was a bit iffy at first, but this has been a really strong endorsement. I'm quite pleased.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:54 AM on July 12, 2016

I feel like a lot of people are learning how presidential elections go, and what politics is like—or, they still need to, I guess. It's not a purity competition, and Sanders isn't a "sellout" for doing the right thing and endorsing Clinton. You cannot just will the electorate into supporting the candidate you support, or have that candidate will another candidate into accepting all of their platform after your support doesn't lead them to securing the nomination.
posted by defenestration at 8:54 AM on July 12, 2016 [6 favorites]

Here's the thing though: when you convince your supporters they're part of a revolution, they might actually believe they're part of a revolution. When they have to confront that said revolution was just them supporting a candidate and voting—and that it wasn't enough to get that candidate the nomination—I think it can lead to a lot of the dead-end stubborn posturing we're seeing in a lot of online spaces right now.
posted by defenestration at 8:58 AM on July 12, 2016 [7 favorites]

I know I probably say this every time I watch a long time of Clinton speaking to a crowd, but she's SO MUCH BETTER at this (horrible, shallow, not as important) part of being a politician than she was in 2008, and honestly even better than she was at the beginning of the campaign.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:59 AM on July 12, 2016 [8 favorites]

This is a great, firm endorsement. Very proud of Senator Sanders.

I would like to gently remind Clinton supporters that while it is unfair that she was expected to reach out after losing in 2008 and now she's expected to do it after winning in 2016: a decisive victory is incredibly important this year. To defeat the threat of fascism, to show that America can elect a woman, to bring as many Democrats into as many downballot positions as humanly possible. We have so much in common with supporters of Bernie Sanders. We want so many of the same things. We can work together to make this country so much better. We are stronger together.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 9:03 AM on July 12, 2016 [11 favorites]

MCMikeNamara: But here's the article though.

Thanks.

Clinton delegates blocked a Sanders-favored fracking ban, a “Medicare for all” plank, a call for public financing of elections, an amendment to block lobbyists from serving as regulators (and vice versa), and language that would commit Democrats to pushing “an end to occupation and illegal settlements” in Palestinian territory.

It would've been nice to see the regulator-lobbyist revolving door closed, and I'll admit it gives me the heebie-jeebies that that plank was blocked (why would you vote for that to keep happening, really?), but I guess you take what you can get.
posted by clawsoon at 9:06 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]

I would like to gently remind Clinton supporters that while it is unfair that she was expected to reach out after losing in 2008 and now she's expected to do it after winning in 2016: a decisive victory is incredibly important this year.

No. Stop making excuses for the low grade sexism of the progressive left. Just because we need to rally to make sure an orange supremacist isn't voted in doesn't mean we should ignore the behaviors that are the reason the activist left keeps getting looked at askance.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:08 AM on July 12, 2016 [10 favorites]

I MADE A NEW ELECTION THREAD, I hope it meets your needs.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:08 AM on July 12, 2016 [29 favorites]

I think that's super important to remember that she was a totally different style of wife than any other previous First Lady.

This sentence isn't completely wrong, but I still get the feeling that Eleanor Roosevelt is giving it the stink-eye from beyond.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:08 AM on July 12, 2016 [9 favorites]

I MADE A NEW ELECTION THREAD, I hope it meets your needs.

I will consume and enjoy
posted by zombieflanders at 9:17 AM on July 12, 2016

I MADE A NEW ELECTION THREAD, I hope it meets your needs.

I will consume and enjoy

posted by zombieflanders

Stay out of the new thread! It's a trap!
posted by Etrigan at 9:19 AM on July 12, 2016 [6 favorites]

Returning from the I MADE A NEW ELECTION THREAD to report it met my needs.
posted by klarck at 9:35 AM on July 12, 2016 [5 favorites]

Even /r/SFP is showing signs of buckling. Lots of heat, but beneath that there's a clear sense that people are starting to rationalize their Hillary votes.

I've been saying for months that this summer will feature a LOT of people publicly talking themselves into being okay with voting for Trump or Hillary.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:55 AM on July 12, 2016 [2 favorites]

I MADE A NEW ELECTION THREAD, I hope it meets your needs.

IT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT this is an outrage
posted by poffin boffin at 10:01 AM on July 12, 2016 [3 favorites]

I MADE A NEW ELECTION THREAD, I hope it meets your needs.

It was too short. I've already finished it.
posted by sporkwort at 10:08 AM on July 12, 2016 [10 favorites]

IT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT this is an outrage

Hamilton references always win. And this isn't the DNC convention thread yet.
posted by zachlipton at 10:14 AM on July 12, 2016 [2 favorites]

Thanks for the new thread.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:17 AM on July 12, 2016

This sentence isn't completely wrong, but I still get the feeling that Eleanor Roosevelt is giving it the stink-eye from beyond.

Well, she would have made a great president, that is for sure.
posted by y2karl at 12:46 PM on July 12, 2016 [6 favorites]

A delegate just said those who commit mass murders are young men from divorced families "who all smoke pot."

Well thank god my parents never got married, then.
posted by lkc at 3:32 PM on July 12, 2016 [3 favorites]

You could be in the NSA!
posted by phearlez at 7:10 PM on July 12, 2016

CONGRATULATIONS!!! YOU REACHED THE END OF THREAD!!! YOU IS A WINNER!!! CONTINUE?!
posted by ersatz at 11:27 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]

CONGRATULATIONS!!! YOU REACHED THE END OF THREAD!!! YOU IS A WINNER!!! CONTINUE?!



> exit

> quit

> end

> logout

> logoff

> why?

>

posted by double block and bleed at 12:06 AM on July 14, 2016 [4 favorites]

There is a mailbox here.

> open

Open what?

> open box

I don't know how to 'box'.

> open mailbox

The mailbox is open.

> look mailbox

It is a mailbox.

> look IN mailbox

There is a letter in the mailbox.

> get letter

I don't know how to get 'letter'.

> get mailbox letter

I don't know how to 'mailbox letter'.

> get letter FROM mailbox

You get the letter.

> look letter

It is a letter. There is text on the envelope.

> read letter

I don't know how to read 'letter'

> read envelope

'MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN VOTE TRUMP 2016'

> exit
> quit
> end
> logout
> logoff
> why?
>
posted by lkc at 1:53 AM on July 14, 2016 [14 favorites]

« Older "[T]reating the world as software promotes... | DEXYS AT THE IRISH EMBASSY Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

The campaign lurches into the summer June 29, 2016 7:48 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

The campaign lurches into the summer
June 29, 2016 7:48 AM Subscribe