Trump MAGAthread II: Donald and Mike go to the White House

[Galloism]

Maybe if we talk this up enough, we can get in an intelligence report.

Send it to Fox praising Trump as a solution to the US' gay problem.

/shrug

I'll send it to Breitbart.

[Lady Scylla]

Send it to Fox praising Trump as a solution to the US' gay problem.

/shrug

I'll send it to Breitbart.

Oooo. That'd be far better.

[Vassenor]

As a lifelong liberal, this line of attack is not working. It failed us in 2016 and we will need to get away from identity politics to win again. Winning is important, lest that con artist and his party saddle our country with shitty economic and foreign policies for 8 years instead of 4.

Friendly reminder that "identity politics" are pretty much just right-wing codeword for civil rights. Never forget that the ones who popularized the use of the term did so as a slur, a thought-terminating cliché in opposition to things such as protests against racial bias in law enforcement and anti-discrimination policies for trans people.

Don't fall for their lies, don't cave into their narrative, and don't throw civil rights under the bus to appease those who already despise you. This supposed dichotomy between left-wing working-class populism and civil rights advocacy is a false dichotomy that only serves to sow the seeds of dissent among ourselves and pits us against one another while the powerful carry on unchecked.

Hillary Clinton did not lose because of "identity politics". She lost because she was a proponent of neoliberal economics in an election that was all about the failings of neoliberal economics. She lost because she was still neck-deep in a partially exaggerated but very damaging scandal, worsened by her many past misteps and shady dealings. She lost because Donald Trump beat her to the punch in appealing to voters who would have otherwise voted for a continuation of the Obama legacy. She lost because of events outside of her personal control that further undermined her public image and her party's chances of success in key states.

She did not lose because of the fight over "trans bathrooms". She did not lose because of the Black Lives Matter movement (which wasn't the least bit fond of her, as far as I can recall). She did not lose because of third wave feminism (at most, her mistake was in thinking that you could win much popular support by simply representing a novelty in political demographics - and Obama knew better).

And yet the majority of people who voted still voted for her.

[Romalae]

And yet the majority of people who voted still voted for her.

Plurality.

[Liriena]

And yet the majority of people who voted still voted for her.

Plurality.

Indeed.

[New Rogernomics]

Already becoming resigned to the fact that Trump might well get a second term.

It is never-ending amusement however to see CNN and MSNBC have nervous breakdowns over Trump, and for them to be so detached from the reality of struggling Americans that they couldn't even consider a Trump win being possible.

That, and the daily comic relief that are Trump tweets, are going to get me through the Trump years.

[Galloism]

oh here we go.

Ukraine was trying to meddle in our election as well - on behalf of Clinton.

Everyone - time to switch sides. If you thought the Russian hacking was no biggie, this is yuge. If it was a huge deal, this is irrelevant.

[The East Marches]

oh here we go.

Ukraine was trying to meddle in our election as well - on behalf of Clinton.

Everyone - time to switch sides. If you thought the Russian hacking was no biggie, this is yuge. If it was a huge deal, this is irrelevant.

A lot of Europe has ass kissing to do on that front. The EU is in for a wild ride too.

[Galloism]

oh here we go.

Ukraine was trying to meddle in our election as well - on behalf of Clinton.

Everyone - time to switch sides. If you thought the Russian hacking was no biggie, this is yuge. If it was a huge deal, this is irrelevant.

A lot of Europe has ass kissing to do on that front. The EU is in for a wild ride too.

We all are mate.

We all are.

[New Rogernomics]

oh here we go.

Ukraine was trying to meddle in our election as well - on behalf of Clinton.

Everyone - time to switch sides. If you thought the Russian hacking was no biggie, this is yuge. If it was a huge deal, this is irrelevant.

America shouldn't point fingers and be all high and mighty about it, especially given all the democratic elections America has meddled in across the world to put dictators and warlords in power.

I think a lot of countries would consider it poetic justice in private, if meddling really did go on.

Guess what goes around, comes around.

[Liriena]

Already becoming resigned to the fact that Trump might well get a second term.

It is never-ending amusement however to see CNN and MSNBC have nervous breakdowns over Trump, and for them to be so detached from the reality of struggling Americans that they couldn't even consider a Trump win being possible.

That, and the daily comic relief that are Trump tweets, are going to get me through the Trump years.

I think it's a bit unfair to accuse CNN and MSNBC of being "detached from the reality of struggling Americans". There certainly was a very counter-productive arrogance when it came to Trump's chances, but a fair number of people at both networks were very aware of reality. It wasn't so much that they were delusional in the face of facts, but rather that they seemed to assume that simply stating the facts would trump strong, pervasive and deep emotions and preconceptions that contradicted them.

[Astrolinium]

It wasn't so much that they were delusional in the face of facts, but rather that they seemed to assume that simply stating the facts would trump strong, pervasive and deep emotions and preconceptions that contradicted them.

It says a lot about the last few months that my brain initially refused to parse this sentence because it no longer scans "trump" as a verb.

[Sareva]

No offense to Vass, she just happened to post this, but for those who still argue that the majority of voters did so for Clinton are lying to themselves, and not for the reason you may think. Apparently, half of the eligible population didn't even vote. That's not even surprising, to be honest.

[Frenequesta]

It wasn't so much that they were delusional in the face of facts, but rather that they seemed to assume that simply stating the facts would trump strong, pervasive and deep emotions and preconceptions that contradicted them.

It says a lot about the last few months that my brain initially refused to parse this sentence because it no longer scans "trump" as a verb.

Funny story: Last semester, while the campaign was still going on, my constitutional law professor was teaching the class about the Supremacy Clause, explaining that the Constitution and federal laws "trump" state laws. He paused, and said "You all know what I mean by that, right?"

[Vassenor]

No offense to Vass, she just happened to post this, but for those who still argue that the majority of voters did so for Clinton are lying to themselves, and not for the reason you may think. Apparently, half of the eligible population didn't even vote. That's not even surprising, to be honest.

Hence my use of the "of the people who voted" qualifier.

[Arlenton]

No offense to Vass, she just happened to post this, but for those who still argue that the majority of voters did so for Clinton are lying to themselves, and not for the reason you may think. Apparently, half of the eligible population didn't even vote. That's not even surprising, to be honest.

Hence my use of the "of the people who voted" qualifier.

But it was a plurality of people who voted, not a majority.

Not that it matters either way though.

[Astrolinium]

No offense to Vass, she just happened to post this, but for those who still argue that the majority of voters did so for Clinton are lying to themselves, and not for the reason you may think. Apparently, half of the eligible population didn't even vote. That's not even surprising, to be honest.

54.4% of the eligible population voted, compared to 54.9% in 2012, 57.1% in 2008, 55.7% in 2004, 50.3% in 2000, 49.0% in 1996, and 55.2% in 1992.

This is a systemic, ongoing problem in American elections and hardly unique to 2016.

[New Rogernomics]

Already becoming resigned to the fact that Trump might well get a second term.

It is never-ending amusement however to see CNN and MSNBC have nervous breakdowns over Trump, and for them to be so detached from the reality of struggling Americans that they couldn't even consider a Trump win being possible.

That, and the daily comic relief that are Trump tweets, are going to get me through the Trump years.

I think it's a bit unfair to accuse CNN and MSNBC of being "detached from the reality of struggling Americans". There certainly was a very counter-productive arrogance when it came to Trump's chances, but a fair number of people at both networks were very aware of reality. It wasn't so much that they were delusional in the face of facts, but rather that they seemed to assume that simply stating the facts would trump strong, pervasive and deep emotions and preconceptions that contradicted them.

It isn't unfair, and what do you mean by a 'fair number', as all their leading commentators and reporters were non-stop 'Trump can't win' as he is a 'sexist', misogynist',etc and 'Clinton can do no wrong', despite her being the worst Democratic candidate in decades, if not ever, given her 55%+ disapproval rating. They have been dishonest networks the whole cycle, and I watched Al Jazeera or BBC when I could. I was also disgusted by Rachel Maddows third party smear piece after the election, when she distorted reality and pretended that it was third parties, and not first time voters and Democrats voting Trump, that lost them the election.

I am not sure what coverage you were watching, as they called the election for Clinton for months, not even conceiving that Trump could take [East] Virginia or the rust belt. They also basically claimed that Clinton won all the debates, even though when I watched them she either stumbled at critical points or lost straight out in all of them. They have so little credibility left that I would put greater stock in Fox News, and they are basically a right-wing propaganda network and produce fake news most of the time. Your choice what to watch, and if you think they deserve your time, then go ahead. But in my opinion, you keep better informed and more in touch with the reality on the ground by not watching either network.

Correction: Added East Virginia.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think it's a bit unfair to accuse CNN and MSNBC of being "detached from the reality of struggling Americans". There certainly was a very counter-productive arrogance when it came to Trump's chances, but a fair number of people at both networks were very aware of reality. It wasn't so much that they were delusional in the face of facts, but rather that they seemed to assume that simply stating the facts would trump strong, pervasive and deep emotions and preconceptions that contradicted them.

It isn't unfair, and what do you mean by a 'fair number', as all their leading commentators and reporters were non-stop 'Trump can't win' as he is a 'sexist', misogynist',etc and 'Clinton can do no wrong', despite her being the worst Democratic candidate in decades, if not ever, given her 55%+ disapproval rating. They have been dishonest networks the whole cycle, and I watched Al Jazeera or BBC when I could. I was also disgusted by Rachel Maddows third party smear piece after the election, when she distorted reality and pretended that it was third parties, and not first time voters and Democrats voting Trump, that lost them the election.

I am not sure what coverage you were watching, as they called the election for Clinton for months, not even conceiving that Trump could take West Virginia or the rust belt. They also basically claimed that Clinton won all the debates, even though when I watched them she either stumbled at critical points or lost straight out in all of them. They have so little credibility left that I would put greater stock in Fox News, and they are basically a right-wing propaganda network and produce fake news most of the time. Your choice what to watch, and if you think they deserve your time, then go ahead. But in my opinion, you keep better informed and more in touch with the reality on the ground by not watching either network.

I want to restrain myself from saying "called it", but I fucking called it back in November that people would try to blame third parties for the loss.

[Lady Scylla]

No offense to Vass, she just happened to post this, but for those who still argue that the majority of voters did so for Clinton are lying to themselves, and not for the reason you may think. Apparently, half of the eligible population didn't even vote. That's not even surprising, to be honest.

54.4% of the eligible population voted, compared to 54.9% in 2012, 57.1% in 2008, 55.7% in 2004, 50.3% in 2000, 49.0% in 1996, and 55.2% in 1992.

This is a systemic, ongoing problem in American elections and hardly unique to 2016.

Yep. Voter confidence in the US has always resulted in a really shit turnout.

[Arlenton]

I think it's a bit unfair to accuse CNN and MSNBC of being "detached from the reality of struggling Americans". There certainly was a very counter-productive arrogance when it came to Trump's chances, but a fair number of people at both networks were very aware of reality. It wasn't so much that they were delusional in the face of facts, but rather that they seemed to assume that simply stating the facts would trump strong, pervasive and deep emotions and preconceptions that contradicted them.

It isn't unfair, and what do you mean by a 'fair number', as all their leading commentators and reporters were non-stop 'Trump can't win' as he is a 'sexist', misogynist',etc and 'Clinton can do no wrong', despite her being the worst Democratic candidate in decades, if not ever, given her 55%+ disapproval rating. They have been dishonest networks the whole cycle, and I watched Al Jazeera or BBC when I could. I was also disgusted by Rachel Maddows third party smear piece after the election, when she distorted reality and pretended that it was third parties, and not first time voters and Democrats voting Trump, that lost them the election.

I am not sure what coverage you were watching, as they called the election for Clinton for months, not even conceiving that Trump could take West Virginia or the rust belt. They also basically claimed that Clinton won all the debates, even though when I watched them she either stumbled at critical points or lost straight out in all of them. They have so little credibility left that I would put greater stock in Fox News, and they are basically a right-wing propaganda network and produce fake news most of the time. Your choice what to watch, and if you think they deserve your time, then go ahead. But in my opinion, you keep better informed and more in touch with the reality on the ground by not watching either network.

I agree with you mostly, but no one was ever suggesting Trump would lose West Virginia.

[Lady Scylla]

It isn't unfair, and what do you mean by a 'fair number', as all their leading commentators and reporters were non-stop 'Trump can't win' as he is a 'sexist', misogynist',etc and 'Clinton can do no wrong', despite her being the worst Democratic candidate in decades, if not ever, given her 55%+ disapproval rating. They have been dishonest networks the whole cycle, and I watched Al Jazeera or BBC when I could. I was also disgusted by Rachel Maddows third party smear piece after the election, when she distorted reality and pretended that it was third parties, and not first time voters and Democrats voting Trump, that lost them the election.

I am not sure what coverage you were watching, as they called the election for Clinton for months, not even conceiving that Trump could take West Virginia or the rust belt. They also basically claimed that Clinton won all the debates, even though when I watched them she either stumbled at critical points or lost straight out in all of them. They have so little credibility left that I would put greater stock in Fox News, and they are basically a right-wing propaganda network and produce fake news most of the time. Your choice what to watch, and if you think they deserve your time, then go ahead. But in my opinion, you keep better informed and more in touch with the reality on the ground by not watching either network.

I want to restrain myself from saying "called it", but I fucking called it back in November that people would try to blame third parties for the loss.

It was bound to happen. The whole "A vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump" or "A vote for Johnson is a Vote for Hillary" campaigns that hit social media during the election were pretty bad to begin with.

[New Rogernomics]

It isn't unfair, and what do you mean by a 'fair number', as all their leading commentators and reporters were non-stop 'Trump can't win' as he is a 'sexist', misogynist',etc and 'Clinton can do no wrong', despite her being the worst Democratic candidate in decades, if not ever, given her 55%+ disapproval rating. They have been dishonest networks the whole cycle, and I watched Al Jazeera or BBC when I could. I was also disgusted by Rachel Maddows third party smear piece after the election, when she distorted reality and pretended that it was third parties, and not first time voters and Democrats voting Trump, that lost them the election.

I am not sure what coverage you were watching, as they called the election for Clinton for months, not even conceiving that Trump could take West Virginia or the rust belt. They also basically claimed that Clinton won all the debates, even though when I watched them she either stumbled at critical points or lost straight out in all of them. They have so little credibility left that I would put greater stock in Fox News, and they are basically a right-wing propaganda network and produce fake news most of the time. Your choice what to watch, and if you think they deserve your time, then go ahead. But in my opinion, you keep better informed and more in touch with the reality on the ground by not watching either network.

I agree with you mostly, but no one was ever suggesting Trump would lose West Virginia.

I meant Virginia, had to add that correction to my post. Sometimes I wish America would give its states more different names, so I don't get confused between them.

[Liriena]

I think it's a bit unfair to accuse CNN and MSNBC of being "detached from the reality of struggling Americans". There certainly was a very counter-productive arrogance when it came to Trump's chances, but a fair number of people at both networks were very aware of reality. It wasn't so much that they were delusional in the face of facts, but rather that they seemed to assume that simply stating the facts would trump strong, pervasive and deep emotions and preconceptions that contradicted them.

It isn't unfair, and what do you mean by a 'fair number', as all their leading commentators and reporters were non-stop 'Trump can't win' as he is a 'sexist', misogynist',etc and 'Clinton can do no wrong', despite her being the worst Democratic candidate in decades, if not ever, given her 55%+ disapproval rating. They have been dishonest networks the whole cycle, and I watched Al Jazeera or BBC when I could. I was also disgusted by Rachel Maddows third party smear piece after the election, when she distorted reality and pretended that it was third parties, and not first time voters and Democrats voting Trump, that lost them the election.

I am not sure what coverage you were watching, as they called the election for Clinton for months, not even conceiving that Trump could take West Virginia or the rust belt. They also basically claimed that Clinton won all the debates, even though when I watched them she either stumbled at critical points or lost straight out in all of them. They have so little credibility left that I would put greater stock in Fox News, and they are basically a right-wing propaganda network and produce fake news most of the time. Your choice what to watch, and if you think they deserve your time, then go ahead. But in my opinion, you keep better informed and more in touch with the reality on the ground by not watching either network.

I strongly disagree with your personal perceptions thereby expressed, although you do make a fair point on the arrogance I already spoke of. I particularly disagree with your assessment that Clinton lost the debates. She did not. She was far from perfect, and did stumble, but she was the superior debater. Trump was barely kept afloat some of the time by his oratory skills (more specifically, his capacity to sound good, determined, while saying something completely incoherent), but was an unrestrained mess most of the time.

[Lady Scylla]

I agree with you mostly, but no one was ever suggesting Trump would lose West Virginia.

I meant Virginia, had to add that correction to my post.

You mean East Virginia.