caulfield12

Therein lies the problem. If Trump does engage Alec Baldwin, SNL, Hamilton cast, Duterte, the British (because they had the temerity not to allow him to name the Ambassador to the US!!!), Xi Jinping, etc. Then how is that NOT newsworthy? Trump over and over again has made the point that Twitter and social media were key factors in his victory (and saving money on campaign ads)...and then we can just go back to the general point that only 3-5% of election coverage was spent talking about or debating policy or substantive issues. So HOW can that suddenly flip from campaigning to governing and the focus will be 100% on policy when all those Twitter controversies are what creates news coverage and page views?? Obviously, that strategy implemented by the Trump campaign has become something of a double-edged sword. Of course, left unmentioned is the fact that the $25 million Trump University settlement quietly took place without hardly any mention...there's just so many things spinning around in the air at the same time, it's hard to focus on just one thing at a time.

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/tila-tequil...-192654817.html Tila Tequila suspended from Twitter for Nazi salute...but will they do that to other members? She's an easy target.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-flip-flops...-203417722.html Six obvious flip flops from Trump in a single interview with NY Times. He's making Mitt Romney and Clinton look steadfast and principled, almost.

Wonder how soon before we get a tweet connecting us to Sox killer Kurt Suzuki?

I would be shocked if she actually got the position. Too controversial...which is odd to say for Trump. She'd be the equivalent of giving Christie a job. She is an Asian female, so there's the diversity angle, and married to former NBA point guard (mostly the Suns) and Democrat/Mayor of Sacramento Kevin Johnson. Would be preferable to Carson or Falwell, because she at least knows her stuff. Eva Moskowitz, a Democratic charter school leader, has already crossed herself off the list. Having taught/survived four years of inner city/public education, I'm 50% open to SOME of the charter school reforms, but not teaching to the test/performance based incentives, because I've never seen a fair way to account for the excellent work some teachers do with sub standard students in making any progress, vs. other veteran teachers who always get the best students automatically and the worst students get dumped on newbies and they invariably burn out. To me, the best teachers are those willing to do whatever it takes to help everyone, not just IB or AP level classes that can perform well almost autonomously.

Trump definitely is going to have to say something more pointed than his rather generic recent comments about the upcoming December 3rd North Carolina KKK March that David Duke will supposedly be attending.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2016 -> 09:22 AM) Because I don't have to teach tomorrow and there's a pile of field trip reports next to me that I'm not going to grade until the caffeine kicks in. Edit: Oh and many of those will get worse as his other cabinet appointments come out I should note. He interviewed the author of Arizona's "Show us your papers" law for Homeland Security yesterday. https://www.yahoo.com/news/potential-trump-...-210705539.html This brilliant guy who inadvertently revealed his whole meeting agenda, lol? Guess he took that "show us your papers" part literally or was confused about its intent. All we need is Brownback for the trifecta to go with Pompeo, the CIA Director from Koch Industries, err, I mean Wichita. Maybe an Ed Secretary who will put Creationism back in the textbooks even though Trump could care less but just wants to serve up some red meat to the fundamentalist Christians (along with threatening Roe v. Wade).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2016 -> 08:05 AM) breitbart has a tag for their site dedicated to "black crimes." There's no plausible deniability regarding race. Is it possibility a WaPo writer would do an in-depth article on the topic and still be unaware of that? Or overlook it intentionally to give Bannon the proverbial "benefit of the doubt"?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016...mp.html?ref=yfp Dems can't afford to say yes to Trump

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-holocaust-muse...9--finance.html Howard Dean calls Bannon a Nazi http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/21/politics/how...nazi/index.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/philosopher-pred...-215658929.html Rise to power of a carbon copy of Trump predicted back in 1998...final outcome projection of that authoritarian figure, not so great An era of corrupted business unprecedented in US is upon us...NY Times/Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman http://finance.yahoo.com/news/krugman-trum...-155433007.html

After all the discussion recently about "are those who voted for Donald Trump implicitly racist or members of the ALT-RIGHT by association" this seems like a useful reference (and, fwiw, it's quite neutral and if anything "defends" Bannon/Breitbart in a way) Of course, with the naming of Sessions as the AG nominee and some of the other defense/homeland security/law enforcement officers having a history of being almost rabidly "anti-immigrant," the lines get blurred even more and more by the day. One person's law and order, controlling the border, cracking down on illegal immigrants enjoying benefits that aren't going to hard-working/tax-paying Americans, citizenship by birth (Chinese/Mexican the most common now), cracking down on H1B visas, etc., THAT'S ANOTHER PERSON'S RACISM/DISCRIMINATION/PREJUDICE that's simply disguised in political terms. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp...bout-them/feed/ The term “alt-right” was born around 2008, coined by a young white nationalist (though he prefers the term identitarian) named Richard Spencer, and when the term was initially born, it seemed to be a fairly ecumenical term in that it really seemed to apply to just about anyone who was right-wing politically, but opposed to George W. Bush and especially to the neoconservative wing of the conservative movement. So, libertarians and paleoconservatives and the racial right all could be classified as alt-right, though, over time, the racial element became more explicit. The alt-right has been able to successfully brand itself as an edgy and fun and ironic movement that takes pleasure in needling both liberals and conservatives, and it’s tongue-in-cheek and rebellious as opposed to just being motivated by [the] genocidal (racial) hatred that you would see from people like William Pierce. At least if we’re talking about the really big-picture stuff and the most radical white-nationalist element, I don’t think there is a lot of support among ordinary conservatives. If you were to ask them, they would probably say that they reject that particular vision. A lot of ordinary conservatives are not in favor of multiculturalism, not in favor of immigration, not in favor of affirmative action, not in favor of a lot of the things that are happening in American society right now. But that’s different from actually supporting the creation of a white ethno-state. This movement in particular is more appealing to men, particularly given the degree to which it is also a very outspoken anti-feminist movement. Traditional masculinity, they’ll argue, is undervalued in contemporary society. They’re very fond of describing mainstream conservatives as “cucks,” which is obviously an emasculating term. There’s a general sense that a more patriarchal society would be superior to the society we have now. Should Bannon be considered part of the alt-right? I do not think Steve Bannon qualifies as part of the alt-right. It’s true that Breitbart has flirted with the alt-right more than any other mainstream conservative publication, but its ultimate editorial line tends to be fairly generically conservative. It shares a lot of the alt-right style and tone, but not that much of its substance. Its main beef with the more mainstream conservatives, like those at the National Review or the Weekly Standard, is that they’re weak, and that they are not fighters willing to get their hands dirty, and that they capitulate too easily. But, ultimately, I think that the values, the editorial line of Breitbart, seem to be fairly generically conservative. A lot of people who are on the alt-right read Breitbart and appreciate it, but Breitbart also maintains some plausible deniability that it’s not ultimately interested in race per se. I don’t think that that’s true of the alt-right. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp...bout-them/feed/

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/cnn-sees-twitt...-233547124.html CNN sees twitter backlash (from Jewish people, mostly) about ALT-RIGHT leader/speaker questioning IF JEWS ARE PEOPLE?

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 21, 2016 -> 09:34 PM) Seems apropos of how out of touch dems are http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politic...-maps/94233560/ So fighting gerrymandering that's obviously politically/racially-motivated is being out of touch? Obviously, in the bigger picture, losing Wisconsin in the presidential election without making a single appearance (HRC) was a fireable offense by her campaign...but it's the insidious drawing of Congressional districts that might have done more damage since the 1980's and 1990's.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/20/this-i...-globalization/ Donald Trump is Declaring Bankruptcy on the Post-WWII World Order Very lengthy but quite insightful piece.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Nov 21, 2016 -> 08:38 PM) You may not say it outright but that's what you're inferring when you place the blame of the result on "tens of millions" that voted for him. GMAB. In your view if you vote for Trump you're supporting racism/bigotry/sexism, true or false? The bigger question is what would Trump have to do or so to actually have a significant number of his supporters finally turn against him? He said that he could shoot someone in broad daylight in NYC and still win. So obviously, there are a majority of Republican voters who weren't comfortable with Trump, but with even less comfortable with four more years of the Clintons. When does country/unity/stability come over the possibility of remaking the political world a way they were never able to during the last 8 years? This "silent majority" is wary of Trump, and many are afraid of serving under him OR being "too" connected to him in the event he drags the whole party down (eventually). What is the responsibility of this "non-deplorable Silent Majority" in your opinion, IF ANY?

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/11/19/b...fic-trade-pact/ http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/donald-trump-apec-trade-china/ China's influence in Asia grows in ashes of TPTP (NY Times)...if someone can post the link, thanks

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT7l8mTN...FfXYW3B5ba3d9A- Trump's plan...basically to try to hijack One Belt/One Road plan from the Chinese http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrEWDTfmTN...5oajPjJr8eHSXU- China's influence in Asia grows in ashes of TPTP (NY Times) http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/11/19/b...fic-trade-pact/ (NY Times is blocked in China so not sure if this link will work) http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrEWDTfmTN...5oajPjJr8eHSXU- APEC leaders may be looking to China... http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/donald-trump-apec-trade-china/ http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrEWDTfmTN...5oajPjJr8eHSXU- China plans rival trade deal after Trump victory

In more pertinent news, the withdrawal from NAFTA and TPP will bring back jobs how exactly? We're basically turning over the world trade system to the Chinese. They weren't allowed into TPP. Now they will be able to assert even more leadership with the AIIB, One Belt/One Road, RMB added to currency reserve basket (goal to replace the USD by 2030) and another international Shanghai bank that will make Asia, Russia, Brazil and Australia more reliant on China than ever before. They're light years ahead in infrastructure spending. And environmental problems don't exist according to the EPA. So the US counter is to be more isolated from the world and allow China to dictate the terms of trade after we disengage and force most of our allies into bed with China (see Philiippines, for one).

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Nov 21, 2016 -> 05:11 PM) Agreed, but the caveat is the middle class is always f***ed by both parties. I'd prefer to be f***ed a little less by having the rich pay more, but it's really a wash at the end of the day. Taxes still rise, costs/fees for everything associated with government goes up. The rich avoid those things, the poor can't afford it, so the middle is still stuck with the bill no matter who is in charge. Then, leaving all that aside, how can completely ignoring environmental issues and sticking our heads in the collective sand be the best course of action? It's honestly not a concern at all to the GOP? How can they be so sure pushing the problem under the rug will be the lasting legacy they want to leave to their grandchildren? From living in China for 6-7 years now, I can safely say you don't want the rest of the world to be following their policies of paying lip service and running PSA campaigns but in reality doing very little that will curb economic growth. Finally, the reason jobs will go up under Trump is the economic winds are behind him...sustaining this era of easy money and near zero interest rate expansion, though, will be next to impossible. Dems will triangulate or obstruct, Trump will try to blame them and the media for standing in his way, trying to peel off GOP support for bipartisan bills which will unpalatable to the Tea Partiers and deficit hawks. Who wins is anyone's guess.

Yeah, Jeff Nichols. But Captain Fantastic is surely the best movie of the year so far, better than Hell or High Water. Loving is probably 7-10 on a Top Ten list, more or less.

And finally the Republicans will have to come up with their own policies and pass them...replace Obamacare and Medicare with something better while not blowing up the budget? Infrastructure spending increases of $1 trillion while cutting taxes for the rich and corporations, dumping estate taxes...and that's magically going to provide GDP growth of 4-5%? Conservative predictions say that the deficit will have another $5-10 trillion added doing that. If the GOP goes down thst road adter the Bush years, they can never complain about liberals blowing up the Federal budgets again and we can finally get some realistic conversations on policy choices that are not draconian tax cuts, increases in military spending and more privatized prisons. The only ones doing well so far are the 1%ers. Everyone else is just going to be more screwed in 2-4 years, they just don't know it yet.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2016 -> 09:36 AM) Please tell me again how this is about economic anxiety. Do they not realize Ivanka and Jared Kushner are Jewish? Henry Kissinger?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/44216...st-conservative The National Review on Steve Bannon...

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 20, 2016 -> 10:31 PM) I don't want to get into some thing where I'm trying to defend Trump, but what are u specifically talking about? Didn't he say he wanted to build a wall to keep out the illegal entrants into the USA? Now I'm all for immigrants, it's what makes our country great, letting people come here, but isn't that the only thing he's done that can be construed as racial? I know the KKK loves Trump but has Trump done anything specific to hate on African Americans and members of the gay and lesbian community? I know I haven't followed the election that closely but what are you exactly talking about? The fact the KKK endorsed him? Or has he said stuff like, "I hate African Americans and will make life hell on them." What has he done? Forgive me for not knowing. And again, please don't suggest I'm some Trump guy. I swear on a stack of Bibles and I am a practicing Catholic that I did not vote for him and I did not vote for Hillary either. I told you I think he's a 2 out of 10 as a person and I feel Hillary is a 2 as well. I might give her a 3. But you keep mentioning this hate toward races besides his own. What are you talking about? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol...easons_why.html