Juliajms

Ben Carson as HUD secretary. Oh boy. Ana Narvaro tried to spin it like "We'll at least someone who grew up in poverty is in the cabinet." That might be an argument if he was even a little bit qualified.

It looks like the Trump administration will be chomping at the bit to undo the DAP decision. I hope they can't though. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/us-army-corps-blocks-dakota-access-pipeline-232172

^ Yes, and now if we try to stop north Korean's nuke capability will China stand by them because of this? Maybe they would have anyway, but pissing them off all the more doesn't seem like a good idea. CNN was just talking about the situation in North Korea getting more volatile by the day.

There are also a lot of people who have given up. Something like 95 million Americans who should be in the labor market are not. I really wonder how these people are making it day to day. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/us-unemployed-have-quit-looking-for-jobs-at-a-frightening-level-survey.html

Maybe this is one of those times he was supposed to be taken seriously not literally? Did you see that speech in Cincinnati yesterday? He was talking about how at one point months ago he had said "Carrier is not leaving the country". So some Carrier worker was on TV saying he knew they wouldn't leave because Trump said so. Then Trump saw it and thought "Oh, well I didn't actually mean that Carrier wouldn't leave. That decision was made 18 months ago. I just meant corporations in general wouldn't be leaving." But because the guy had so much faith Trump thought he had the step in. I mean, WTF is anyone supposed to do with a man who thinks like this? He actually says something as specific as Carrier is not leaving, but that's not what he actually means? Talk about causing chaos in the international community. How is anyone going to know when the President of the United States means what he says? I cringe whenever I see an article about how we are in a "post fact or Post truth America", but it's coming true right before our eyes.

One thing that surprised me over the last couple of days was McCain agreeing with Trump that people who burn the flag should be punished. What?! Luckily it seems like a lot of people on both sides of the aisle are against it, but Trump doubled down on it today.

^ Do we even know that her voters voted on that issue? Just because it was her issue doesn't mean that's what was motivating people. Anyone really serious about climate change would have voted for Clinton, imo. Otherwise, why risk that an actual climate change denier (who thinks it's a hoax by China no less) will be elected? I just don't believe that very many people at all voted 3rd party except for people casting a protest vote. It was obvious neither of them could win. For all we know the 3rd party voters would have just stayed home instead of voting for either of the main candidates.

^ I agree, but there sure seemed to be people who hated them both. I think there were both Republicans and Democrats who cast protest votes. There were quite a few Republicans out there saying they wouldn't vote for Trump, but couldn't cast a vote for HRC. We don't know how many people from either side cast a protest vote.

If there are two phrases I never want to hear again they are "America first" and "Make America great again". This speech in Cincinnati is freaking me out. It's so nationalist in tone. That assumes those votes would have gone to Clinton and I think that's a pretty big assumption.

I wondered the exact same thing. I suspect she's just so outspoken that she can't be quiet, even when that's more likely to result in getting what she wants.

An article about living in the post truth world of Trump. http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/11/trump-media/509021/

^ We don't need to waste our energy rooting against him as I see it. I honestly thought we we're heading towards a more European system where we would pay people not to participate in the job market. Isn't that really what the welfare state does after all? It's just in the USA we aren't paying a living wage or being intellectually honest about it. We allow income disparity to keep growing instead of using a progressive tax system to make sure everyone has a roof over their heads, food and healthcare. I had really become so encased in my little bubble that I had forgotten how strong the idea that everyone has to work is within American culture. It's basically work or you deserve to suffer in many people's minds, even though everyone having a decent job is unrealistic.

And good for the workers who get to keep their job. Hey, I'm not rooting against the man when it comes to economics. I'm not even rooting against his presidency in the way that Rush Limbaugh said "I hope he fails" about President Obama. I hope the dangerous hateful policies he's going to try to enact fail though. I also don't expect many people to be better off in four years.

^ Yes!! Just a few months ago the ground shook in Omaha and it was attributed to the fracking in Oklahoma. Totally crazy.

^ I remember that. Speaking about himself in the 2nd and 3rd person is obnoxious, no doubt. I'm much more disturbed by the lack of basic logic in the notion that if someone can't prove a negative, it's true. Jesus take the wheel. I can't believe we have elected another President who is intellectually inferior so soon after W. At this point, I almost feel bad comparing W to Trump. The consequences of W's presidency were horrific for people around the globe. Hundreds of thousands of people died, but I never felt that he was hateful and actively trying to destroy people. He was just inept and surrounded by bad guys and because he was inept he turned into little more than a figure head. Now we have an actively hateful idiot in the white house surrounded by more hateful bad guys.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 11m11 minutes ago "@FiIibuster: @jeffzeleny Pathetic - you have no sufficient evidence that Donald Trump did not suffer from voter fraud, shame! Bad reporter. So the president elect thinks reporters have to prove negatives, also he's speaking about himself in the 3rd person. This just keeps getting better.

CNN is really ramping up the Islamophobia today. Wolf Blitzer is really one of the worst. I'm convinced he knows he's doing it and it's an attempt to sensationalize these lone wolf incidents.

^ I know I should be incredibly grateful for that, but part of me resents the hell out of it. After all the insults Trump and his ilk have thrown at President Obama he has some nerve.

I'd say Tara has had a few significant scenes mostly with Glen, but not enough to carry an entire episode with a very minor assist from Heath. It would have been fine if they had shared the episode with The Kingdom, but to just focus on Tara finding a new group sort of annoyed me. More because it feels like they are just using these types of episodes to delay the things we really want to see. They've used that device too many times now. Plus I feel like they are using it as a well to keep the budget under control, since actors aren't getting that many episodes.

I agree. Also, The President of the United States cannot simply be ignored. As individuals we can check out, lord knows I've been trying and failing to do that, but he is not just going to go away. If anything we have to be vigilant and do what little is within our power to resist. Trump isn't some little playground bully, he's about to be (arguably) the most powerful man in the world. Ignoring him isn't going to change that, if anything it will enable him and his cadre of psychopaths.

You should check it out Carl. My issue isn't with Tara, I like her too. I'm just frustrated with the bubbles people are in and the show's inability to focus on more than one local at a time. If you don't take issue with that, then I think you would enjoy the episode.

OK, so they give us a 70 min episode and then it's all Tara. I'm losing patience with this show.

Well, I think they had a point with this: 4. The nightmare scenario in 2016 was that Trump would refuse to accept the outcome of the election when he was a mere candidate. Imagine if he were to refuse to accept the outcome of the next election once he is the president, and after he has appointed loyalists to control America’s security apparatus. Although I'm not super worried about it at this point.

I figure they'll try to make it a voucher system and raise the eligibility age starting with people under 40 or 50. Whatever age it is that people still believe being old is a problem for other people. I'm guessing they will try the same with social security. I used to be allowing people to invest a small percentage of their SS money, but at this point it's hard for me to get on board with any plans the Republicans have for these programs.

^ That's what everyone says and I hope they're right, but we'll see.