The General American Politics Thread

[KHCast]

It really is gonna be left to the people, the citizens, then if the legal system won't support or give a damn about minorities. If things begin to go how I fear, I'd wager businesses will the first to grab this opportunity and be given free reign to job discriminate if they are run by people that weren't interested in equal opportunity. Business and politics tend to sleep together often. And of course other state laws that are proposed and passed that effect education and economy of minorities like LGBT and Muslims may be at risk now. More protests and strikes are going to need to be done as that seems to be the only way people's voices are heard. And corporations and company's that support us are gonna need to also be on board and do more than just say "we're allies of you guys". And more white straight cis supporters are also going to need to aid and support in those. 

[Tani Coyote]

9 hours ago, KHCast said:

It really is gonna be left to the people, the citizens, then if the legal system won't support or give a damn about minorities. If things begin to go how I fear, I'd wager businesses will the first to grab this opportunity and be given free reign to job discriminate if they are run by people that weren't interested in equal opportunity. Business and politics tend to sleep together often. And of course other state laws that are proposed and passed that effect education and economy of minorities like LGBT and Muslims may be at risk now. More protests and strikes are going to need to be done as that seems to be the only way people's voices are heard. And corporations and company's that support us are gonna need to also be on board and do more than just say "we're allies of you guys". And more white straight cis supporters are also going to need to aid and support in those. 

It's really going to end up being an era of states' rights.

Life may be good in one of the more Democratic states or cities, but it's going to suck for people in conservative regions. State courts are going to be the effective court of last resort for people in a lot of areas.

That's not to mention the intersectionality failure. Despite the common cause that a lot of minority groups have against Trump and the GOP, some of them have bad blood with each other too: gay rights, for example, has traditionally been an issue within the black community given the high degree of religiosity. I'd be hopeful the various minority groups could come together to support each other outside election season but I'm pessimistic. Keeping the justice system activist as opposed to conservative ultimately benefits everyone instead of just straight white men.

It's a shame, too. The trend is for men to receive harsher sentences, but since the system gives harsher sentences to non-white men, there's not much impetus among white men to change it. The tougher sentences in cases besides sexual assault are just a small price to pay for the benefits of patriarchy elsewhere. If we admit the courts are prone to bias based on demographics, it sets the precedent that we need to remedy all disparities in justice.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-infrastructure-plan-washington-reality-231649

Blub blub blub blub.

That's the sound of Trump's brainchild slowly sinking.

Everyone agrees to the $1 trillion infrastructure bill in the abstract, but there's a ton of disagreement over the finer details that threatens to sink it. Republicans, for example, want to use any extra revenue to cut taxes, not pay for Trump's bill.

He might end up having as much trouble with the GOP on economic policy as Obama did. Only thing that's likely to really go anywhere with this Presidency is conservative social policies.

It really will be a crappy 4 years.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lgbt-workplace-discrimination-ndaa_us_573cd273e4b0aee7b8e8e176

Oh goodie, we're starting early.

The House passed a bill regarding national defense funding and the like, but included a rider that lets contractors discriminate against LGBT people.

Obama has threatened a veto, but we won't have his protection 2 months from now.

The good news is that once the Congressional session ends, any bills that have failed the full legislative process are killed. So even if the Senate passes this, as long as Obama vetoes it, they have to start over in the next Congress, where it might encounter more difficulty due to smaller GOP majorities in Congress, even if they have a GOP President.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I seriously wonder why these politicians waste so much energy turning personal problems into political ones...

[SenEDDtor Missile]

41 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

I seriously wonder why these politicians waste so much energy turning personal problems into political ones...

Probably because they know deep down that their hatred is becoming less and less justifiable, so they keep on trying to turn back the clock and force the world to conform to their views so that they don't have to admit that the fundamental beliefs they've built their lives around are nothing but lies and are inherently contradictory to being decent people, which they no doubt view themselves as but aren't able to rationalize how they can be decent but support a hate filled agenda.

...Ok, I'm not sure if that actually answered the question, so let me type out something more comprehensive.

Thinking about it, I think it's a matter of what I just said, plus also in regards to law and authority. People individually have beliefs that serve as the fundamental building blocks for their perspective of the world, for better or for worse. However, those beliefs will inevitably clash with someone else's and people will either find a common ground for the beliefs and thus allow for reconciliation, or the beliefs clash on such a fundamental level that one must inevitably be superior and crush the other.

This is all well and good for the victor, but the loser is forced to face the fact that their beliefs are inferior or outright wrong, which can be utterly devastating if they've based a substantial portion of their identity around that belief, and the mindset that this makes them a good person or superior as a result. But now their belief is proven to be anything but, and they now have several ways of dealing with it:

1) They can go into denial and claim that the other belief was forced on them, or that the belief their belief lost to clearly must have been wrong because of something only tangentially related such as the morality of the person who held the belief, or grasping at whatever straws they can to justify their denial.

2) They can accept it, and try to understand why their belief is wrong, and make the changes needed to become a better person. This is usually the better, but at the same time MUCH more difficult road to take, since it needs a pretty high self-esteem and humility to admit your failings and to try to change as a result.

This is pretty much what is happening with regards to LGBT, racism, and so on. The old guard is finding it harder and harder to justify their bigotry and prejudice in the face of a world that is becoming more and more willing to call out their bullshit, so they are either going further into denial or being forced to realize how fundamentally wrong their beliefs are. In the case of the former, these people are using whatever avenue is possible to soothe their egos.

Thus we get to politics.

Regardless of what we want to personally think, politics (and thus law and authority by extension) play a huge part in everyone's lives. it establishes what kind of environment we can live in through the laws that are passed and what rules we must follow in order to be a part of "civilized" society. All politicians know this to some extent, and that includes those with the desire to discriminate against others but are unable to justify it without being called out for it. So instead of trying to improve themselves to better fit what the rules say is just, they turn to politics to try to change the rules so that their discriminatory beliefs are the proper way to go, thus in their minds justifying their beliefs as being in the right without having to actually change their fundamental mindset. They basically have tried to create a Pandora's box around what they perceive as evil in hopes of keeping it suppressed.

The problem with this however is that it is only a temporary thing. They might have changed the rules, but they have failed to change the minds of those who know this kind of thing is bullshit. They built the box, but the beast is still wide awake and aware of what they are doing. And it's not happy.

[Patticus]

Quote

Donald Trump’s media summit was a ‘f—ing firing squad’

Donald Trump scolded media big shots during an off-the-record Trump Tower sitdown on Monday, sources told The Post.

“It was like a f–ing firing squad,” one source said of the encounter.

“Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.

“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down,” the source added.

A second source confirmed the fireworks.

“The meeting took place in a big board room and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks,” the other source said.

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.

“Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate – which was Martha Raddatz who was also in the room.”

The stunned reporters tried to get a word in edgewise to discuss access to a Trump Administration.

“[CBS Good Morning co-host Gayle] King did not stand up, but asked some question, ‘How do you propose we the media work with you?’ Chuck Todd asked some pretty pointed questions. David Muir asked ‘How are you going to cope living in DC while your family is in NYC? It was a horrible meeting.”

Trump spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway told reporters the gathering went well.

“Excellent meetings with the top executives of the major networks,” she said during a gaggle in the lobby of Trump Tower. “Pretty unprecedented meeting we put together in two days.”

http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/

I'd be surprised if any of the networks involved treat him as anything other than a tyrannical halfwit, going forward. I mean... jesus, this guy wants to relax libel laws so that he can pretty much sue everyone in that room into oblivion. I'll bet there's a mad scramble going on now to dig up more and more dirt on him.

[KHCast]

Jesus lol. This shitshow hasn't even gone green yet and we're already tasting the salt.

[Tani Coyote]

Hey now, let's be happy. He clearly underestimates the power of the media in politics.

Let's be real about Mr. Trump. While he won, he didn't win by that much. His political capital is relatively short: he lost the popular vote for starters, so he's already earned the ire of a lot of people as he doesn't feel legitimate (George Bush had a similar issue, but the crisis after 9/11 helped him overcome it, as nearly everyone rallied around him), and his electoral victory comes from narrowly winning several large states.

Next election, he won't have Clinton making gaffes, or alienating core Democrats. He won't have his precious outsider status that made people trust him more. He'll have 4 years to judge him by, where he likely won't have fulfilled many promises but will have made a ton of enemies by empowering unsavory right-wing elements.

He needs the media's help if he wants to win, barring some real miracle. Trump's first term victory isn't too miraculous in hindsight, given the power of Party unity and the role of the swing voter. But if he doesn't do well, he's going to lose those swing voters and won't do so hot against the right Democratic challenger.

Of course, it falls on the right Democratic challenger. The Democratic elites continue to insist that it's all a bunch of racists, sexists, etc. that let Trump win, completely ignoring their own mistakes and refusing to acknowledge that hey, maybe taking a bunch of voters for granted isn't the way to win an election. Maybe aggressively pushing your choice on people pisses them off a little. Maybe calling people racists and the like isn't good PR.

No seriously. It isn't. And not just because people are emotional, but because it isn't effective for long-term change. Just talking to people you might call "bigoted" can soften their views on the issue if you aren't an asshole about it. Go figure. Our first thought about prejudice is this mass of hatred boiling in a person's brain but in reality it's usually based on misinformation that can be cleared up if someone actually sits down with them as a human being rather than as some mindless drone to be marginalized.

Take notes, DNC. Throw out any nominee who is jumping for joy to rant about America's "deplorables." They're unfit for President by merit of sucking at communication. The ideal President has a strong moral core, but also is almost Machiavellian in their ability to communicate their message and move the hearts and minds of the masses.

[Patticus]

He really will need the media's help if he wants to get that coveted second term, since in almost every interview I have read, heard or seen with disaffected blue collar Democrats who voted for him in those key states that Clinton took for granted, each and every instance ends with these sentiments: "We will watch and judge him based on the results." In essence, they're making it known that they'll be holding him to his promises, and if they don't hold water, their support for him will likely evaporate.

From what I've been able to gather from several articles and news pieces, if Trump's economic plan as we currently understand were to be implemented in full, the country's economy could stand to soar pretty high - but only for a time, and those effects won't be reaching the white working class or urban poor. After so long (and that period of time isn't known), the economy will probably thereafter nosedive, maybe into another recession, which Trump will no doubt blame on "economic terrorist Democrat minority gays" or something equally bizarre.

Essentially, the good times will be limited in timescale and in scope, and we'll all suffer for it later on.

But of course, there's really no telling just how much of his economic vision will be realized. It could be that Republican reluctance could end up saving his presidency.

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, Patticus said:

Essentially, the good times will be limited in timescale and in scope, and we'll all suffer for it later on.

But of course, there's really no telling just how much of his economic vision will be realized. It could be that Republican reluctance could end up saving his presidency.

The real fun is the strong likelihood that he won't see the results of a lot of his economic programs even if he wins a second term. Not only is there often at least a few months between a bill passing and it actually being implemented, but economic shifts tend to take at least a few years to be felt.

In short, if the economy hiccups at some point, he's probably going to be limping into the second half of his Presidency with a weakened position in the midterms. And if he loses re-election, it will be a Democrat who gets to reap any positives from his program.

I can only hope that Democrats regain power soon enough to keep the good parts of Trump's program but do some last-minute modifications to stave off the worst parts.

[Patticus]

7 hours ago, Noelgilvie said:

The real fun is the strong likelihood that he won't see the results of a lot of his economic programs even if he wins a second term. Not only is there often at least a few months between a bill passing and it actually being implemented, but economic shifts tend to take at least a few years to be felt.

In short, if the economy hiccups at some point, he's probably going to be limping into the second half of his Presidency with a weakened position in the midterms. And if he loses re-election, it will be a Democrat who gets to reap any positives from his program.

I can only hope that Democrats regain power soon enough to keep the good parts of Trump's program but do some last-minute modifications to stave off the worst parts.

That's a concern I hadn't considered. If the economy picks up as Trump's policies take effect, but the people it benefits don't feel it until after he gets defeated, where then is the political impetus for the Democrats to course correct mid-flight? During the good times, there is seldom the political will to right the system's wrongs and keep the good times rolling on. But then again, we haven't seen the awakening left wing of the Democratic Party govern. If they can maintain party dominance (Warren has been holding press events almost daily since the election - unlike the moderate wing) and go on to win in 2020, maybe they will be able to take what good there is from Trumponomics, scrap the bad and for the love of god keep the US from following Kansas into an economic hole.

For context: Kansas' Republican government has been doing the "reduce taxes, cut regulation" thing for years, and Trump obviously hasn't looked at their example...

Quote

Hard times for Kansas and its schools as economic 'experiment' creates gaping budget hole

In February 2015, three years into the supply-side economics experiment that would upend a once steady Midwestern economy, a hole appeared in Kansas’ finances.

To fill it, Gov. Sam Brownback took $45 million in public education funding. By April of this year, with the hole at $290 million, Brownback took highway money to plug it. A month later, state money for Medicaid coverage went into the hole, but the gap continued to grow.

Today, the state’s budget hole is $345 million and threatens the foundation of this state, which was supposed to be the setting for a grand economic expansion but now more closely resembles a battleground, with accusations and lawsuits flying over how to get the state’s finances in order.

The yawning deficits were caused by huge tax cuts, championed by Brownback and the Republican-dominated Legislature, that were supposed set the economy roaring. They didn’t.

The budget shortfalls have been felt across the state, particularly by public schools, and have embroiled the Kansas Supreme Court along with state lawmakers and the governor.

Through it all, Brownback has repeatedly pledged his faith in the free market.

“We’re going to continue to grow the economy,” Brownback has said in response to questions about each new revenue shortfall.

His opponents in the Legislature say Brownback’s mantra has failed the state and carries a stern lesson in theory versus reality to other states contemplating the same free-market ideas.

An ideological war over the way Kansas collects and spends money has erupted in the capital of Topeka and spilled into every corner of the state. After five years of an economic crusade that has left its originator, Brownback, as the least popular governor in the nation, Kansas has been forced to use the settlement from a national tobacco lawsuit to cover the hole in its general fund budget — money that was supposed to go to an early childhood education endowment.

It was a risk Brownback ran when he overhauled the state budget based on an interpretation of fiscal conservatism that dramatically cut personal income taxes.

The state would thrive, he pledged, because the tax cuts would help keep businesses and smart, young Kansans in the state, not fleeing “to Houston, or Dallas, or Chicago or somewhere else.”

“It will pave the way to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, bring tens of thousands of people to Kansas, and help make our state the best place in America to start and grow a small business,” Brownback wrote in 2012. “It will leave more than a billion dollars in the hands of Kansans. An expanding economy and growing population will directly benefit our schools and local governments.”

It hasn’t worked out that way.

Revenue from income tax collections plummeted 22%. A separate repeal of taxes on partnerships and limited liability companies meant the surrender of 30% of state revenue.

A projection issued Nov. 11 puts Kansas in a bind next fiscal year, when state revenue estimators project receipts to amount to $5.5 billion, down 7.4% from this year’s estimate.

Unwilling to scale back the income tax cuts, the state did increase the sales tax. Now Kansas has the second-highest sales tax in the nation, and such reliance on sales taxes has saddled the state with additional problems: Deflation is dropping the prices of goods and the taxes the state collects on them.

Tired of the bleating horn of bad news, in September Brownback silenced a quarterly economic evaluation of the state that counted employment, unemployment, personal income and energy production, and consistently illustrated the state’s plunging revenues. He had done so before, in August 2015, when he ordered a halt to a semiannual economic report.

“A lot of people were confused” by the reports, said Nicole Randall, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Department of Commerce.

“It's been disastrous,” said Burdett Loomis, professor of political science at the University of Kansas. “Brownback has said he will work with [new, moderate] legislators, but I don't know if anyone believes him.”

The budget battles have also brought in the state Supreme Court. In 2014 the court ruled that disparities in public funding of education violated the state constitution and ordered a lower court to evaluate how much the state should invest in public schools.

Conservative groups supporting Brownback responded by pushing five Supreme Court justices into brutal, expensive retention races to keep their seats. The targeted justices were retained by voters and are expected to rule this month on the adequacy and fairness of the public education system in a landmark case, Gannon vs. Kansas, filed by four of the state’s poorest school districts.

Should the Supreme Court rule against the state and the adequacy of its $6-billion yearly expenditures on education, it will force Kansas to pay $500 million or more for school upgrades across the state, including in economically depressed areas.

Places like Columbus.

Here in the state’s southeast corner, the poorest area in Kansas, coal mines died and gave way to paper mills, which shuttered as American business went paperless. Today, nearly 30% of families with children in the region receive food stamps. In Pittsburg, the largest city in the area, with about 20,000 residents, the downtown is pocked by shuttered storefronts.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-kansas-hard-times-snap-20161121-story.html

Sounds like a story that we'll probably become all the more familiar with, thanks to the Trump administration. Party assumes governmental control, implements plans as promised, economy goes to shit and people suffer, man in charge blind to reality and, seemingly, basic laws of cause-effect.

 

All the right votes in all the wrong places. Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead has risen to a staggering 1.7 million.

Quote

Hillary Clinton’s lead in the US presidential election popular vote now stands at more than 1.7 million – despite the Democrat losing the overall election to Donald Trump.

With the last remaining ballots being counted, Mrs Clinton so far has 63.6 million votes compared to 61.9 million for her Republican rival – meaning she has received more votes than any other US presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama.

The Democrat has received 48 per cent of votes counted so far compared to Mr Trump’s 46.7 per cent, according to figures compiled by the Cook Political Report. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-donald-trump-electoral-college-a7429291.html

Trump mandate? What mandate?

[Tani Coyote]

An extremely weak mandate. Not only is losing the popular vote bad enough in its own right (for a nation that values democracy, the fact his victory was legal isn't enough for many), but his courting of extremely questionable elements is going to alienate a lot of people, while his thin margins in big states mean he has a very shaky position. If he's not careful with proceeding, he could utterly ruin re-election if not midterms for himself and the GOP.

...goes back to the silver lining that Trump may actually be a blessing for the Democrats. Yes, his 2-4 years will be awful, but the payoff is that in the long-term, Democrats will be in a position to dominate the 2020s. This is especially valuable given the GOP is going to be losing a lot of strength in its own right in that decade, between aging and the swelling minority population. All we have to do is hope none of the Justices decide to retire or die prior to the Democrats retaking the Senate, and the damage from the Trump years can be greatly outpaced by the success of whoever succeeds him.

That anxiety in Kansas has me thinking that we might be closer than I thought to a great realignment. I envision the GOP as moving a little left on economics, while remaining largely conservative on social policy apart from policing (there are already several GOP politicians proposing police reform, no doubt a reflection of the growing support for it). White, conservative Kansas getting a wakeup call on trickle-down economics could possibly reverberate through the whole Party base. Sooner or later, the GOP is going to reform to better attract the poor and non-whites (both of which have a large number of conservatives in them, they just feel alienated by the GOP's hardline policies on crime, civil rights, and welfare).

It's either that, or the Democrats become our equivalent of Mexico's PRI.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/polling-firm-ceo-20-million-trump-voters-will-lose-time-and-half-overtime-pay-under-gop-plan/

If not for the fact I'm sure the GOP will find some way to spin this as being the evil Democrats' fault, I'd say a Trump Presidency isn't getting a second term.

The GOP is planning huge numbers of reversals of Executive Orders. One of them is a regulation that requires workers be paid time-and-a-half if they make less than $47,000.

At least 41% of Trump's voters make less than $50,000 a year based on exit polls.

That infrastructure program better do very, very, VERY well, because if Trump voters wise up to this... it's not going to be good for the GOP in the coming elections.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Somewhat tangentially related, but I've heard from somewhere that there's a mentality among America's poor that they don't see themselves as poor so much as "millionaires who just haven't gotten their break yet". Is there any truth to this, and if so, do you think this may have influenced the way they choose to vote against their best interests?

[Tani Coyote]

5 minutes ago, SenEDtor Missile said:

Somewhat tangentially related, but I've heard from somewhere that there's a mentality among America's poor that they don't see themselves as poor so much as "millionaires who just haven't gotten their break yet". Is there any truth to this, and if so, do you think this may have influenced the way they choose to vote against their best interests?

Oh there's plenty of that sentiment. The frequent denial of racism, sexism, etc. logically implies that one believes success/failure is largely determined by one's own work ethic. The fact most millionaires in America weren't born into wealth, furthermore, strengthens this idea (blissfully ignoring the many hardworking people who didn't rise up the ranks).

Though caution should be taken not to assume the poor vote solely based on economics. Many of the poor are also religiously devout, and a lot of religious systems - like Protestantism - greatly value hard work. By proxy, with the stereotype that those on government assistance are lazy, Protestant churches have largely railed against welfare, seeing it as antithetical to their theology's insistence on diligence.

Ultimately there's a pervasive belief that being on government assistance if you're not disabled makes you a leech, and this motivates plenty of the poor, whether they see themselves as being wealthy someday or because they find laziness contrary to their dogma. Compare the fact most welfare recipients felt abuse was widespread and reform was necessary, but barely any of them felt they were abusing welfare prior to reform.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

17 minutes ago, Noelgilvie said:

Oh there's plenty of that sentiment. The frequent denial of racism, sexism, etc. logically implies that one believes success/failure is largely determined by one's own work ethic. The fact most millionaires in America weren't born into wealth, furthermore, strengthens this idea (blissfully ignoring the many hardworking people who didn't rise up the ranks).

And you know what's funny, that actually makes a degree of sense. The problem is that alot of people who deny such discrimination in the lot belief of high work ethelic ironically and hypocritically discredit themselves by being racist, sexist, etc. in the process.

Would make things a lot better if they'd at least practice what they preached.

 

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-climate-change-new-york-times/index.html

Our first black President shall be succeeded by our first waffle President.

Trump has changed his mind on climate change, stating that he believes there is some connectivity but wants review.

He has rolled back his promise to withdraw from climate agreements, instead saying he will "look at them closely" before acting. This is the same rollback he did with the Iran deal.

I'm really not sure what to make of President Trump. A lot of his staff picks are definitely concerning, but his Presidential authority allows him to mitigate their damage. Unfortunately, we have no idea what he really believes in, as he keeps changing his mind. He might put a tight collar on people like Sessions and let Pence run things into the ground, or might actually be interested in a lasting legacy.

He has an ego, and that's honestly our best defense against government abuse, in some strange turn of events. Showing him the approval for police reform like body cameras, legalizing marijuana, etc. could hopefully mitigate the damage of his term.

[Dizcrybe]

Honestly, considering how much he frequents Twitter and given what people are saying about hi,m, I wouldn't be surprised if this is just him bending under pressure.

[Patticus]

Looks like the Trump administration may be crossing party lines, in this instance perhaps to nab Harold Ford Jr. for the cabinet post of transportation Secretary, or something else in the cabinet.

Quote

Former Democratic Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. is emerging as a possible contender for transportation secretary, or another Cabinet post, in Donald Trump’s budding administration.

The telegenic Ford — who served five terms in Congress representing Tennessee and is the son of a long-serving Democratic congressman from Memphis — has worked as a managing director at Morgan Stanley since 2011, and is a regular news analyst on MSNBC.

Ford endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race, and he and his wife, Emily, contributed to Clinton's campaign. But Ford is also close with Trump’s children, Don Jr., Ivanka, and son-in-law Jared Kushner, an associate said.

Now the moderate Democrat is poised to potentially join the incoming Republican administration. Two sources confirmed to POLITICO that Ford has yet to meet with the president-elect, but that there have been some preliminary feelers put out about potential Cabinet-level posts, including transportation secretary, via "emissaries." And Ford did not rule it out.

"He's happy doing what he's doing," a source close to Ford told POLITICO. "If the President-elect called, then of course, he would listen carefully."

Reached on his cellphone, Ford dodged questions about his future in a Trump administration.

“I’m on vacation with my family,” he said when asked whether he has had any conversations about a Cabinet position such as transportation secretary. “I’d appreciate you calling me in the office on Monday.”

Ford has toyed with restarting his political career since leaving the House. In 2010, Ford seriously considered challenging New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the Democratic primary for Senate. But after launching a listening tour across the state, he ultimately decided not to run, claiming it would only splinter Democrats in the general election.

Trump, an adviser said, is keen on adding some Democrats to his Cabinet, and Ford's made-for-TV looks could endear him to Trump (as could his regular appearances on "Morning Joe," which Trump tunes in to regularly). The New York Times reported over the weekend that Trump took into account that Mike Pence looked right out of "central casting" when he tapped him as his running mate, and that he used the same language to describe the slim and patrician Mitt Romney, whom he reportedly is considering for secretary of state.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/11/harold-ford-cabinet-trump-231776

Having a couple of cabinet picks from across the aisle may serve the speculated FDR-esque purpose of the Bannon/Priebus combo (bringing both sides together to work on his agenda), but within the cabinet. If FDR is who Trump is trying to emulate, then I guess we'll have to see what happens, but it might make him more appealing a prospect to wary blue collar Democrats in 2020. Or it might be to use Democrats as human shields in case the economy goes to shit.

[Tani Coyote]

Ohoho, I'm not sure how to feel about this.

On one hand, a Trump Presidency that isn't a total shitshow seems promising.

On the other, I want the GOP to lose badly in 2020. The Democrats need to be able to redistrict the House to break the Republican Party's insanity. It seems unfair to ruin what could be a decent Presidency for the sake of this, but I really don't want to wait a decade for another shot at shattering the GOP's grip on the House. Sorry Trump, the Presidency is bigger than one man, and so is America's political future. Your Presidency needs to be lackluster for the sake of America's future.

Of course, I think that same House might just be where Trump will find his weakness. I have no doubt he'll be able to get a working coalition going in the Senate, but the House will shoot down plenty of initiatives and ruin his Presidency. It's key to remember the Tea Party started as an insurgency against the GOP establishment as much as an anti-Obama movement; as memory served, Obama was readily able to bring Republican Senators on board with a lot of compromises, but the compromises would be ruined by the much more partisan, mouth foaming GOP in the House. Trump might end up no different than Obama in that regard.

[KHCast]

So more news that potentially could pose a threat to the LGBT community, and the responses? 

The optimism and sheer denial of concern is amazing.    He said he won't overrule gay marriage, that totally for some reason means other bad shit couldn't happen. People still concerned and not convinced are just looking for something to hate.:/

[Patticus]

Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead surpasses 2 million:

Quote

Hillary Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump in the popular vote has surpassed 2 million, according to Dave Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Clinton has garnered 64,223,958 votes, compared to Trump’s 62,206,395 votes.

Despite Clinton’s lead in the popular vote, it was Trump who prevailed on Election Day by clinching 270 Electoral College votes.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-lead-popular-vote-2016-231790

Democracy, amirite?

[Tani Coyote]

It's best to proceed with caution into the Trump Presidency.

On the one hand, yes, people like Sessions, Bannon, et. al. having the President's ear is concerning. On the other hand, he's under no obligation to listen to them and they serve at his pleasure at the end of the day. If Trump says "you do not go after gay rights," Session has to just nod his head. We have Obama counseling Trump, which hopefully carries more weight despite his lack of formal office. Let's remember: Obama was a great coalition-builder for his first term, something Trump is quite frankly not with his thin victory margins. Obama may have rode an anti-Bush wave to success, but it's clear Trump didn't ride that much of an anti-Obama one (note how despite the GOP taking the Presidency, the Democrats chipped away at pretty much everything else; Trump literally won because of a legal technicality).

We're not going to have a glorious socialist revolution or anything of the sort. We're not getting free tuition or universal healthcare, at least not until the right wing of the Nixon era returns, the right wing that wasn't deathly afraid of government programs. But this could be an okay as opposed to total shitstorm Presidency.

The most terrifying thing about Trump remains that he has few real opinions and frankly seems to just adopt whatever view is convenient for his audience and/or his ego. The fact he conveniently switched to a Democrat when Bush came in and to a Republican when Obama was in shows he just likes to take the piss out of those in power. Now that he's the one with power, he doesn't know what the Hell he's doing. Beneath all that confidence and talk, I imagine Trump is actually stressed out about how he's going to govern and how he's going to win re-election if he doesn't do something spectacular.

There are also some optimistic possibilities here: it's very possible that Trump's staff picks won't last his whole Presidency. For all we know, people like Bannon and Sessions are being used to pander to the more vicious elements in his base, but Trump might quietly replace them when it becomes convenient. He's a pragmatist more than a fascist ideologue.

[KHCast]

I can understand that the electoral college isn't a completely terrible concept, but I cannot for the life of me understand how it in its current form is perfectly fine and needs no changing. Like defenders seem to say they don't want big states telling them how to do things if we go full on democracy, but at the same time, as it stands, states like Florida and Ohio and more red states seem to be the ones we bank on for the presidency. I've also seen some people go as far to say that the US citizen can't be trusty and that America isn't a democracy in any form and instead a constitutional republic.