Whichever candidate you supported, something incredible just happened. The US, a nation of 300 million people, peacefully changed its government. That's pretty amazing. We underwent an election in which feelings were high, but we did it without devolving into violence or civil war. In the morning, we'll get up and go to work or school, just like we did the day before the election.

Perhaps the Democrats should've run a better candidate.

To have voted for Johnson in California this afternoon, whatever tonight's outcome, leaves me poised for restful sleep with a clear conscience.

This is brilliant.

Let's not forget that DT's Cleveland speech included many, many liberal elements. And the animals applauded.

Had been wondering when we'd hear from this little gal.

Big Mac.

This is good too. A lot of these Trump voters, the white ones in the countryside, must have voted for Obama.

Snark

> Perhaps the Democrats should've
> run a better candidate.

YesYesYes, but let's allow our hostess a proper moment for the title of this blog post.

Because the Republicans should've run a better candidate as well, indisputably. Any satisfaction from tonight's outcome was certain to drown in melancholy before midnight Pacific. (8 minutes to go.)

Also, let's not pretend that the freshly Republican-dominated houses of Congress are going to be meaningfully conservative.

See the last three sentences of this piece from Carney the Magnificent.

Government service ought not be about leadership, but political effectiveness is about little else.

If the Democrats did help Trump secure the Republican nomination then this is truly a nightmare of their own making.

Disappointed democrats now wishing to flee the US for Australia need to know that we will fight you on the beaches. We will never give up.

Disappointed democrats now wishing to flee the US for Australia need to know that we will fight you on the beaches. We will never give up.

Lisa in Melbourne OZ at November 9, 2016 2:17 AM

I'm sure they are all headed to the socialist paradise of Venezuela where they can "make a difference".

Tell us Amy, when the "deranged lowlife" replaces ObamaCare with a system that replaces choice for mandates (e.g., does a 52-year-old childless, unmarried woman really require "free" birth control pills & pediatric dental coverage, or would you like to opt for annual mammograms, PAP smears and other GYN exams, and maybe a network that includes osteoporosis treatment specialists?), or will you stand on your principles and insist of maintaining insurance plans with high premiums, high annual deductibles for coverages you will never use and limited to network which have providers in inappropriate specialties for your needs and potential health care issues?

For me, the choice was easier, "It's the Supreme Court, stupid!"

Amy, I think you need to take a breath. On the issues you write about most often, there are some very hopeful prospects from Trump's Presidency:

- If the Republican Congress votes to repeal Obamacare, he won't veto the bill.

- He's presumably not on board with PC indoctrination and kangaroo-court rape tribunals in colleges. I don't know how much any President can do about those, but any influence he can exert will be on your side.

Granting everything you say about Trump's character and behavior, exactly what bad things do you expect him to do?

On the bright side, he probably won't Gmail the nuke codes to his house cleaner.

The Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. I know Greens who would have voted for Hillary, I know Libertarians who would have voted for Hillary too.

Then, they (the Democrats and their social media monkeys) started calling the Greens as anti-vaxxer nutjobs, and let's not forget that 'shopped Cyanide and happines comic strip that floated on Facebook + the parade of Libertarians are nothing but basement-dwelling losers insults.

You don't treat indies like shit or this happens. You have to consider them as stubbornly undecided voters that you have to work harder to convince.

But now it's over, and it's not even a close call but an overwhelming defeat.

Conan the Grammarian:

We underwent an election in which feelings were high, but we did it without devolving into violence or civil war.

Your celebration on that point is premature. It's just the first day after the election. Give it time. The unrest will assert itself soon enough.

True enough, Patrick. I was thinking of those nascent or crumbling democracies where people dodge bullets to get to the polls (and not at Serbian airports).

However, I don't see livid Hillary supporters readily storming the barricades in protest. Crawling into their safe spaces, perhaps.

I'm betting the safe spacers stayed home. Hillary didn't do that well with the youth vote.

Let's hope the left rediscovers the beauty of small government.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/in-victory-speech-donald-trump-promises

It's especially noteworthy that Trump not only had to defeat the free-stuff Democrats and their agitprop media monopoly, he also had to overcome the open opposition of the GOP's crony-capitalist, false-flag establishment.

IMO, the "little" things mattered. For instance, there was a surge in white male support for Trump that coincided with the sharp drop in NFL viewership. (All you anthem-kneelers, take a bow! As they watched you, people could feel the nation going to hell.)

Another was the Obama administration hubris in declaring that every elementary and high school in the country needs to accommodate transgenders. It's no accident Trump was able to be so competitive in Minnesota, where parents in the small northern town of Virginia are suing to keep boys out of the girls lockerroom.

Amy, the Democrats haven't liked small government since Andrew Jackson went after the federal bank in the 1830s.

At this point, I'll be happy if they have a sudden infatuation with the rule of law.

Neither, I R A, have the Republicans -- who claim to be a party of small government.

I'm with you on the rule of law thing.

Scroll down for the delicious photos:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3918258/Trump-claims-early-lead-wins-Indiana-Kentucky-Virginia-Georgia-close-call-America-decides.html

Van Jones says this was a "whitelash against a black president.

Because the US is inherently racist and white people hate black people. It has nothing to do with Hillary's flaws as a candidate and a politician.

The Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. ~ Sixclaws at November 9, 2016 4:50 AM

The Dems will never admit Hillary was a flawed candidate and an inept politician. They will never admit Obama Administration overreach played a role in Hillary's defeat; and in the defeat of Democrats for other offices (statehouses, Senate seats, etc.).

They will never admit her openly corrupt behavior contributed in any way to her defeat. They'd rather advance the narrative the the US is racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic - the better to try and get the precious snowflakes to vote for them the next time.

To me the question is will the violence being done by DNC voters continue?

MSM really ignored the violence occurring at Trump rallies. Once that violence was shown on TV and it was made known that it was partly funded by the DNC I think votes were lost.

Bill is probably relieved that:

- He won't go down in history as " America's very first First Gentleman."

-He won't be imprisoned in the White House surrounded by cumbersome Secret Service, and his travel and activity plans restricted.

On the bright side, he probably won't Gmail the nuke codes to his house cleaner. ~ momof4 at November 9, 2016 3:58 AM

✔︎

I feel a sense of relief across the nation as we learn that the inevitable Hillary will not be in the Oval Office. There is some minor rioting in Berkely and Oakland, as expected. The front page of the Huffington Post reads like the Weekly World News tabloid.
As hoped, Trump is the sabot in the machine.

To all the liberal horrified by a Trump presidency, a few points to consider

1. He has no support form his own party in congress

2. Democrats in congress will now be invested in clawing back much of the power they gave up to the executive branch

3. He has no tact so you'll always know what he is up to

4. Until he ran as a republican he was considered by all to be a liberal

5. That means he is just as open to bribery as the woman you voted for

6. With a republican in the white house the press and liberals in the citizenry will once more care about things like NSA spying on americans, warrantless wiretaps, carte blanche FISA warrants, american troop in the middle east, free speech. You know all the civil liberty violations they protested under Bush but ignored under Obama

7. With no one in congress supporting him and congress fighting amongst themselves they wont have the energy to pass as many pointless tens of thousands of regulations that turn us all into criminals

8. Plus with the delusional people in the GOP who actually think Trump is a good person for the job trying to take over the GOP it could very well split permanently damaging that political party

Van Jones says this was a "whitelash against a black president.

Because obviously Obama didn't win any white votes in either 2008 (43%) or 2012 (39%).

I took those percentages from Wikipedia. I presume they're ball park accurate.

Because the Republicans should've run a better candidate as well, indisputably.

Jesus Christ himself could have descended from the heavens cured all the worlds ills instantaneously, and revered all ecological damage to the planet.

And if he had run as a republican democrats would have called him a racist homophobic Hitler and Gloria Allred would have claimed she had a client who had been raped by Jesus at the age of twelve.

When it doesnt matter how good a candidate you run, why should the good ones even volunteer to run?

Just remember Amy, Gridlock is a feature not a bug in our system. Federal laws are supposed to be passed with broad support. Sadly the executive side has been grabbing more and more power through executive orders and reams and reams of regulations(both sides are to blame IMO) so a lot of the old safe guards are not there any more.

Hang in there. We'll probably muddle through the next 4 years. Probably.

"You don't treat indies like shit or this happens."

Bingo. I left the Democrats when Bill "Lookitdemboobies" Clinton ran and have been a registered Independent since.

I knew Johnson wouldn't win but I also knew I couldn't live with myself if I voted for Clinton, so the Libertarians got my useless California vote (after watching Hillary and DNC collude to backstab America's liberal grandpa).

I think it's hilarious America decided on the first-time politician and not the career corruption so evident in the Clinton family, and watching the pundits freaking out is sheer entertainment.

I hope all my trendy West side friends look outside their own bubble.
Thomas Frank in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals

Just a comment

http://loweringthebar.net/2016/11/worst-presidential-race.html

"Horrified"?

Props to Crid for voting his conscience. That is moral superiority.

Amy, you apparently voted for someone you identified as corrupt (gratuitous use of bolding for Crid, you're welcome). That you think this person was an "adult" speaks less to the candidate than it does of a hatred of frat boys in general. You were successfully steered to your opinion, despite efforts to remain logical and "scientific", by publicity you could not resolve.

If you're horrified, blame the mirror.

I'll quote Scott Adams. Refute him if you can:

Trump has five decades of acting rational in business dealings, and getting along with people all over the world, including China and Russia. By now you would have heard stories of Trump being a loose cannon in his business dealings if such a thing had happened. We are hearing no stories of that nature. And people don’t suddenly change character at age 70. (That last sentence is the important one.)

That last sentence also applies to Hillary. Fired from the Rose Law Firm, you say? For what? Oh.

How risky is Trump? Consider that Trump has never had an alcoholic beverage. He was against the Iraq war. He doesn’t want boots on the ground in Syria. He wants a strong military to discourage war. Trump personally gains nothing from war, but he has a lot to lose, including every building with his name on it.

Putin already seems to like Trump. They are similar characters in terms of their persuasion talents. And it wouldn’t hurt to be on good terms with Russia while we go after ISIS. Trump seems to have that relationship covered.

Trump has been negotiating with the Chinese for years, with no problems yet. And the Chinese leaders are not children. They got their positions by being great deal-makers, like Trump. They might not want to negotiate against Trump, but they aren’t afraid of his personality type. Trump often tells us that his first bid in any negotiation is super-aggressive. China knows it too. They are not naive. They can tell the difference between a negotiator and a madman.

Rather than pick the beaker labeled, "bad hair, gropey playboy", which contents you didn't really know, you picked the properly labeled, guaranteed effective rat poison.

Horrified? You should be when thinking of your own vote, and an inability to see the damage that woman would do the the USA based on her actual history. You live in the bluest state in the nation, and those policies are killing it. How bad does it have to be RIGHT THERE before someone says, "no more"?

If you can show me when Hillary has done anything at all that wasn't for the benefit of Hillary, I'll repeat it. That would be a sign of adulthood.

-----

Meanwhile, the American public may still be asleep when it comes to recognizing that Congress, not a President, is their chief bother, and I wish our new President luck in undoing decades of harm done by those who pad government at the expense of the taxpayer.

No, I'm not excepting my own job at Savannah River Site. My own competency would stand well for me should we actually act like a business, and I condemn the MOX project management from within Site walls. Waste is waste!

I'll be damned, Trump is a teetotaler? Thanks Rad. I would have never guessed that one.

> Disappointed democrats now
> wishing to flee the US for
> Australia need to know that
> we will fight you on the
> beaches. We will never
> give up.

Muffin, were it not for the United States Navy, you'd already be an island of Japan.

> For instance, there was a
> surge in white male support
> for Trump that coincided with
> the sharp drop in NFL
> viewership.

There are a lot, lot of variables in play there. Kopernickle didn't lose this thing for Hillary.

I think most people, including most football fans, don't care if he stands, kneels, moonwalks or pirouettes.

> exactly what bad things do
> you expect him to do?

The man is unprincipled, a wild card. Why should we be expected to know? He's an eighth-grader with no public service experience who's made a thousand shitty teevee shows.

We don't have to tell you why we think he's bad, but you're free to tell us why we can trust him to be good.

> Trump has five decades of
> acting rational in business
> dealings

Never in the top ten of NYC real estate developers; bankruptcies; given the wealth into which he was born, worth BILLIONS less than if he'd merely purchased index funds; reduced of late to merely licensing his name to trinkets made elsewhere.

Amy loves that word too: "Rational."

Guys, WaPo condensed it down to three minutes: Hillary's concession speech is fantastic.

Kaine is of course barely able to contain his grin: He knows that VP candidates are brought to national attention without ever being held accountable for a loss.

Bill's face is a welter of conflicted emotions: Obviously he's pleased that he was successful at something which his wife will never achieve. He would never have made it to the White House without her... But despite her fiercer drive, tighter concentration and perhaps deeper ruthlessness, she couldn't connect with other people as well as he could. In the competitive measurement of two of the most competitive people of their generation, he wins.

But on the other hand, all their connivance was for naught.

And Hillary looks and sounds more like a human being than in any, ANY clip or picture seen heretofore.

♫ Ding Dong ♬

The working class just schooled the smirking class of complacent politicians and compliant media. Time will tell if they made the right decision.

Now that the Clintons remaining married no longer has an utility for her career advancement I wonder if they actually get divorced

Now that the Clintons remaining married no longer has an utility for her career advancement I wonder if they actually get divorced ~ lujlp at November 9, 2016 11:38 AM

Not bloody likely. A divorce would entail giving the courts a breakdown of their finances.

Order of operation:

Get rid of the Unaffordable Uncaring Farce
Get rid of Rat Romney Ryan
Get rid of Bitch McConnell
Get rid of Nansky Peloski
Get rid of Hairy Reed

Sadly, America is about to lose 23 of our mostest bestest public figures.

They vowed to leave the USA forever if Mrs. Bill Clinton lost the election:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/catherinedunn/2016/09/08/these-10-celebrities-say-theyll-leave-the-country-if-trump-is-elected-n2215391

Jon Stewart
Chelsea Handler
Neve Campbell
Barry Diller
Keegan-Michael Key
Chloe Sevigny
Al Sharpton
Natasha Lyonne
Eddie Griffin
Spike Lee
Amber Rose
Samuel L. Jackson
Cher
George Lopez
Barbara Streisand
Raven-Symone
Whoopi Goldberg
Omari Hardwick
Miley Cyrus
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Amy Schumer
Katie Hopkins

Canadian Bystander,

Sorry about all those refugees coming your way.

They vowed to leave the USA forever

Did they? well, then, I'll give them a linkie as to how they may renounce their US citizenship.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

To all of my moral superiors on the West and East Coast - we won (paraphrasing Obama).

But now it's over, and it's not even a close call but an overwhelming defeat.

Sixclaws at November 9, 2016 4:50 AM
___________________________________________

Well, except for her winning the popular vote, if I heard correctly. So even those Trump voters in states that went blue didn't help him, I assume.
____________________________________________

And people don’t suddenly change character at age 70.

Scott Adams
__________________________________________

They certainly do if they become senile.

BTW, if anyone's interested, now that we know Clinton won't be president (I'm guessing she won't try - very hard, anyway - to run in 2020, since the extra years in her age won't help), here's what the late novelist/critic Elizabeth Janeway said in 1983 about what sort of woman WOULD become the first female US president:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1983/02/26/the-first-first-woman/6a686338-8931-48ea-bfc7-88df4de44540/

In a nutshell, she predicted a conservative Margaret Thatcher type "who believes in the status quo."

Quote: "I won't vote for her, but I will welcome her presence."

"the Democrats caused this by running a corrupt candidate"
What a childish comment coming from someone who's suppose to give advice to others. Stop trying to "blame" someone for the outcome. This could easily have been blamed on the Republicans for not running a better candidate as well.

"given the wealth into which he was born, worth BILLIONS less than if he'd merely purchased index funds"

While not wrong Crid I have to say you aren't being fair. The vast majority of people who inherit spend all of their inheritance no matter the size. 33% of people who inhereit spend it all within two years. The fact that Trump has anything left of his daddy's money puts him in a select class.

Though this isn't really a support of Trump but more of an indictment of the human condition.

First we had the Tea Party, who merely petitioned the government to live within its means. They were vilified, mistreated by corrupt officials, and dismissed by their self-appointed betters.

I guess they came back, slightly less politely, refusing to be ignored.

First we had the Tea Party, who merely petitioned the government to live within its means. They were vilified, mistreated by corrupt officials, and dismissed by their self-appointed betters.

I guess they came back, slightly less politely, refusing to be ignored.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/catherinedunn/2016/09/08/these-10-celebrities-say-theyll-leave-the-country-if-trump-is-elected-n2215391

Jon Stewart
Chelsea Handler
Neve Campbell
Barry Diller
Keegan-Michael Key
Chloe Sevigny
Al Sharpton
Natasha Lyonne
Eddie Griffin
Spike Lee
Amber Rose
Samuel L. Jackson
Cher
George Lopez
Barbara Streisand
Raven-Symone
Whoopi Goldberg
Omari Hardwick
Miley Cyrus
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Amy Schumer
Katie Hopkins
-----
((Amy Alkon?))
((Crid?))

The pearl clutching, dishonest media loses - check.
The snowflakes and racism pushers lose - check.
Candidate who champions America first and says no to unchecked illegal immigration - check.
Candidate who says FU to PC - check.
Candidate who says all trade doesn't mean good trade = check.
The slime listed above the line leaving the country? YUGEly check!

But a YUGE shout out to momof4...

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for Mr Trump to bog down in the Washington swamplands ... meanwhile, for those of you thinking of leaving, a useful link for Canada: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/brian-hutchinson-moving-tips-for-americans

If it's Australia you're considering, take no notice of Lisa from Melbourne (which is a grey socialist dump in any case) - most of us get on pretty well with expat Americans. Can't speak for New Zealand, a lovely place but not many jobs I believe.

> Though this isn't really a
> support of Trump but more
> of an indictment of the
> human condition.

This lowballing argument has a precedent: It was comedic, not convincing. Lose all the money you want: But don't offer it as evidence of business acumen.



> ((Crid?))

You rang?

Your sarcasm is misplaced... I never said I'd leave, neither was I disproportionately disparaging of Trump relative to Hillary.

That you'd put my name on this list suggests you didn't read what I wrote, and were just eager to come to the internet and feel your little angry feelings in indiscriminate ways. This makes you no fun to argue with even when you're wrong… Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Like Crid, I voted for Johnson. There was no way I was voting for the other two.

Didn't see that Trump win coming, though. Very interesting.

I guess we really are all sick and tired of the bullshit.

I will always believe that no one did as much to get Trump elected as CNN... And he didn't pay them a dime.

An estimate of money spent on advertising and other campaign expenses show that Hillary paid roughly $10 per vote while Trump paid roughly $5 per vote.

So, whatever else he is, he's efficient.

I will always believe that no one did as much to get Trump elected as CNN... And he didn't pay them a dime. ~ Crid at November 9, 2016 7:06 PM

Are you subscribing to the feminist theory that be pointing out Hillary's flaws, the media channel equalized Trump and Hillary as equally flawed candidates when she was supposedly less flawed?

Umm... I dunno. Probably not, because I don't get it.

Meanwhile,

Trump the
Mighty Businessman!

BTW, where'd you get those numbers? Mattias Shapiro suggests the difference was much greater than that.

The man is unprincipled, a wild card. Why should we be expected to know?
. . .
We don't have to tell you why we think he's bad, but you're free to tell us why we can trust him to be good.

Good Lord, Crid, when did I ever say I trusted him to be good!? I voted for Johnson just like you did. But it seems to me that if Amy thinks he's even worse than Clinton--whom she knows is on the wrong side of the issues she cares most about--she ought to be able to name some concrete basis for that opinion.

Isn't a wild card a better draw than a known deuce?

[1.] I've been trying to get this blogger to respond to questions about her positions for twelve years. Ain't gonna happen. When she's through thinking about things, she's done. (I had a redheaded sister like that, so I get it.)

[2.] Trump has so many, many faults —carefully listed here by myself and others over the last year— that her basis for opinion is substantiated whether or not she chooses to share it. (November 9, 2016 8:41 PM, above, is a starter index, but there's much more available if you wanna see it.)

[2a.] Also, IIRC, she lived in NYC when this repellent figure first made his mark on popular consciousness.

Muffin, were it not for the United States Navy, you'd already be an island of Japan.

Thanks for pointing that out Crud. I whole heartedly agree and thank America's efforts to save our bacon both past and present. But I hardly see how that relates to my belief that disgruntled democrats will not find succour by immigrating to OZ. We have enough of our own SJWs madly virtue signalling to each other, inside the bubble right here. We don't need anymore people playing dead end identity politics - thanks for playing though.

Second the reply by Lisa in OZ at November 10, 2016 5:17 AM, but for Canada. We have enough SJW public-trough feeding job-killers, thanks. If they really want to show their SJW-cred, they should all go to the socialist paradise of Venezuela.

Lisa, I think Crid simply missed your point, and would have given you a thumbs-up otherwise. Subtle, ironic humor in a blog comment often fails to be read the way it was intended by the writer. Nobody's fault, just the nature of the medium.

Granting everything you say about Trump's character and behavior, exactly what bad things do you expect him to do?

Rex Little at November 9, 2016 3:14 AM
_____________________________________________

Without comment on the following:

"Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days"

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

"Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days"

Prime directive: make your first demand gigantic and outrageous and you'll be able to negotiate it down to what you really want - and the opposition will feel like they did well, too.

I'm going to reply to these later today. It's going to be great.

Attention blog visitors from foreign nations!

Immagunna write a GREAT blog comment...

...And I'm gunna make YOU pay for it!!!!

In the meantime, guess what? There are two states that are pro-Trump AND pro-pot - Alaska and Maine.

Wonder which Trump state will be next to legalize pot for recreational use.

Good question Lenona. The pot thing doesn't appear to be left-right anymore. Both parties have significant groups both for and against legalization.

In between rioting, burning cars, smashing windows, assaulting Trump supporters and making weepy YouTube videos of themselves, the SJWs have created a change.org petition to install Hillary as Queen. Empress. Whatever.

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

My god. Imagine their outrage if the opposition had done this.

Rex is correct, I blew right past the intended camaraderie in Lisa's comment. When Rex pointed it out, I felt guilty... But then went back to read what was written, and whaddya know but Hey, I meant to do that!

The first thing that comes to mind when foreigners make comments here is to ask myself whether the United States is the sole, preeminent or merely essential guarantor of their border security. Then I look at a calendar to find our what year it is, and wonder in which century they're going to stand up and cover their own needs... Or at least when they'll be ready to take their meaningful role in world events, something beyond building spiffy new docks for America's destroyers and aircraft carriers.

I got nothing against foreigners. I spent most of childhood in campus housing that looked like the United Nations. I saw literally hundreds of terrified children of college students arrive at our high-rise and low-rise apartment buildings, and our school across the street, with no comprehension of our culture and only about three sentences' worth of our language. Eighteen months later we'd know exactly which position they should play when we were picking for team sports, which of the pretty girls they were secretly in love with, and which fast-food place they liked.

It takes all kinds to populate this big blue marble of ours, but the United States is the best. We pioneered most of the world's communications, and we sell our own communications at fantastic prices to customers all over the world. And the world LOVES to look at American culture, usually much more than their own media. Founding documents - books - magazines - film - radio - TV - and now every flavor of internet, including Amy's comfy venture now glowing from your screen: Most all of these things were created here and found their best deployment in their depiction of American ideas. Of course Canada and New Zealand and Oz come here to gawk and gossip. Our stuff is probably less expensive and ten times as enchanting.

But that doesn't mean that they're part of our miracle, or that they're doing the work to explore and expand that miracle. So the sarcastic affinity Lisa presumes is illusory, and she seems smug and intrusive.

The worst exemplar of this is of course our common progenitor, Great Britain. Their retreat from world events after WWII continues to amaze and disgust, even as they absorb the shallowest, most flashy dressings of America's superb-though-dynamic racial and social integration. The rest of the world has grown very skilled at mimicking the trite and pompous rhetoric of this enrichment, but the US is still the best at figuring out who's who and what's what, with immigration and all the rest. No one else even comes close.

I have a friend who retired in Oz very early in life. Very, very early... But he's got the golden government parachute. This ennobles neither the man nor his adopted home.

You'll have noticed that even after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, no one was more eager for the United States to intervene in the Middle East than the other local nations. And you'll have noticed Europeans getting twitchy at Trump's casual disinterest in NATO. His boredom with such places may not be thoughtful, but neither is it unreflective of the opinions of the American voters who both supported and opposed him two days ago. Americans are tired of paying for everyone else's comfort with our own blood and treasure.

I love Melborne's Albert Park, especially for that one weekend in the springtime.

But it would be great if the United States didn't have to carry the planetary load for security and accept bogusly-chummy chatter from distant people during our discussions of our internal affairs... It was our quadrennial election, fer Chrissake.

The next world hotspot is a longtime contender, the Malacca Strait, MUCH closer to Melborne than Los Angeles, about five thousand miles closer. You wanna patrol that for us? That'd be great. I think it's only something like 17 miles wide... It would make your 'We're all on the same difficult journey' jokes a lot easier to take.

Feel the heartBern.

Wonder which Trump state will be next to legalize pot for recreational use.

Sadly, not Arizona. A proposition to that effect was defeated Tuesday, despite my vote in favor.

Canadian Bystander: The working class just schooled the smirking class of complacent politicians and compliant media. Time will tell if they made the right decision.

Nicholas Kristof in the NYT: Trump was absolutely right that the economic system is broken for ordinary Americans, especially working-class men. Since 1979, real hourly wages for men have essentially been unchanged for the bottom half of Americans by income. . . . Unfortunately, Trump’s proposed policies would exacerbate the inequity that he campaigned on.

"Time will tell" is right. Trump supporters had/have this fervent belief that Trump is going to "smash the system" and male working-class Trump supporters had/have this equally fervent belief that Trump is going to somehow improve their economic prospects. I'd love to see the economic prospects of working class men -- and all working-class workers -- improve, but I think that time is going to demonstrate that their belief was a fantasy, that Trump's policies and actions will not only not improve their economic prospects but will make them even worse. And I highly doubt we're going to see any "system smashing."

David Broder, writing back in March 1972:

But there is a darker possibility that we cannot overlook. When frustration reaches the breaking point, when inflation and economic uncertainty, work stoppages, civil disturbances, crime, drugs, and the breakdown of public services can no longer be tolerated, a different sort of man with a different solution may present himself.

A plausible demagogue may appear and say, "Give me power and I will make things work again. I will restore order to your lives. I will see that there is discipline again. I will make the streets safe, and I will remove those who are disturbing our peace of mind. It may not be pleasant, but I promise you it will be effective. If those demonstrators try to tie up our cities, my police will know how to deal with them so they will not try again. If those unions try to raise wages, my men will see to it that there are no more strikes. We will control prices, even if it means we have to run those big businesses ourselves. Congress will pass the necessary laws, because its members will understand that it will not be wise for them to go home unless they act. And the press will cooperate with us, and stop its carping and sniping, if it understands what is good for it. And we will save our country"--but, of course, destroy freedom and democracy m the process.

"Time will tell" is right. Trump supporters had/have this fervent belief that Trump is going to "smash the system" and male working-class Trump supporters had/have this equally fervent belief that Trump is going to somehow improve their economic prospects. I'd love to see the economic prospects of working class men -- and all working-class workers -- improve, but I think that time is going to demonstrate that their belief was a fantasy, that Trump's policies and actions will not only not improve their economic prospects but will make them even worse. And I highly doubt we're going to see any "system smashing."

JD at November 11, 2016 11:14 AM

You could have just shortened this to *sour grapes*.

Ben: Good question Lenona. The pot thing doesn't appear to be left-right anymore. Both parties have significant groups both for and against legalization.

From a LiveScience piece:

Voters in California, Massachusetts and Nevada decided yesterday (Nov. 8) to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in their states.

These three states joined Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia, which had already legalized the drug for recreational use in previous votes.

So we now have 7 states & D.C. which have legalized recreational cannabis.

Washington, Oregon, California, Massachusetts & D.C: reliably blue

Colorado & Nevada: not sure they're reliably blue but both went for Clinton over Trump (and I believe both of them went for Obama in 2008 & 2012.)

Alaska: reliably red (and Alaska only voted in favor of legalization because the people there are more libertarian-conservative, not conservative-conservative as they are in so many other red states, particularly the red states of the south.)

So, of the eight places that have legalized cannabis, only one was red in 2016.

The thing about conservatives is that many of them are for "small government" only when it comes to financial matters (lower taxes, etc.) When it comes to issues of civil liberty (e.g. legalization of cannabis, legalization of same-sex marriage) they're all in favor of government telling people what they can't do.

Isab, I believe you missed "I'd love to see the economic prospects of working class men -- and all working-class workers -- improve",

I'd love it if Trump's policies and actions ended up creating a more robust economy, and specifically improving the economic prospects of the working class. I'd love for time to prove my cynicism wrong about the effect that Trump's policies and actions will have on our economy. I don't want to see a recession (or worse) just so I can say "Aha! My prediction was right!"

It's just that I don't think that's going to happen.

Nicole: Feel the heartBern.

Nice one. Too bad we can't go to a parallel universe and see what would've happened in a head-to-head between the guys from Brooklyn & Queens. Would the inevitable Republican attacks of "socialist!" have scared people away from Bernie or would his brand of populism been able to trump Donald?

Sixclaws: But now it's over, and it's not even a close call but an overwhelming defeat.

It's "overwhelming" only if you focus on electoral votes. While electoral votes are how we elect a president, they don't always reflect the will of the people. And in this case, as in Bush v. Gore, they don't. Of all the people who voted, Clinton got 48% of their vote to Trump's 47%. Close to 400,000 more people preferred Clinton over Trump.

Steven Rattner, in the NYT: This much is certain: Mr. Trump’s proposals would confer vast monetary gains on wealthy Americans while leaving middle- and working-class Americans — his electoral base — further behind. For his supporters, the irony of a Trump victory is that they may end up even less well off.

It's just that I don't think that's going to happen.

JD at November 11, 2016 12:10 PM

Im not sure either because the doubled deficit in the last eight years has put us in such a hole, that they only way out is rampant inflation, or severe fiscal belt tightening. Either will be unpleasant but inflation is far more insidious.

The only thing I am sure of is that while Trump is not the solution to systemic economic problems, Hillary was going to try to keep digging so that the ultimate crash occured on someone elses watch.

The reckoning coming earlier is a good thing, even if Trump incorrectly gets the blame for the last 16 years of criminal bailouts, and pointless spending,

Would the inevitable Republican attacks of "socialist!" have scared people away from Bernie or would his brand of populism been able to trump Donald?

We'll never know for sure, but Sanders reminds me of no one more than George McGovern. Those of you too young to remember 1972, look up the election results for that year. (Hint: the slogan which came out of that one was "As Massachusetts goes, so goes the District of Columbia.")

"Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days"

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

Some of this would certainly cause a lefty to shit a brick, but I don't see anything that Amy would object to.

"Close to 400,000 more people preferred Clinton over Trump."

I wonder... how many of those are taxpayers?

> Taxpayers?

- Boom -

"It's looking like a deranged lowlife who is so childishly impulsive that he couldn't be trusted to handle his own Twitter account will be our next President."

Project much, Amy? I see your particular line of criticism originates more from the feelings of your Veejay, than from the 12 or 15 neurons or other cells that may, or may not, be working in your brain.

Read a little of Scott Adams' blog before you try to persuade anyone of the superiority of your line of questionable reasoning!

Women! I agree we give 'em the right to vote....whether we count those votes is another matter entirely. The fact that Amy's Veejay does her thinking, argues against it!