“What should I say to my students after the election if Trump wins?” a principal asked me recently. Good question. What should we tell our children? Mommy's a kommie. Plan to start drinking heavily when you get into high skool...
Tell them, first, that we will protect them. Tell them that we have democratic processes in the U.S. that make it impossible for one mean person to do too much damage. Tell them that we will protect those democratic processes ― and we will use them ― so that Trump is unable to act on many of the false promises he made during his campaign.
Tell them, second, that you will honor the outcome of the election, but that you will fight bigotry. Tell them bigotry is not a democratic value, and that it will not be tolerated at your school. Tell them you stand by your Muslim families. Your same-sex parent families. Your gay students. Your Black families. Your female students. Your Mexican families. Your disabled students. Your immigrant families. Your trans students. Your Native students. Tell them you won’t let anyone hurt them or deport them or threaten them without having to contend with you first. Say that you will stand united as a school community, and that you will protect one another. Say that silence is dangerous, and teach them how to speak up when something is wrong. Then teach them how to speak up, how to love one another, how to understand each other, how to solve conflicts, how to live with diverse and sometimes conflicting ideologies, and give them the skills to enter a world that doesn’t know how to do this. Bigotry is free speech and therefore is very much a "democratic value."
Teach them, third, how to be responsible members of a civic society. Teach them how to engage in discussion—not for the sake of winning, but for the sake of understanding and being understood. Students need to learn how to check facts, to weigh news sources, to question taken-for-granted assumptions, to see their own biases, to take feedback, to challenge one another. We need to teach students how to disagree—with love and respect. These skills will be priceless in the coming months and years as we work to build a democratic society that protects the rights of all people ― regardless of the cooperation or resistance those efforts face from the executive branch.
Finally, remind them ― to ease their minds ― that not everyone who voted for Donald Trump did so because they believe the bigoted things that he has said this year. Many of them voted for him because they feel are frustrated with the economy, they feel socially have been left behind, and they are exercising the one power they have. We need to challenge Trump and his supporters to differentiate between their fears and the bigotry catalyzed by those fears.
In the aftermath of this traumatic election, Heh
I hesitate to even exercise my voice in this way. In the past year, I received hate mail and a death threat from white supremacists for blog posts like this ― blog posts that are, let’s be honest, fairly insignificant expressions of personal opinion from a person with very little power. I am not a threat. And yet people have threatened me ― and my family ― for expressing my view that we should build a world in which all human beings can live freely in the wholeness of their identities. I fear that this kind of intimidation will only increase in the event of a Trump victory. I fear that it will worsen tomorrow ― as soon as I hit send ― if Trump supporters are emboldened in their aggression towards people with whom they disagree. And yet the only thing that makes me feel safe in this moment ― as I stare into the face of a possible of a Trump victory ― is to speak up and speak out, and to invite others to do the same. Not justifying death threats, but I suspect you voiced your opinion about attacking people for their views under the color of law and using allies in the government. If you did, death threats are an entirely reasonable response. BREAKING: Trump evicts black family and aging granny from Government housing and occupies the building himself! Eviction to take place 20 January 2017.
#2
Dont TELL them a damned thing other than election happen and to congratulate the winner and move on. Besides, "telling the children" is their parent's job.
#5
As an aside speaking of children. Part of Trump's message while campaigning was "We are going to get rid of Common Core (or maybe it should be called Commie Core)." I was surprised at how people not only knew about Common Core but were resoundingly against it.
#6
A terrified lady of Dayton
Gets letters from Hell, full of hatin'!
Block printed in crayon...
A thread of red rayon...
And every last one is signed, "Satan."
#7
Maybe you should tell the kiddies to get out more, move among more members of the real world communities out there, empathize don't demonize while they're out there. Oh, and check the privilege your mommy installed in you about how superior in thought and deed you are.
#9
How about zipping up with brain washing and teaching them the staff you drones are supposed to teach: how to write in English, sciences, math etc...?
#12
Some broad from the Boston Globe wrote something of a similar strain. I sent her an e-mail asking what the phrase 'consent of the governed' meant to her (thanks for the reminder, Procopious 2k!).
I just checked my e-mail, and to no one's surprise, she hasn't responded yet. She won't respond at all, because she'll only believe in 'consent of the governed' when it goes her way.
#13
Pretty much every contest has a winner and a loser. They should understand that by the time they are in school.
We also have a system of government in which the results are not for life, Trump will be out of office in 4 or 8 years so they can chill.
We also have a media that lies through their teeth to promote one party over the other. Perhaps the principle should teach the children about that so they can get some critical thinking started.
#2
Been a long time since we had one with extensive business experience, particularly bankruptcy (hey can you say 18 trillion dollars in debt?) and understands the process that employs 'Americans' versus Marxist economic theory.
#3
extensive business experience, particularly bankruptcy
Grom Jr. Asked me about that - somebody told him in school that bankruptcies prove that Trump is failure (I do wish he and his pals start talking about girls). I told him bankruptcy means a man willing to admit he was wrong - unlike O or H who are never wrong no matter what.
#4
Does this mean I have to 'take responsibility' for Trump, g(r)om (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean? It's probably the only time, but that had to be the most nonsensical thing I've ever seen you post.
#10
Blockchain is our key to removing power from people. If it can be done properly, it could become a very effective, truthful, and reliable way to government by the people.
It is an interesting study to say the least.
h/t Instapundit
As someone who had, just 24 hours earlier, asserted that Latino voters would turn out in droves for Hillary Clinton and help save the republic from Donald Trump, I spent Election Night with huevos rancheros on my face.
I was wrong. Actually, I was right but I was wrong.
...Latinos did throw most of their support to Clinton--about 71 percent, according to CNN.
...Given the bad blood between Trump and Latinos, one of the biggest surprises on Election Night was that so many Latinos ended up voting for their tormentor. According to CNN’s exit polls, about 27 percent of Latinos voted for Trump. Exit polls from The New York Times put the figure at 29 percent.
...To understand the concept of "Latinos for Trump," the first thing you have to do is to accept that Latino voters aren’t monolithic, one-dimensional, or single-issue oriented. Like the Boston Irish of the 20th century, some of us may define ourselves first by our ethnicity while others just see ourselves as Americans. Don't know about you, but I'm shocked.
#1
because too many Latinos see themselves as future members of the middle class instead of victims/dependents/communist vanguard. Also because they figured out there'd be no middle class to join if the progressives win.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
11/10/2016 14:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Completely anecdotal, but based on living in Houston:
When Jesus the guy running the leaf blower first arrives, he wants free stuff which means the Democrats.
When he has been here a little longer and has become Jesus the guy running his own landscaping business, he has some skin in the game and pays taxes. Now he leans towards the Republicans.
#3
In my part of the country are a lot of Spanish families who were here before the United States existed. They don't identify with illegal 'Hispanics' the DNC and Obama have been importing. They resent taxes being diverted to cover the dumping.
It could be anybody - a bigshot partner from a Big Six firm, one of Trump's guys, some career hack, but we're all certain John Koskinen's days remaining are in the low double digits.
I've been kicking this thought around for about a week, and I finally acted on it last night - why not me?
I drafted a letter to Trump last night asking to be the next IRS commissioner. I'm well aware that this is a longshot and I doubt it will be taken seriously. That does not mean the letter will be written in that fashion. I will simply lay out my qualifications and stress the one thing I know he's looking for - I am willing and more than able to fight. My primary goal with this letter is to have the letter reader read to the end of the letter. If that happens, we'll take it from there.
Opinions on this quixotic quest, good, bad or otherwise, are welcome.
#1
The next IRS commissioner should be someone well acquainted with reducing staff and size of an organization. Grab up Gil Amelio who slashed Apple to the bone and kept them alive long enough for Jobs to pull of his sparkly miracles.
#5
The IRS commissioner is appointed by the Prez to a 5-yr term. Koskinen took over Dec. 2013, so his term has a couple years to go. Of course, since was appointed, he can be asked to resign. Door knob, meet ass.
#7
If he refuses to resign, start the actual contempt of court process and press charges for lying to Congress. Lock Smeagol up
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/10/2016 16:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Raj, as is pointed out up–thread the commissioner should have management experience. I don't know if you have that. If yes, then commissioner! :-D. If no, then I think you would be a brilliant inspector general of the IRS, charged to root out all forms of misbehavior.
[Front Page] Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
This wasn’t an election. It was a revolution.
It’s midnight in America. The day before fifty million Americans got up and stood in front of the great iron wheel that had been grinding them down. They stood there even though the media told them it was useless. They took their stand even while all the chattering classes laughed and taunted them.
They were fathers who couldn’t feed their families anymore. They were mothers who couldn’t afford health care. They were workers whose jobs had been sold off to foreign countries. They were sons who didn’t see a future for themselves. They were daughters afraid of being murdered by the "unaccompanied minors" flooding into their towns. They took a deep breath and they stood.
They held up their hands and the great iron wheel stopped.
The Great Blue Wall crumbled. The impossible states fell one by one. Ohio. Wisconsin. Pennsylvania. Iowa. The white working class that had been overlooked and trampled on for so long got to its feet. It rose up against its oppressors and the rest of the nation, from coast to coast, rose up with it.
They fought back against their jobs being shipped overseas while their towns filled with migrants that got everything while they got nothing. They fought back against a system in which they could go to jail for a trifle while the elites could violate the law and still stroll through a presidential election. They fought back against being told that they had to watch what they say. They fought back against being held in contempt because they wanted to work for a living and take care of their families.
#3
No, you bought time. The Empire will strike back. They don't comprehend the price in lives and blood they will force everyone to pay. Like any addict, they're only in it for the high, aka power.
#6
No, you bought time. The Empire will strike back. They don't comprehend the price in lives and blood they will force everyone to pay. Like any addict, they're only in it for the high, aka power.
Posted by Procopius2k
#7
We dodged a bullet in this revolution.
Posted by: JohnQC 2016-11-10 08:07 I don't think we dodged a bullet...I think we gained fire superiority and imposed our will for our future. Now that we have the high ground we have to maintain the offensive and stampede them. We have the executive branch, the legislative, and maybe we will run the libs outta the Supreme Court.
#10
We bought time with Reagan and as soon as he was out of office they struck back. We've just bought some more with Trump but of course they will strike back again after he's gone. They always do.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/10/2016 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#11
#9 Tennessee, it's the Federal bureaucracy what runs the country. Posted by g(r)omgoru Yes sir, the liberal version. I hope Trump eliminates the Federal Agencies and Bureaucracies that have no authority under our Constitution - any function/power not specifically granted to the Feds within that document should be returned to the States. Stampeding = decentralization.
#12
Good luck, and I'm not being facetious, Tennessee. I'm just not very optimistic. I mean, short of bringing back the spoils system (h/t Jerry Pournelle), what can you do?
#14
#12 Good luck, and I'm not being facetious, Tennessee. I'm just not very optimistic. I mean, short of bringing back the spoils system (h/t Jerry Pournelle), what can you do? Posted by g(r)omgoru We propose a reverse of the "patronage" system. We are hoping that this businessman will come in and have the guts to eliminate what he can on the Executive side and lead Congress to defund and eliminate others (our Department of Education is a good example). Trump's patronage should be to "the people" not a person or group. We know better at the state and local side what we need...not big government.
#15
Grom - like you said earlier - a businessman brave enough to come in and declare bankruptcy on a few of these Agencies...admit that we go it wrong - eliminate their drain on the debt and return these functions to the states.
#17
Since you can't fire public employees we should create a new department of Antarctica study and transfer folks there. If they don't like it they can quit.
#18
NOTE: December 19 the electoral college meets to formally cast the votes representative of the election. The DNC is now working overtime to get the reps to change their votes and MSM is pushing it as well.
Posted by: Large Elmorong6288 ||
11/10/2016 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I like this. Expand the Dept of the Interior, but only in climate studies, posts only servable in the Antarctic (it is warming, right? Then the problem will solve itself.)
Move 95% of the EPA, Dept of Ed, Dept of Ag, HS, HUD, etc, to this new sub-department.
And wait.
Make sure all the burrowers who skipped the required reviews participate.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
11/10/2016 18:25 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Incidentally, apparently a disproportionate number of federal employees are overdue to pay their income tax. In these troibled times, with so many calls on the public purse, that really won't do. Setting a good example and all that, donchaknow.
[DAWN] THERE is madness, then there’s Trump. Since a lot of lyrical indignation has already been expressed about the horrors of a Trump presidency, let me dwell on a comparison here that others have not tried to undertake yet.
Remember George Bush Jr? The insanity that was his presidency may seem like a memory, but the fires he lit are still raging in the Middle East. That’s the kind of damage a madman can do from within the White House. But there are some crucial differences between Bush and Trump which make the latter far more dangerous.
Start with this. Bush was an ideologue whereas Trump is nakedly an egotist. Bush lived the swashbuckling life till 40, boozing to his heart’s content, then became a born-again Christian and switched to a rigorous and disciplined lifestyle.
Trump, on the other hand, is driven by little more than his own urges, rather primal ones at that. He recognises no power greater than himself, and does not consider himself accountable to any moral standard, whether in the conduct of his day-to-day life, or in his larger agenda for the country.
All his life he has championed liberal causes like a woman’s right to choose, but then suddenly somewhere around 2012 he began to gravitate towards a pro-life stance, first by saying that late-term abortions should be outlawed, but slowly drifting further and further towards the hardest of anti-choice stances, ultimately getting trapped into saying that a woman deserves punishment for having an abortion.
On issues like guns and race, Trump only began to court the holy warrior right when he felt its power, and the ease with which the words that sought to get their attention came out of his mouth showed he felt no compunction whatsoever in embracing such hard and divisive ...politicians call things divisive when when the other side sez something they don't like. Their own statements are never divisive, they're principled... stances on issues so central to American political life. It wasn’t boldness, it was audacious opportunism. Someone of this makeup can change his mind in a moment and start saying things that are completely contrary, depending on which way the wind is blowing.
This is an important contrast to Bush, whose mind was firmly made up, whose thinking was anchored in his religious beliefs, and who was closely wedded to a conservative social agenda for decades and even campaigned on it.
Second, Bush was very much a creature of the Republican Party whereas Trump has burned the party down to get power. Bush was the compromise candidate in 2000, the safe bet because they couldn’t agree on any of the other nominees.
Once in power, he built his Camelot by bowing individually to each of the factions that the party had fragmented into. So the Christian right got the attorney general (John Ashcroft), the isolationists got the UN representative (John Bolton), the old guard got the secretary of state (Colin Powell), the military contractors got defence (Donald Rumsfeld who sought to privatise large chunks of the armed forces), and Wall Street got treasury (Henry Paulson, after O’Neill and Snow didn’t quite work out) and the neocon faction got the vice president.
Trump, on the other hand, has spoken of Republican Party leaders with staggering disdain when they failed to endorse him. He didn’t seek their confidence, he demanded it and punished them terribly when they wavered. He stands above the party and will not behave as if he owes it anything.
Bush’s idea of dealing with criticism was to ignore it. He read no newspapers, preferring to rely on the counsel of those around him rather than making up his own mind. He surrounded himself by likeminded advisers and his court became profoundly a victim of groupthink.
Trump, on the other hand, bristles at criticism, is keenly tuned to what people are saying about him and actively seeks affirmation in the eyes of others. He cannot deal with it when he does not get this affirmation and responds reflexively to criticism.
Moreover, Bush was largely empty in the upstairs quarter and actively outsourced his thinking and decision-making to others, even as he tried to present himself as "decider-in-chief". The decision to invade Iraq, for example, was not his but that of his brand of neocon advisers, led by Dick Cheney, who did much of the thinking on foreign affairs, along with Karl Rove who did the thinking on domestic matters.
Trump, on the other hand, outsources nothing, preferring to retain the prerogative for himself. He demands to know what people think of a particular issue, then persecutes those who think differently from him. When he changes his mind, those around him are expected to follow suit. They will never have a say in any decision-making, while his own decisions are rooted in an opportunistic miasma of whim, greed, ambition and other animal instincts.
In short, a Trump presidency is likely to be of an order of magnitude more dangerous than the Bush presidency. It took Bush almost four years to begin to realise that the invasion of Iraq may not have been the best idea, even if he never publicly acknowledged the mistake. He toyed with idea of bombing Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons according to reporting by Seymour Hersh, but never crossed that red line.
He walked out of the Kyoto Protocol and showed disdain for global regimes that served as constraints on American power. But he bowed before the power of the establishment, and oversaw the implementation of the WTO and the strengthening of NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A collection of multinational and multilingual and multicultural armed forces, all of differing capabilities, working toward a common goal by pulling in different directions... How will Trump, with his erratic mind, whimsical instincts, centralised decision-making around himself, and total disregard for anything -- whether facts, reality, consequences, or the opinions of others -- that runs against his whims, approach the same issues?
Bush showed us what can happen when the powers of the White House fall in the wrong hands. With Trump though, we have something of an order of magnitude that is far more deadly.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/10/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
This article is pure speculation starting from an extremely biased base of knowledge about Bush mixed with propaganda based emotional reaction to Trump. iMHO
#3
So I'm all, like, "Whoa, this sucks! What's wrong with Fred? Where the hell is Nadeem?" So I go have a look... and jeez, I wish I hadn't. When will I learn to trust my elders and betters? Story of my life.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/10/2016 8:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Well Khaleed, Bush believed that you people can be reformed. Trump, in part due to Bush's experience, believes you people should be contained --- while he solves USA's problems.
If I was you Khaleed, I'd pray he succeeds in both. Because, the next step --- if containment fails, is pest control. And, if USA is weak and preoccupied with internal problems, the decision of what to do with Islam will be made in Moscow and Beijing.
#6
I imagine a scene where ole Khurram here is sitting in his favorite coffee bar in Karachi "why they say up in Islamabad that Fatima Curie has invented a cure for the Pakistani foot in mouth disease...imagine that gentlemen"...when Khaleed picks up a Dawn newspaper and sees a picture of President Elect Trump...and says "Forget that alqaraf, here comes Mongo!"
#7
Trump will be an excellent president. He is driven by ego and that same ego will lead him to want to improve the country's economy and standing in the world
Thus the motivations of Trump and the interests of the country are in alignment.
Unlike Bush he can think and act decisively and toughly and independently
Instead of invading Afghanistan on 9/11, Trump would have immediately frozen all Saudi assets, and those princes in the USA would not have been hustled out, they'd have been in the dock.
All arms trading to saudi would have ceased.
And then Pakistan.
And then he would have demanded they surrender Bin Laden within 20 days or he would nuke Mecca.
and they would have surrendered Bin Laden or they would have lost Mecca.
And if they lost Mecca and did not provide Bin Laden he would say: you have 5 days to produce Bin Laden or we nuke Riyadh.
And Bin Laden would have been produced and we would not be in the mess we are now in.
Then he would have ordered them to dismantle Islamism.
[Dhaka Tribune] The left should’ve listened to America’s heartbeat. It only listened to each other
If you’re surprised that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States of America, then that is part of the problem.
This American election wasn’t a battle between Trump and Clinton, so to speak, nor between Republicans and Democrats; this was, to state the obvious, a battle between ideologies, a cultural battle of identities.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
11/10/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Interesting, this guy could figure it out from Dhaka, Bangladesh, but so many in the US still can't understand.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/10/2016 7:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The left should’ve listened to America’s heartbeat. It only listened to each other..
IMO the left only wanted to rip out the heart of America.
#3
And still the whiny losers think it's because they didn't sell the narrative hard enough. They can only think in terms of "messaging" not one of them ever stops to think, "Gee maybe what we're trying to sell is wrong"
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
When you decolonise ballet...you end up with this. 
[DAWN] THERE is madness, then there’s Trump. Since a lot of lyrical indignation has already been expressed about the horrors of a Trump presidency, let me dwell on a comparison here that others have not tried to undertake yet.
"Gee maybe what we're trying to sell is wrong"
