Gracias por estar aquí

This.  This, this, this.

This. This, this, this.

Lets start with what this is not. I am neither predicting doom from a Trump presidency, nor am I telling you that you have nothing to worry about. That isn't the point. The point is not the relative merits of what happened on November 8.

The point is that if you want to fix it, whatever it is, you can.

I don't have a brilliant grand plan.

But I have a little idea.

Say "thank you."

Say "thank you" to the people who might be feeling marginalized.

Say thank you to Muslims you know. Say thank you to any immigrants you know, or meet. Say "thank you" if you see a gay couple. Say thank you. Introvert? Then leave a note on their windshield.

You have to admit, no matter how pro-Trump you might be, that right now, a lot of people are scared and wondering if America just had a referendum on whether to hate them or not. Again, I am not saying that is what a Trump vote meant. Personally, I disagree. But, I can't deny that a lot of people need to be made to feel welcome, because they don't feel that way right now.

No matter how they got to feeling that way, that's where they are. Even if you think they should not feel that way, you don't get to tell them how to feel.

Well, you do a little. You can tell them to feel that you, personally, want them here.

You hear someone speaking Spanish? Tell them "Gracias por estar aquí". You see someone in a hijab? Tell them "thank you for being here." You see someone wearing a "Black Lives Matter" button, and you think "all lives matter?" So what, if ALL lives matter, then Black ones do too, right? So shake their hand and say "yes, they do."

And so on… Maybe they need to hear that right now. A lot of them are feeling worried.

Forget whether they should or not.

That is how they feel.

Those of us who aren't scared should make damn sure to let them know how we feel. Most of us feel that they belong. Way more of us feel that way than the tiny slice of us who don't. But, that tiny slice gets the press. That tiny slice is the image that the media wants everyone to see.

Drama sells. Random acts of kindness don't. So, we have to outnumber them. We have to overwhelm them. Do it so much that we annoy them for god's sake. Do it so that they feel like America turned into a big dumb dog that wont stop licking their faces.

So, can you try this? Just say thank you. If you're an introvert, then leave a note on their windshield that says "thank you for being part of America." Look up random foreign sounding names in the phone book and email them a postcard that says "Thank you for being in America." Just do something to thank them for being here. Because, without them, we aren't America.

So to all my friends who don't think they're welcome in America right now, you're not just welcome. No, "welcome" isn't enough.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

*Note: Please share this. Or steal it. Plagiarize it without credit, if you like. Public domain, with no rights reserved. The point is to spread the word.

Last 5 posts by Randazza

Comments

  1. bvierra says

    Look up random foreign sounding names in the phone book and email them a postcard

    I just have to ask… where can I get this magical phonebook :)

    Great post though!

  2. Darth Chocolate says

    Mr. Randazza:

    I have always said "Thank you", and have always treated everyone with respect, earned or not, regardless of race. Because that's the human thing to do.

    Because I did not support Hillary, my 50-something year old unemployed sister who lives with me and my wife actually unfriended me from Facebook. Think about that. I do not get simple respect even though I provide a roof over her head. Because she cannot tolerate any view different from hers. Right now, I am in China for another 3 weeks, and when I get back, we are going to have a talk about this. She had better hope I cool off during that time, because right about now I am sorely tempted to toss her out on her sorry ass.

    I, and many like-minded individuals, am tired of being slandered with the worst smears imaginable simply because we disagreed with the liberal mindset.

    Don't approve of gay marriage? Then your business will be ruined or you will get fired.

    Hold a door open for a lady? You are verbally attacked.

    Disagree with the premise that everyone gets to choose whichever restroom makes them feel most comfortable, even though it makes me less comfortable? , You are all of a sudden sub human.

    Want the existing border laws enforced? You are a racist.

    Have worries about Islamic terrorism? You are an Islamophobe.

    Do not buy into the premise that homosexuality is "normal"? You are a homophobe.

    Don't like the fact that some people dismiss the rule of law because it suits their political team? Then you are an ignorant nazi or worse.

    We have hear this and worse simply because our views differ from yours.

    Perhaps when we start getting the respect and basic humanity your side demands from us, then maybe, just maybe we can return to some sort of normal.

    Until that time, you all can go pound sand.

  3. Craig Ellis says

    This has to happen in all directions. We're here because a number of the people who voted for Trump felt the same way. They were hurt, confused, scared, and were living in a country they no longer recognized. What they got for being scared was mockery, ridicule and a lot of screaming for having opposing viewpoints. Let me give you an example. As a queer, I watched the gay marriage debate from its preamble in Lawrence v. Texas through Obergefell v. Hodges. In a span of twelve years, that makes for a lightning-quick change as far as cultural upheavals go. That scares a lot of people. You probably saw someone make a comment like: " If we let gays marry, what next? Are going to let in pedophilia and bestiality now?" It was a real common refrain. Now be honest: The responses to this, were they an engagement in the marketplace of ideas and have a rational answer, or did it look like this: " OMFG I can't believe you just said that, you bigoted backward inbred redneck!!!!" How does that help anything? What that response gets translated as is: "I don't have an answer, so I'm going to shout until you shut up." The response I was waiting for one of these public talking heads to make that I never saw was: It stops here. What we are talking about is government recognition of a relationship between two consenting adults based on mutuality and love. Suffice it to say I never saw that answer come up. And, through repeatedly screaming "Racist Sexist Misogynistic Bigot!" with varying degrees of appropriateness, we got to where we are today. Anger is the catalyst for change; no one seat out of their seat and disrupts their routine because they are content. I was taught by the Jesuits that all people have dignity. It's a valid point, and we need to act like it even if we don't like the person in front of us.

  4. says

    Darth Chocolate , while you cool off in China, please consider this: The reason you were unfriended by your sister has nothing to do Hillary, you had the attitudes you described long before the election, right?

    It's especially commendable that you would assist your sister when she needs it. But would you offer others not your kin the same humane assistance?

    It appears even the help you provide your sister is conditional, and it certainly appears you would allow a business to deny selling someone a cake because of the way the seller perceives the way the buyer gets their sexual pressure in private. That's a pretty strange condition for selling a cake if you think about it.

    And while it may be rational to be concerned about terrorism, it's not rational to hold a billion plus people responsible and change the way you act towards them simply because of the way you perceive they worship. One does not follow from the other without some usual decisions in thinking it through. If it's been thought through at all instead of it being just a visceral reaction.

    I know when I travel, especially to someplace as different from the US as China is, anyplace where I'm not perfectly familiar with local customs and I'm "the other" somehow, that's an excellent opportunity to look at how I'm treated, both conditionally and not. I can learn from those observations and apply the lessons in how I treat others.

    I ask you to use your remaining time in China to do that. I promise that by removing your conditions on how you treat people, both family and the broad public, will make your life and everyone's life, a better one.

  5. Mongo says

    I do get to tell them how to feel. It's up to them to decide whether or not to agree with me. Right now, I honestly don't give a shit if people are feeling scared. They act scared all the time and constantly claim victimhood. Why should this election change anything?

  6. Durandal says

    I scrolled down to see if "lower class white people dying from opioid overdose and no economic opportunities who voted their economic interests in the form of Trump" was on your thank you list and shocker, it wasn't. Are we still subscribing to the Scalzi-esque notion that playing life on a white male of any education level is still "easy mode"? Can we not console those people about their situation in life?

    Because that's how we got here, and if you're taking the Salon route of pretending that their feelings didn't play a huge role in why you had to write this post you're just as stupid as they are.

    What incredible fucking sanctimony from an otherwise good blog. Between this post and Patrick constantly kissing ass and RT'ing Randi Lee Harper who helped get Michael Tracey fired from Vice for "doxxing" Lena Dunham while sharing that she didn't even vote in the NY primary she claimed she did, this place is becoming a shitshow.

  7. John says

    Since I think Randazza's idea is wonderful, I won't sully it here with rebuttals to the common whines of the Trumpista's. But just know you sound like petulant teenagers to anyone with 1/2 ounce of compassion or tolerance.

  8. TM says

    Ultimately this boils down to what I've been asking people in my own political sphere to do for a long while now: "Stop othering people who don't agree with you, even if you disagree on a fundamental level". If you can't reasonably articulate why one of these "others" might think the way they do without using "evil" or "stupid" or any of their synonyms or implying that you think they are, then you are very much a part of the problem. We all live together, and this is the only planet (and for many the only country) we've got. Tearing ourselves apart because we can't have a civil discussion over fundamental disagreements is not productive. Being kind, listening, and addressing concerns, even when we think those concerns are silly, works a thousand times better. Gay rights really started making headway when people started seeing gays as their neighbors and friends, and not as some "other". Same thing with gun rights, they started making headway again when gun rights folks started taking their neighbors and friends to the range and teaching them instead of yelling at them. We will get a lot further if we just start listening. If you're a comfortable middle class 5th generation american, you might want to think about how it feels to be a 1st generation immigrant. But at the same time, if you're a trans-gender person who's finally feeling like they're getting the rights you've always deserved, you might want to think about how it feels to be someone who suddenly finds themselves called an evil bigot because they hold an opinion that 3 years ago was the norm. If we can't learn to talk, we can't learn to persuade. If we can't learn to persuade we can't learn to bring people to our points of view. If we can't learn to bring people to our points of view, we can't get them to willingly change their behavior. If we can't get them to willingly change their behavior, the only way to change them is violence. I for one don't want violence.

    And BTW, @John, do you want 4 more years of Trump? Because that's how you get 4 more years of Trump. They may sound petulant, but you just implied that other human beings with their own feelings and needs and wants have no compassion or tolerance. That's what they're tired of, being othered.

  9. Allen says

    Perhaps, the democrats also need to explain and apologize to these folks for running a relentless campaign of fearmongering. That it's a campaign tactic that they have used for decades, and none of it ever really comes true.

  10. OrderoftheQuaff says

    An internet blogpost is like a dead animal, in the sense that it issues forth invisible emanations that attract other animals out of nowhere to come paw, sniff and feed on it. Witness Darth Chocolate, who is butthurt over his sister unfriending him on Facebook! Lord Chocolate's account rings of falsity because he described his sister as "50-something year old…". I don't have the world's best fraternal relationship with my brothers, but I do know exactly how old they are. Witness also Craig Ellis, a self-identified queer who threw out a question that equated gay marriage with pedophilia and bestiality and demanded that I respond civilly, reasonably and respectfully. No. Go back in your holes.

  11. Jim says

    "…relentless campaign of fearmongering.

    The South Carolina Low Country was predicted to be part of the Atlantic Ocean by now.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________

    John is 11 years old. OrderoftheQuaff is 13.

  12. OrderoftheQuaff says

    Jim, I'm actually 61. If I were only 13, my (now deceased) parents would be unhappy with me talking to mean, stupid people on the internet.

  13. william the stout says

    @ OrderoftheQuaff – Wow. Talk about zero self awareness. Craig clearly attributed that quote to someone other than himself with the clear implication that it was a question from someone with whom he disagreed. And obviously you're fine "othering people who don't agree with you" as Craig put it. So tell us, who is it exactly that is out searching for butthurt?

    @ Mark R – Saw your tweet about the comments going "as you expected", which I took to be something other than a compliment. Seems a little harsh. I can understand the frustration expressed here with being told that you're something that you're not just because of your skin color. Isn't attributing bad characteristics to someone (or a group of someones) that you don't know because of the color of their skin, well, um, isn't that racism?

    Couple of nights ago we got a late (after dark) delivery of a package from UPS. The UPS guy was a young black guy. I'm a middle-aged white guy. I was out in the front yard so I just walked up to the truck to get the package to save him the roundtrip to the door at the end of what I'm sure was a long work day. In my neighborhood we have a problem with deer/car collisions and he had seen a couple of deer running around. We had a pleasant 5ish minute conversation commiserating about what a pain in the ass deer can be – not a black guy talking to a white guy, but just a couple of guys talking – then he went on about his business and I went about mine. I treated him pretty much the way I treat all strangers, with basic dignity. Was I supposed to do more to atone for the fact that a group of Americans (a group that does not include me) elected Trump? I understand your premise and am sympathetic, but I'm with Craig. If everybody would just treat everybody else with simple decency mixed with a little empathy a lot of this shit would stop. But it's a problem on the left as much as it is on the right, as demonstrated by Quaff and John in their posts above……

  14. says

    First, Kip, maybe, per many analyses of the election, like Ted Rall's, Trump and Trump voters are more the "American way" than many people like to admit. Maybe the election was, in that sense, a good kick in the nads for American exceptionalism.

    Second, Durandal, what an interesting across the political board laundry bag of complaints.

    Third, don't blame me. I voted Green.

    Fourth, I don't think a President Trump will be THAT bad, and I said so six weeks ago: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2016/09/im-not-that-afraid-of-president-trump.html

  15. Durandal says

    @SocraticGadfly

    I voted for Gary Johnson. To quote my party chairman: "Your tears are delicious, and your parties will burn".

    As for my laundry list of complaints, add this:

    Clarkhat was the only person in the Popehat alumni to call this. That's right, America. You made Clarkhat right about something. CLARKHAT!

  16. says

    Durandal, I totally agree on Dunham and Tracy. As for Johnson, I lived in NM in the late 1990s when he was gov. The man was a hardcore private prison lover, and IMO never totally abandoned that. Given Greens and Libs agree on a fair amount of criminal justice issues, I understand some Libs' concerns about Johnson. Was that an issue for you at all?

  17. Daniel Weber says

    Because that's how we got here

    How we got here is deciding "that other group? The one that says they are scared? Ha ha, their fears are unimportant. Stupids!"

    Even if the other group's fears are wrong, you can still treat them with respect.

    One time a wise man said:

    A lot of them are feeling worried.

    Forget whether they should or not.

    That is how they feel.

    I can't remember where I read that. But it's the empathy that might have stopped last Tuesday had I employed it earlier.

    But at least I can start now. You can, too.

  18. says

    I think people who are angered by this post should expect more like it and should probably consider exercising self-care with regard to visiting Popehat.

  19. Allen says

    @Jim

    I thought it was part of the Atlantic depending upon the tide. Are you from there? I hope this last hurricane wasn't too bad for you. I have a brother near Myrtle Beach, he got lucky.

    Maybe when Trump takes office he will let all those people out of the FEMA re-education camps President Obama has them in. I swear it never ends. But, people who are new to this country, yeah I can understand their concerns. They're not used to the nuttiness of a US political campaign. For some of them where they are from the rule of law depends only on who is running the show.

  20. NickM says

    Don't leave notes on people's windshields.
    It freaks them out from the time they see the note until the time they read what it says.

  21. David Lee says

    Hey everyone. Darth Chocolate thinks being unfriended on the Face Space is just like being shot by the police because of your skin color or jumped because you're walking down the street near a gay bar in West Hollywood. Truly he and all conservatives are the true victims in this, suffering for so long under Obama that now they finally can take their revenge. True Christians and good people.

  22. aebhel says

    Darth Chocolate, I can't speak for your particular situation, but I've unfriended and unfollowed a lot of people I love on Facebook because I don't want to get into an argument on Facebook. If I like and respect someone, I'd rather talk to them in person. If I like and respect someone and they're constantly posting memes that infuriate me, I'll unfriend them so I don't write something I'll regret in a moment of anger.

    The fact that you're considering tossing someone you presumably care about out on the street because she unfriended you on Facebook says a lot about your character, really.

    And if you think homosexuality is abnormal and should be outlawed, you are being homophobic. That's literally the definition of homophobia, unless you think that anything stopping short of literal murder is a-ok. How can you say 'no, no, I love and accept you, I just think your marriage should be outlawed and your employer should be allowed to fire you on the basis of your sexuality'? That's not love and respect. I respect the fact that some religions believe that homosexuality is abnormal and a sin; that's their right. You have the right to disagree with homosexuality, to think that it's immoral and destructive to society, to lobby for criminalizing it, for that matter. What you don't have–and what you seem to be demanding–is the right to do all of that without having any gay people think you're an asshole for it.

  23. william the stout says

    @ David Lee – He's pissed at his sister for doing something shitty (but admittedly minor) over a stupid election. Please point out to us the section of his post where he says that being unfriended on FB is equivalent to being shot by the police or being physically assaulted because you're gay. TIA!!!!!

    @aebhel – Yeah, I'd add that he also doesn't have the right to have the government prohibit the right of two consenting adults to get married because he doesn't think homosexuality is normal. Honestly, having the Rs in charge of both houses of Congress without adult supervision is what concerns me the most about this mess.

  24. says

    Anybody who doesn't use various posting filters on FB (like "Friends" or "Friends of Friends" and exclude "Clintonistas" or whatever you set up) is a bit of an idiot IMO anyway.

    Bigger idiots and egotists are those who post everything to "public" because they think the whole world wants to know everything they say, then fund out large chunks of that world radically disagree with them.

  25. Darth Chocolate says

    @OrderoftheQuaff: I know exactly how old my sister is, the 50-something is a rhetorical device to prevent me from stating how old she is. But if you have to know, she is 55 and fucking ought to know better – that if you are willing to accept a handout over the past 6 years because fucking FAMILY and asking noting in return, you ought to be able to show a little fucking gratitude.

    @David Lee: Thank you for your projection. Read the note above to "Orderof theQuaff" about family. It is not the same as getting shot at because of the color of my skin or getting jumped after walking out of a gay bar. But you are oblivious to the notion that people you disagree with can have actual feelings. EVERY time some crazy shoots up something, the press immediately, without facts, tars the perps as evil gun nuts. Once the facts show otherwise – silence.

    I took in my sister because she had no place to go – I did not have to do that, but I felt as if I had some sort of misguided familial obligation. She apparently feels no obligation to repay my kindness with any sort of respect for my views. Typical liberal – demands acknowledgement and acceptance of her ideas and outright rejection of any opposing viewpoints. Demanding to be awarded respect, refusing to give any. But she has an MBA and a PhD (in liberal arts fields – natch) and takes the morally superior high ground. My PhD in the hard sciences, like my opinion, counts for nothing. Try to wrap your head around that.

    @aebhel: I do not believe that adults should simply be "unfriended" because of political differences – it is petty and childish. However, I had two friends (one of 25 years and one of 40+ years) who unfriended me because I told them I did not their general attitude of "If you ain't liberal, you ain't a friend". So, back in May I stopped posting on FB and only stopped lurking after the election. I ignored the memes, the gratuitous Hillary cheerleading, and the lack of logical and/or coherent thought.

    You are wrong about homophobia. If I were irrationally fearful (the definition of a phobia)that every gay guy wanted to fuck me in the ass, then I would be homophobic. But if I rationally get disgusted by the thought of one man sticking his dick in another man's ass for sexual gratification, I am not homophobic – I am straight. However, many people on the left openly joke about how a straight conservative guy going to prison will get fucked in the ass is a perfectly acceptable extra punishment. That is both hypocritical (saying that the practice is degrading) and homophobic (because what straight guy wants to get fucked in the ass?).

    But who am I to judge? I do not care into whom you stick your dick or how often. Homey just don't play that game. I also don't need to know about it. If it is the defining reason for your being, knock yourself out. Just don't include me in.

  26. En Passant says

    Marc Randazza wrote:

    Look up random foreign sounding names in the phone book and email them a postcard that says "Thank you for being in America."

    Regardless who is president, these days the twitchy-assed attitudes of police and prosecutors at every level could get you arrested on charges of terr'istic hate crimes for that. And just to be sure, they'd shoot your dog too, and maybe your cat.

    I jest. Almost.

  27. Dan Mills says

    Part of living in a democracy is dealing with it when the vote does not go your way, even when the vote favors something in your view that is **really really** stupid (Idiot in chief Cameron's European adventure for me).

    Part of dealing with the disappointments inherent to democracy is listening to what the other contenders voters are saying, and looking at it from that perspective, is it is actually quite important that a sufficient number of participants from all sides of the political process do this to make the thing work, compromise should not be a dirty word for a politician.

    It seems to me that the major failing of the Democratic party in this election (Apart from running the least electable person they could find) was dismissing a large number of people as effectively 'trash' and forgetting that those folk had real concerns and real votes. If four years in the wilderness is what it takes to remind a political party of that (and this often seems to be the case with any political party one way or another) then it is actually time well spent.

    Could someone who actually lives there explain something to me, as I really do not understand all the wailing inside the US about the Prez:
    It was my understanding that in the American system the president had remarkably little power domestically, we in the rest of the world should worry about Trump (Not actually sure Hillary would be much better from that perspective actually), and the folks in the US should worry about the House, Senate and Supreme court, being as they largely drive domestic agenda as I understand it (And having all three controlled by the same party should be nervous making whichever variety of clowns that party consists of) .

    Regards, Dan.

  28. Rupert Pupkin says

    For my part, I am more than willing to validate the feelings of hysterical, irrational crybabies, all so I can break my arm patting myself on the back. The toxic identity politics is just the icing on the cake. When I am done with that, I will build a time machine so I can go back to 2009 and provide a shoulder for Glenn Beck to cry on as he frets over being shipped off to a FEMA concentration camp.

  29. Phil B says

    When you get pulled from your car and beat up because you voted Trump, say "thank you" to your attackers. It's very important that they feel welcome.
    When the mob lays siege to your inner city hotel because it has Trump's name on it, send a personal "thank you" card to the immigrant George Soros for paying for the buses used to ship people in to "protest".

  30. echo says

    Should I thank a "protestor" before or after he beats me to death with his "Deport Fashisom" sign?

    Everyone remember to use Jazz Hands rather than clap, for fear of just triggering the poor dear further as he wipes your blood from his clothes.

  31. Darth Chocolate says

    @Dan Millar:

    The real domestic power of the presidency is the control of the administration of the government – the various departments (State, Defense, Treasury, etc.). Not to mention the appointment of all US Attorneys, and Federal Judges – including the Supreme Court.

    The problem is that when some of the departments become the de facto tools of social engineering – Education, Justice, Environmental, etc. is where the real mischief begins.

    It is no secret that a large majority of government workers have Democrat leanings. So when a Democrat is in the White House and appoints one of his partisans, it's party time. Just look at the recent Justice/FBI (a subsidiary of the DoJ) crap with the Clinton Investigation, the criminalization of casual sex at Universities, etc. Then at Treasury (which controls the IRS) the whole Tea Party affair and the Obamacare "tax" administration. The War on Coal is foisted upon us by the EPA. The list goes on.

    When a Republican is President, the rank and file simply lays low and drags their feet to slow the implementation of the policies without fear of repercussions.

    Such is the way of Washington.

  32. Michael says

    Marc, I don't think you'll be able to get through to a number of people, as evidenced by some of the comments here. Clearly we haven't yet resolved the all-important question of which side's protesters are more aggressive and threatening. (spoilers: it's the side of people who voted different to me!)

    But thank you for trying.

  33. Darth Chocolate says

    @Porterville Equality and Fairness for All

    Thank you for listening my concerns. I am so glad you know my soul better than I do.

    Your lecture goes to exactly why you now have to deal with Trump. My feelings deserve no consideration in your universe. And I am tired of it. Try a little compassion and see things from my perspective for a change.

    My assistance to my sister was unconditional, and if she were so upset about my beliefs, well she knew that before she moved in. So when I am disrespected in my own house, I should do the "Christian" thing and turn the other cheek? Because all of the "stuff" I do for her (like taking care of her when she broke her kneecap and her wrist less than 2 years apart – don't worry, I have an alibi – I was in China at the time) is not worth simply shutting up and accepting that we have differences, like I am expected to do?

    Riiiight.

    And when an ideology preaches that you kill the unbeliever because it is what good Muslims are expected to do, I certainly can express my disgust with the whole enterprise that calls me an Islamophobe. It is a label I am comfortable accepting, because I am truly afraid of them. I cannot work in large swaths of the globe because those loons would rather blow me up or shoot me than let me go about my business helping them. Because that is what I do – I create jobs by lending my expertise to building plants where people can earn a living to support their families.

    I have been travelling/working in China for over a decade. I am well respected and reasonably well liked because I try to act as their customs dictate. I try to treat all people well, and learn the basics of their language. I do not even screw around with the women for two reasons: 1) I take my marriage seriously, and 2) the majority of the available women are young enough to be my daughter.

    So spare me your preachiness. You know nothing of my world, and you do not seem to care to.

  34. says

    As I read this post and the comments it generated, I was reminded of all the rioting and vandalism when McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012, lost to Obama.

    Oh that's right, there wasn't any.

  35. Bill W says

    For the record, I have counted to ten.

    When I first read this post, I thought, "Aww, what a nice thought."

    Then I started thinking about it, and the more I thought about it, the more annoyed I got.

    First, I voted for Johnson. Maybe that shocks someone who assumes that all white men are inbred Nazi Stormtroopers, but there it is.

    Second, I can't manage other people's feelings for them. I'll keep treating people as kindly as I can and with at least a modicum of respect. Hopefully that's enough for them, but if they can't help but feel a certain way about me because of my gender or ethnicity, there's not a whole lot I can do about that.

    Third, are you seriously suggesting that everyone reading this post just go up to someone, assess their voting history, citizenship status, etc., on the basis of purely superficial data, and then have the gall to thank them for being here, as if that person woke up that morning thinking, "It's nice to live in the United States and so forth but I'm really worried that Bill isn't on board with the idea?"

    Funny, true story. A friend of mine's parents are Colombian and Peruvian, while he was born in DC. One day he was standing in a parking lot waiting for the rest of us to get out of a 7-11 when an activist of some kind came up to him saying something in Spanish, to which he replied, "Dude, I don't even speak Spanish." Which wasn't true, but the point was a good one.

    I love the phrase, "the soft bigotry of low expectations". I'm supposed to assume that anyone who isn't obviously a straight white man a.) didn't vote for Trump, b.) believes that I am a vicious racist/bigot/homophobe/misogynist/xenophobe gunning to have them deported/arrested/lynched/anti-gay therapied, and c.) will change those beliefs if I, as a complete stranger, approach them and tell this person I have never interacted with previously how much I appreciate them. There's just so much wrong with what you're suggesting it's hard to know where to begin.

    Here's the thing. I know it's coming from a good place, but I also know that you're suggesting this because you buy into the propaganda and you, at least in part, believe that people who disagree with you are bad or dumb or rednecks or bigots or what-have-you. When you dehumanize people that aren't like you–and that's what you're doing–you make it impossible to find common ground. That's been the Progressive m.o. for some time now, but that's an old, outmoded way of thinking. Last Tuesday was, I hope, the beginning of the end. Maybe this is a good opportunity to look at the people you're afraid of as people, and not monsters.

  36. Jadedhaven says

    Thank you, Randazza.

    On behalf of my family, friends and neighbors who aren't white, straight or who happen to speak with an accent, your kindness is much appreciated.

    I will pass this bit of wonderfulness along to everyone I know.

  37. Felix says

    I doubt I can add much useful, but just as I have wondered on various friends' facebook posts, I wonder if this same post would have appeared if Hillary had won, and wonder why this same post did not appear anywhere during the campaign.

  38. echo says

    Please, Ken.
    The guy from Sonora I go to the cattle market with isn't terrified of being deported.
    My boyfriend isn't suddenly living in fear of being beaten by men in MAGA hats (he makes me take it off in bed :( ).
    The hippie down the road who shows up to every town meeting trying to get wifi and cell phones banned is terrified, but nobody's touching that.

    The only people I see having meltdowns are the ones who get social power in their cliques by performatively "literally shaking" the hardest. Everyone else is weirded out by them.
    The entire "atmosphere of FEAR!" narrative is completely constructed online, and it sounds like you guys have fallen for it.

    I might be silently reciting "The Shortest Way With The Dissenters" in my head every time I turn on the TV, but the real world is acting just like it did on Monday, only with more graffiti and broken windows.
    You should spend more time there: it's pretty awesome.

  39. Matthew Cline says

    Craig Ellis wrote:

    This has to happen in all directions. We're here because a number of the people who voted for Trump felt the same way. They were hurt, confused, scared, and were living in a country they no longer recognized. What they got for being scared was mockery, ridicule and a lot of screaming for having opposing viewpoints.

    TM wrote:

    Ultimately this boils down to what I've been asking people in my own political sphere to do for a long while now: "Stop othering people who don't agree with you, even if you disagree on a fundamental level". If you can't reasonably articulate why one of these "others" might think the way they do without using "evil" or "stupid" or any of their synonyms or implying that you think they are, then you are very much a part of the problem.

    While this is not my experience, I've seen other people say something like "We've tried and tried and TRIED to explain things calmly, rationally and respectfully to them, and it hasn't made one bit of difference. Thus, we've concluded that there's no way to change their minds, and if we can't change their minds we might as well vent".

  40. Tom Scharf says

    …and for all the Trump supporters who have been treated like garbage for the last 8 months…a big f u because people who are xenophobic racists don't count. Look I know the author isn't this mean hearted, but it's kind of difficult to believe that this never crossed his mind. The fainting spells of HRC supporters are a bit much. I don't discount they have fear, but it's really no more justified then it was last week. Go over to the WP and see a Trump supporter being beaten silly in Chicago and having his car stolen. Bystanders? They took video and laughed. Nice. Outrage zero. Close your eyes and imagine Trump supporters beating a Muslim on video and let's imagine the response.
    This prevailing meme that Trump supporters just want to go beat up minorities is based on the thinnest of evidence. See Portland Thurs. night? I was overwhelmed with the tolerance and love. Please go hug someone destroying a car dealership. Work at Grubhub and you voted for Trump, you're fired. No chilling of speech there. Outrage zero, because a 12 year Muslim is crying in the corner. What on earth did the parent tell their 12 year old about this election? People who hate you won, be very scared?
    The liberal world and media has been living in a bubble. For the past decade or more all they thought about were themselves, except for the periods where they pronounced moral dictates from on high for the people to follow. Trump wins and they are shocked, shocked I say. And the response is….demonize Trump supporters and think about themselves a whole lot more.
    But…please, ignore everything I say. The left is right about everything and the tolerance and love is just overflowing, go watch on CNN. White House. House. Senate. Supreme Court, 34 Governors, 2/3 of state legislatures. By all means there is no need to take a hard look in the mirror.

  41. Anonguy says

    The general tenor of "Why Trump?" is a little odd to me at this point…I mean:

    a) Clinton is directly tied to attempting to railroad the DNC.
    b) She clearly mishandled classified documents, which regardless of intent would have sent anyone else to jail.
    c) The Clinton Foundation is on "interesting" ground with regard to its activities, shown by internal audits according to the press
    d) The DNC was tied to inciting violence at Trump rallies
    e) There is a distinct portion of the left/Democratic vote tending towards violence and riot…where is the outrage from the left on this?
    f) Hillary cited 40% of the country as "racist, ignorant and deplorable".

    Yeah, you are right, I cannot see any reason why any rational human would not have voted for her.

  42. Anon Y. Mous says

    No matter how they got to feeling that way, that's where they are. Even if you think they should not feel that way, you don't get to tell them how to feel.

    Well, you do a little. You can tell them to feel that you, personally, want them here.

    No, I'd rather tell them to pound sand. If they don't like it, they can head into their safe space and color in their coloring books and play with their playdough.

    Seriously, these fragile people weren't all that concerned about MY feelz over the last 8 years, why should I now get all concerned about theirs?

  43. says

    Ken:

    A. There is no god.
    B. Were there a god, the religious literature of all the world's religions shows he, or she, for Kali or Mother Goddess worshipers, is not good.

    You can thank me later.

  44. Asclepius says

    I understand that the culture wars aren't going to last forever, but Christ it sometimes feels like it. Reading comments sections like this I have to wonder if we're ever going to move past this endless cycle of "sure I could extend the olive branch to the other guy, but given the chance (I'm sure) they wouldn't extend it to me so fuck 'em"?

    Blue tribe is nasty to red tribe when blue is in power, so red tribe feels disenfranchised and unlistened to. Then red tribe is nasty to blue tribe when red is in power, so blue tribe feels disenfranchised and unlistened to. So in turn…etc on to infinite

    Am I being super young and naive? Has it always been like this? Somebody please give me some indication that it's not as hopeless as it seems

  45. Dictatortot says

    Having read Randazza's post twice, I'm still a little unclear on precisely what we're thanking these folks for. Reflexive hostility is probably uncalled for (except where Muslims are concerned), but he doesn't leave it remotely clear why one should make a particular point of being grateful to any of the groups he cites, or for what particular reason.

  46. Lagaya1 says

    Dictatortot-

    Love the name.

    Are you saying that reflexive hostility is warranted where Muslims are concerned? Really? It's a joke, right?

  47. M B says

    @Darth Chocolate.

    An interesting point but, counterpoint, it's freakin' facebook! I mean, if she was yelling at you over the dinner table or telling your kids that you were going to hell, yeah, sure, kick her out, but… facebook? Really? I have a sister I don't follow on facebook – not for political reasons or because I don't love her, but because she posts eighty zillion of those sappy "Like and reblog if you think that motherhood and kittens and rainbows are awesome," forwards, and it's annoying. If your grudge against her isn't based on anything mean she's done in person and just based on the fact that she won't interact with you on one social networking site, maybe you could stand to chill.

  48. M B says

    @Anonguy:

    You realize that both previous Secretaries of State had similar email setups? So where are you getting your "would have sent anyone else to jail" info?

  49. Menon says

    There are protesters in New York right now waving a sign that says "Rape Melania".

    Love trumps hate indeed!

  50. ravenshrike says

    @ M B Heh. Similar. To quote Mr. Montoya, I do not think that word means what you think it means. Let us look at Powell first. He had two accounts, one where classified govt. business was conducted and was run on govt. servers, and a public email account that he used for unclassified email. As for Rice, no, she didn't use email at all for State Department business.

    Clinton however went out of her way to set up her own private server in her bathroom even though she was told multiple times to get a govt. email account and lied about only wanting to use one device when she in fact used 13 separate devices to access her email.

  51. Darth Chocolate says

    @M B Says:

    Yep, it's Facebook. and I will add that not one of my posts was addressed to her. Just general feed stuff. And she has taken the "morally superior" tone on more than one occasion to both me and my wife in person. It is getting old.

    I will probably calm down. But there are no guarantees.

  52. OrderoftheQuaff says

    There are no guarantees that you won't remain upset forever over your sister unfriending you on Facebook? This was such an affront to your dignity that you found it necessary to issue wails of anguish in an internet cavern full of total strangers, as if we were some kind of a coping mechanism? Get a grip! It isn't enough to be a job-creating capitalist technolord, you also have to be mature and emotionally stable to gain admission to Galt's Gulch.

  53. Jonathan Hendry says

    William the Stout wrote: "He's pissed at his sister for doing something shitty (but admittedly minor) over a stupid election"

    To be fair, we don't know how much of an asshole he was being on Facebook. He may have earned that unfriending. I'm sure he doesn't think he was being an asshole, but I don't have much faith in his self-awareness on that score.

  54. Jonathan Hendry says

    Darth Chocolate wrote: "Just general feed stuff."

    Which she is obligated to read? That's a condition of her residence with you? You own her eyes?

    "And she has taken the "morally superior" tone on more than one occasion to both me and my wife in person. It is getting old."

    I take it that only you are entitled to adopt the "morally superior" tone.

  55. CEOUNICOM says

    @Echo

    The only people I see having meltdowns are the ones who get social power in their cliques by performatively "literally shaking" the hardest. Everyone else is weirded out by them. The entire "atmosphere of FEAR!" narrative is completely constructed online, and it sounds like you guys have fallen for it.

    Thank you

    I think its going to take a few months for the culture-war-mongers to vent their fumes, then everyone is going to look for a new narrative to flog when they realize the "pretending to be victims"-shtick has lost its currency.

  56. Daniel Weber says

    The scariest counter-reaction to Trump's winning isn't the riots. (Although I do think riots are bad. Do I have to say that? I guess I do.) It's the talk that Facebook erred by not silencing people discussing unapproved facts and opinions, letting a swamp of thoughtcrime fester.

    The kids burning cars will get bored and need to ask mom and dad for money in a few days. But attempts to stomp out thoughtcrime can last for decades.

  57. says

    Jesus Christ what a bunch of whining fucking pussies we have here. The premise here was pretty simple, you stupid fucks. Your friends and neighbors are freaked out. Forget that they are over-reacting, because they're still freaked out. You ever see a kid who starts crying because of thunder? Yeah, maybe you should say "you stupid little faggot, grow a pair of balls, it is naturally occurring sound." Or "fuck you, I'm scared of shit too"

    Or can you just be compassionate and let the fuckin kid sit on your lap for a few minutes and tell him that its gonna be ok?

    If you think this country can stop being a shithole, then show your neighbors and friends that you like them — that a lot more people like them than hate them. Then you can come and ask "hey, can you calm me down about being white?"

    Jesus christ you all (well, most of you) eat shit.

  58. MakingAmericaGreatAgain says

    Or, you know, the way this election went might be proof that actual Americans who didn't go to an all-women college or get a liberal arts degree are simply fucking TIRED of being told to thank a Muslim for not strapping on a bomb vest today, or thanking an Indian for all the outsourced jobs his family stole from us, or thanking a gay for convincing the Supreme Court that his right to redefine marriage to include same-sex assfucking matters and my right to keep marriage as a sacred vow between two people with different genders doesn't matter.

    The Left claims all that is in the name of "equality" and that makes them immune to being wrong.

    Guess what? Trump won. America doesn't want your kind of equality. Go hide in your coffee bars for the next 8 years and cry about being discriminated against. Maybe those people should start thanking us, instead, for giving them a country that entertained their Leftist nonsense for so long, and for letting them stay here (assuming they're legal).

  59. echo says

    I talk to my friends and neighbors every day, Marc. I go to breakfast with them, meet them after church, chat with them at and after work.

    They are not freaked out. They are confused why they're being told they should be freaking out.

    The reason you guys who spend too much time on Twitter think everyone is freaking out is that your social media bubble selects & "signal boosts" people who never got over pretending to be terrified children to manipulate others.
    Find someone having a freak out that isn't performative, then we'll start taking you seriously.

  60. echo says

    I should add that I do know one woman who is scared out of her mind. She's currently out of the country and is getting all her news from scaremongering political fundraisers and the Huffington Post.
    Her sister and I are starting to get really worried about her mental health.

  61. Darth Chocolate says

    To OrderoftheQuaff, et. al.:

    There is no guarantee because this is not the first time she has done something worse. She is no longer invited to certain family gatherings because she fucking yelled at my Brother-in-Laws friend over something minor, then stormed away. So my BIL chose: he would rather spend time with his friend than my sister. After he fucking GAVE my sister a fucking car for free, rather than trade it in.

    Being "scared" is no excuse to behave as a 3-year old because your feels were hurt. She did the exact same thing over Brexit (she lived there for a couple of years). Claims that anyone who did not vote her way were fuckwits, sub human, and worse. This from someone who has a fucking PhD in Theology.

    She could not comprehend that some people do not like being called names and being accused of truly reprehensible behavior, and generally being looked down upon as uneducated, unenlightened slobs. By doing what she did, she has lumped me in the basket of deplorables.

    Now, if I had deliberately posted shit to her timeline just to rub her nose in it, yeah, I could almost justify what she did. But she just did not like that I posted something pointing out the general liberal hypocrisy, and the banhammer came out. I do not know what it was because it was without any other communication – not even "hey that is really over the top and unfair because….".

    And FYI @Jonathan Hendry: To be fair, it really does not matter how much of "an asshole" I was being. Because Conservative Feelings Matter just as much as the feelings of whiny liberals. The point being, if she can be offended, then so can I. And if my feelings don't count, then neither do hers.

    "Do I own her eyes"? Of course not, but if you see stuff that you don't like, you just roll your eyes and skip it. I thought the whole purpose of this forum was free speech. But you either want me to self censor (for fear I might upset someone) or you are fine with her censoring. And before you say "it's different", I know it is – it is not government censorship, it's purely personal. But I thought the solution to speech you did not like was more speech, not censorship.

    So to all of you self righteous liberals out there, here's the lesson: you cannot claim to be offended if all you are doing is offending people and expect no consequences. Our feelings matter just as much as yours. That is not moral superiority; that's equality.

  62. says

    Darth Chocolate

    *was* unconditional, being the imperative words.

    Your kind is not special or uncommon, there's enough of you and like you to elect a President!

    Keep this in mind when you assert neither I nor anyone else can possibly know you. You are everywhere.

    As for your China experience, mine is not that different. What different is that I come back and try to treat others here with the kindness towards and among strangers I encounter overseas. I try my best for that not to stop because people look like me at home but not abroad. And who could look more like you than your sister? Treat her the same kind way others treat you in China. Master that, then start to extend it to other people who's religion or sexual orientation you find offputting enough to restrict their Liberty.

    I don't know if this is a Christian recommendation or not, as I'm not Christian. I make this recommendation not out of my faith, yours, or anyone else's, but out of empathy for others and love of discrimination-free liberty, which is a major theme of this blog.

  63. Anonguy says

    @MB – delayed response, but hey I get a weekend off sometimes too.

    The reality is that while Gen (ret) Colin Powell may have had an email server, there is no evidence that he distributed classified material on it, nor that he was attempting to shirk the responsibility for repudiation and archiving of Government business. Clinton has been shown to have distributed classified data (intent is not an aspect of that law) and reportedly was trying to avoid public disclosure and archiving. There is a big difference between the actions of Gen (ret) Powell and Secretary Clinton.

  64. Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says

    Randazza,

    Don't you think it is a little telling that the analogy you draw is to children afraid of thunder?

    Sure, I'd reassure a child afraid of thunder. But l'd also explain that he had nothing to fear from thunder.

    We mostly are not talking about children. It's reasonable to expect people old enough to vote to behave like adults, not children.

    Some fears are rational and others are not. It's not cruel to identify irrational fears as irrational. (It's perfectly fair to expect civility and decency.)

  65. Kozlowski says

    Randazza: I do appreciate your sentiment and the place it comes from. Don't take this as a personal attack, as I see from comments you are getting a bit testy.

    This article shows how successful the MSM propaganda campaign was. Trump was a horrible speaker, inarticulate, awful candidate etc. BUT, he did not advocate anything against gays or women or minorities or anything of the sort during the campaign.

    The media lied to our nation, over and over again. And in the echo chamber that is social media, amplified that to levels of hysteria that were never possible before.

    Trump is not Hitler. Trump is not a Nazi. Trump will not be a dictator. The presidency has limited powers. All will be okay. Take a deep breath, and carry on.

    Restricting abortion rights is not an attack on women. For the people who believe in it, it is about saving lives – the lives of the most innocent among us.

    Because Trump doesn't want immigrants who are unvetted and unknown, that doesn't make him racist or an Islamophobe. Illegal immigrants are bringing crime, drugs and disease into our country. We need immigrants for sure. Should it be 1 million as it is now, per year, or 2 million? Reasonable people can disagree on the number. But we absolutely must discourage in all ways illegal immigration.

    Trump calling on a ban on muslims was his bumbling way saying he wanted to prevent terrorists from reaching our shores by not allowing people to come here from those countries where ISIS and other terrorists present a threat. The fact that he is a poor communicator allowed the MSM to demonize him.

    I have equal disdain for all religions, including Islam. In my opinion it is a mild form of mental illness. I see no reason why we should be importing, into small communities, large numbers of people who have no tradition of assimilation and no tradition of liberal beliefs. They need to be screened, not brought in wholesale.

    And we shouldn't be in the business of "creating" immigrants by starting wars all over the globe as Hilary & Obama have done. I do have hope that Trump will get us out of those disasters. There would be millions fewer of these people were it not for the abysmal choices of those in power these recent years.

    You want us to walk up to an immigrant and thank them, for what? Being an immigrant? What if they just arrived? They haven't contributed anything yet. If they have been here a while, then in our meritocracy they have already been thanked. It smacks of the type of thinking that is corrupting our country: "Everyone gets a prize just for showing up." "Just be present, you don't actually need to do anything."

    Thank you for letting me express my opinion :)

    Cheers

  66. Morrowind542 says

    Marc, please point me to a child under the age of 10 scared about the prospect of President Trump and I will gladly hug them, comfort them, and tell them that there is nothing to worry about.

    Otherwise, I will continue to treat the adults as adults: with respect until shown otherwise. Part of that, by definition, is not treating them like children. I find the idea of thanking someone simply for existing to be beyond patronizing; there are much better ways to show others they're valued. I'm thinking a good way to start is to ask if they are scared on the first place, rather than assuming they are based on their skin color or hour hard their name is to pronounce

  67. Kevin says

    Sounds like Clinton supporters, college kids, and immigrants are too immature to vote. They don't need thanks and hugs, they need a nanny.

  68. says

    Turning to more important matters, yesterday unranked Iowa knocked off no. 2 Michigan, unranked Pitt knocked off no. 3 Clemson, and the unranked USC Trojans knocked off no. 4 Washington.

    Trump beating Clinton has nothin' on that.

  69. Demosthenes says

    @ Marc Randazza:

    I was going to reply to this:

    The premise here was pretty simple, you stupid fucks. Your friends and neighbors are freaked out. Forget that they are over-reacting, because they're still freaked out. You ever see a kid who starts crying because of thunder? Yeah, maybe you should say "you stupid little faggot, grow a pair of balls, it is naturally occurring sound." Or "fuck you, I'm scared of shit too"

    But fortunately, there's no need. Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk and Morrowind542 have already said exactly the things that needed saying — and frankly, they did it with a little more courtesy than you deserved.

  70. echo says

    Pretty ironic to spend the last year shitting on people, and then complain when they track some in on your carpet.

  71. Kevin says

    Not a first time visitor at all.
    Been reading on and off for years, including twitter feed.
    Just felt that this post was risible.

  72. Demosthenes says

    I'd actually like to amend my last comment to make it clear that (contra Morrowind542) I do think a President Trump might give us quite a few things to worry about. Which is one of the reasons I didn't vote for the guy.

    That said, I do find it ironic that someone who wrote a whole post about showing compassion for others and their feelings responds to criticism (much of it quite temperate) by calling his critics "stupid fucks" who need to "eat shit." Which is really the point I was trying to get across in my last post.

  73. Kozlowski says

    "Lots of first-time visitors showing up to take a dump on the rug."

    I am a first time commenter but definitely not a first time visitor. I suspect others are in this category as well.

    In an effort to clean up said shat upon rug: I do quite enjoy your corner of the internet and visit often. Thank you (and Marc) for your insights and opinions.

    However I did feel that the Randazza article was a bit patronizing, and, for the lack of a better word, childish, in an era where immaturity has run amok. It comes from a good place in his heart no doubt.

    Cheers

  74. Michael says

    So I did exactly what the post said. I'm all introverted, so I decided to leave a note on a local Muslim's windshield. Except it was a real spur of the moment thing, and I didn't have a pen on me. I enjoy collage, so I got a bunch of headline letters from newspapers, and arranged them to spell out "I KNOW WHO YOU ARE, ALI. I LIKE YOU, AND I WANT YOU HERE".

    But now the police are at my door! What gives?

  75. Brian Z says

    Wow. Instead of rebutting, arguing, or rehashing any of the hijinx happening in this thread, I'ma go in a different direction.

    I voted for Hillary. I don't regret it; I wish she had won. I think she would have made a better president than I imagine Trump will be.

    Now that my lefty bona fides are in order, I will say this: "Rape Melania" sign? Atrocious. Grubhub CEO memo? Poorly-conceived; idiotic; chilling. Rioting over an election result? Dangerous.

    Not all Hillary voters subscribe to the thinking of far left caricatures. Likewise, I accept that not all Trump voters are unpleasant reactionaries. Who knew? But if you go looking for someone on the other side to confirm the terribleness of their methods, you're definitely going to find someone.

  76. Morrowind542 says

    Demosthenes, I actually do think that there is much to potentially fear from Trump, no matter who you are, though I also think it's been far overstated by the media. He is a wild card that may pose a massive threat to civil liberties and constitutional rights, or he may not – we don't know yet.

    However, that is not what a child needs to hear when being comforted, much like a child doesn't need to be told of the risk of being struck by lightning in the analogy. If this was a conversation with an adult, I would be open and up front about it, and I would make it clear that if Trump tries anything, I will stand with them and do everything in my power to oppose it. I would also trek them that now is not the time to panic, when Trump isn't even in the office yet.

    Unfortunately, that is not what Mr. Randazza is suggesting. This article stands on stark contrast to the article Mr. White wrote replying to the college student's letter. In that article, he talls to the writer as an adult and having an adult conversation; in this article, we're told to treat others as frightened children.

    Edit: I also want to note that I otherwise have great respect for Mr. Randazza, and generally enjoy his articles.

  77. GrCy says

    @Darth Chocolate

    If I'm reading your comments right, you already try to make other people feel welcome in America, and you're putting your grief against liberals in the comment section of this article because some of them say disrespectful things to you and your kind, and your sister is that kind of liberal who also targets you despite the fact that she's living in your house and can't/won't make any money.

    Politically, I share some of her views since I'm almost certain the Liberal culture is GENERALLY SOMEWHAT (I know enough about both sides of the political spectrum to reserve myself) less harmful than the Conservative one.

    Personally, I'd like to break some ice.

    I can only make guesses about what I don't know about her. Maybe she's coping with something and doesn't know a way out of it? Maybe she's bitter about some parts of her society or her life? Maybe she actually is completely unwilling to listen to anything you say?

    I can explain why people lash out against others with different political beliefs even though the target really hasn't done anything "wrong". There's a theory that the idea of "neutrality" is always going to be an illusion when it comes to arguments. Our votes do have an effect on the lives of others after all. It's… possible your sister may be thinking that you're the one taking the morally superior tone…

    I was almost going to say you have a lot of power over her, but then I remembered word-of-mouth/social-media is also pretty powerful too… I don't know if there's a good solution to your issues with your sibling (a retiring home for her? counseling for someone? a new job/hobby?); I've never run into a life problem where even the best apparent solution was bad, so I really can't "preach" anything. I can recommend some small, easy, artistic online games to lighten a mood (if that sounds childish, which seems to turn off a lot of people, I'd like to say that I get the impression that adulthood tends to involve sacrificing a part of your soul to get something you may not even want, have forever, or enjoy).

    The solution to speech you don't like… is definitely not a consistent one. Good speech/communication that solves problems can be powerful, but it's hard to make, hard to find, and hard to use well. Speech influences how people see their own lives, and there's definitely a good reason to limit some of it. Vague terms like "More speech" (More arguing? New arguments? New readings?) and "censoring" (Avoiding? Removing from thread? Restraint?) make the thing into a bigger headache than it needs to be.

    I'm pretty sure liberals DO expect consequences, but they, a lot of other people, and I get the impression that the consequences for offending some people are often randomly unfair…

  78. Brian says

    Restricting abortion rights is not an attack on women.

    It certainly is. A woman has bodily autonomy, she can decide what to do with her body at all times. If she decides her body won't be used as a life support system for another person, that is her autonomous right. To deny a woman that right is to say they're subhuman, in that they lack rights other humans (men) take for granted.

    For the people who believe in it, it is about saving lives – the lives of the most innocent among us.

    If you believe this, then why aren't you arguing for the forceful hooking up children with kidney failure, for example, to compatible adults so that they won't die? Or forcing people to give their organs (say half a liver) to innocents? It's the same thing.

  79. IForgetMyName says

    @Darth

    Perhaps when we start getting the respect and basic humanity your side demands from us, then maybe, just maybe we can return to some sort of normal.

    I agree with you completely on this one sentiment. I also agree that for all you've done for your sister, she treated you shitily.

    I agree that not all people concerned with terrorism are Islamophobic, not everyone who is uncomfortable around gays or oppose legalizing gay marriage are homophobic and bigoted, and not everyone who voted for Trump agrees 100% with what he has said, or what he has been accused of believing.

    I agree that you made a wonderful, impassioned plea for decency and understanding on both sides, for not assuming that all your opponents belong to a single, monolithic "other" group that you can hate and dismiss without considering as individuals, each with their own beliefs and their own reasons for taking one position or another…

    …and then, you spend the other 80% of your comments completely forfeiting any right to claim any sort of moral high ground in a beautiful display of hypocrisy and a total lack of self-awareness. I mean, we can sum up your rant like so:
    Everyone who has criticized Trump is a no good liberal.
    Liberals are all horrible people, your sister is a liberal.
    Because your sister (a liberal) treated you with such disrespect, you feel that all liberals deserve your open contempt.
    Thus, you regard all liberals (i.e., all people who disagree with you on Trump) with open contempt.
    If the monolithic group of "all liberals" want to earn anything resembling decency and civility, then they need to treat YOU with decency and civility even in the face of your open hostility, dismissive comments, and patronizing generalizations.

    I'm not a liberal, but because I voted for Gary Johnson instead of Mr. Trump, you probably regard me as one, so on behalf of all liberals, I am sorry for the terrible way you were treated by your sister. To be honest–judging solely by the way you've characterized facts and the way you've engaged other people here–I don't think it was simply a matter of "You voted for Trump, Trump won, sister unfriended you." I have a nagging feeling that you might be leaving out the part where you spent some time… let's say articulating your disagreement with her views in a way that's about as civil and respectful as you have been here.

    In which case maybe your sister isn't quite as petty as you make her out to be. Even so, she's still wrong. In my family, family comes first, and you took her in when you didn't have to, despite your clear ideological differences. The least she owes you is her thanks, and a bit more willingness to understand your point of view, rather than simply lumping you in with her stereotype of the Trump voter.

    But you know, the same goes both ways. Assuming your sister never helped you out in the past, she owes you, and not the other way around, but if you behave around her anywhere near the way you've behaved in this forum–with the distinct attitude that because you're helping her out, she owes you a respect for your views that you have no obligation to reciprocate–then despite taking her in during her time of need, you're being a pretty shitty brother.

    Yeah, when someone's giving you charity, or helping you out when they don't have to, or signing your paycheck, then it's your job to kiss their ass, to be ridiculously deferential and respectful, to shut up and pretend you agree with everything you say, even if you don't. But family doesn't do that to family. If your sister can't see past her stereotype of the evil Trump supporter and see her brother, then the fault is with her. But your comments here have also made it pretty clear that you can't see past your own stereotype of the evil mainstream liberal Trump-hater and see your sister (or your neighbor, or your friend. In that, the fault lies with you.

  80. Encinal says

    @Anonguy

    Hillary cited 40% of the country as "racist, ignorant and deplorable".

    Cite?

    MakingAmericaGreatAgain

    Or, you know, the way this election went might be proof that actual Americans … are simply fucking TIRED of … an Indian for all the outsourced jobs his family stole from us

    "Stole"? Are you fucking serious? You "own" your job? Someone offering to do the job for less is COMMITTING A CRIME? Fuck you. Is your intent to show Trump supporters to be a bunch of racist entitled pieces of shit?

    Newsflash: if the only reason people are willing to hire you is because you're used force to get rid of the competition, YOU'RE the fucking thief. And you know what the word for thieves who use the government as an accomplice is? Socialist.

  81. Eric Atkinson says

    Me? I say get the fuck out if you are here in America illegally. And the existing immigration laws should be enforced. That is the kind of note they, the illegals should get.

  82. Durandal says

    Jesus Christ, Randazza.

    Jesus christ you all (well, most of you) eat shit.

    HOW DID DONALD TRUMP GET ELECTED?!

    It is a mystery.

  83. MakingAmericaGreatAgain says

    @Encinal:

    Facile. I don't own my job, sure. But America owns jobs, in that jobs belong in America, for Americans. We lost those jobs because Democrat politicians, like Clinton the First, made shitty trade deals they claimed would help America, but actually just let their foreign friends loot the country. Coincidence that all this "inversion" happened under Obama? No.

    And then people are surprised that Clinton the Second lost her bid to give the rest of our economy to China with the TPP?

    @Brian:

    This "bodily autonomy" argument always sounds like shit to me. Abortion isn't about equality, it's about special bonus rights, just like the gays want next. Abortion is about liberal women wanting the right to kill babies. Men don't have, and shouldn't want, the right to kill babies. So that's not about equality. "Equality" is never about equality.

    And it isn't the same as forced organ donation at all. You MIGHT convince me that abortion is necessary when there's so much wrong with the baby that it cannot live, but otherwise this isn't about forcing someone to give up a kidney to save someone dying. It's about killing someone perfectly healthy. It's insane.

  84. Allen says

    @BrianZ

    I've seen CEOs do a lot of stupid things but the Grubhub CEO takes the prize. "I didn't mean it that way ummm, ummm, ummm, were all one big happy family, that's it family, you can't get be mad at family you have to love each other because we are family, please don't fire meeee."

    I suspect if the share holder's value keeps plummeting his pleas will fall on deaf ears. The board might fire him anyway just for gross stupidity. I must say though based on some of the things I've seen, if Trump had lost some of his fans might have been overly obstreperous.

  85. IForgetMyName says

    @ Kozlowski:

    Trump calling on a ban on muslims was his bumbling way saying he wanted to prevent terrorists from reaching our shores by not allowing people to come here from those countries where ISIS and other terrorists present a threat. The fact that he is a poor communicator allowed the MSM to demonize him.

    As someone who has misspoken on more than one occasion, including right here at Popehat, I agree with your general sentiment. However, I would like to point out a few things:

    1) The President needs to be a good communicator. Remember when Obama said something the fact that "if he had a son, he might look a lot like Trayvon Martin?" I don't think Obama meant anything racist by it–it's no different than any of a number of other politicians or other public figures saying some version of, "My daughter is about the same age" or "My son also just enlisted in the Marines" and therefore this event has particular emotional resonance with me. The conservative media (including Breitbart and Fox News) immediately and repeatedly jumped on his words as Obama explicitly admitting that he only cares about black people… conduct one might characterize as demonizing him, maybe?

    Some like you might argue that we should give the guy a break, that he meant well. I would argue that when you're the most prominent single member of our government, and in many respects, the voice of America, then it's your job not to be misinterpreted, even when people are actively trying to misinterpret you.

    2) He didn't correct himself, admit the mistake, or even amend his position until much, much later. If, as you assert, his position is "we should stop immigration from countries with a strong ISIS presence" and he just articulated it terribly, then the reasonable thing to do would be to say precisely that the first time someone said "Hey, you can't possibly mean to ban an entire religion from this country?"

    Instead, he doubled down, like he tends to do when he's slighted in any way. I suppose I can't criticize him for that, I can be the same way. But at the same time, that also made it impossible for anyone to divine his real intentions. The Muslim ban, the Wall, repeal ObamaCare, a very generalized outline of a reform of the tax structure, and making America great again… those are the only explicit, specific promises Mr. Trump has made (and I'm being generous calling the last one specific.) And now you're telling me that on one of those promises, he was actually trying to promise something else entire, but is just a terrible communicator? Is there an asterisk on Make America Great Again, too?

    I have equal disdain for all religions, including Islam. In my opinion it is a mild form of mental illness. I see no reason why we should be importing, into small communities, large numbers of people who have no tradition of assimilation and no tradition of liberal beliefs. They need to be screened, not brought in wholesale.

    Your argument would be more compelling if the immigration situation you were arguing against actually existed in reality. It does not. As it stands, nobody is "brought in wholesale." There is a background check and vetting process that understand is conducted even more thoroughly for refugees and others coming from war-zones and regions known to foster Islamic terrorism. In fact, this vetting process is so thorough that local assets from Afghanistan and Iraq, who were trusted enough to be granted base access and to be embedded with combat troops are STILL being vetted, years later! I've had patents issued faster than that, and most inventors and patent attorneys agree that the PTO is inexcusably slow.

    Much of our (legal) immigration comes through preferential visas to match employment needs or to bring in people of extraordinary talents (Benedict Cumberbatch visas.) This adds another level of filtering. The nature of the world–and of America's job needs–being what they are, simply having the education and background to qualify for employment preference tends to be a strong selective pressure against the sort of backwards, conservative people you're worried about. If you're in some tent, living under Sharia law, arranging child marriages, you're probably not going to have the sort of medical education we would trust in our ERs.

    When you look at the unassimilated enclaves you worry about, you find that they basically fall under two groups–the diversity lottery (where we give out extra visas to countries with almost no previous immigration here) and family unification (marriages to U.S. citizens, relatives of permanent residents.)

    Let me first make one important distinction: In terms of what I'm most worried about (terrorism and crime), the vetting process is stringent but obviously not infallible, and could always be improved. In terms of "vetting" culture, I do not share your concern that we conduct a huge "assimilation" litmus test–so long as they're willing to learn enough not to be a burden on our system, and aren't acting on any beliefs contrary to our laws, I'm pretty cool with immigrants.

    However, if you really think unassimilated immigrant enclaves are bad, then family reunification visas are a good place to focus your attention. Most people who come here on student visas or work visas want to assimilate–but once they bring their green cards, they often become the anchor to bring in an extended family that isn't necessarily so worldly. Diversity visas have a similar problem–no selective pressure to favor immigrants most likely to assimilate–but they're a lesser issue simply because their numbers are so small.

    I also take issue with this bit:

    who have no tradition of assimilation and no tradition of liberal beliefs.

    What do you mean by "tradition of assimilation?"

    Whether you're talking about guys living in Syria trying to come here, or guys living here, generations after their ancestors arrived, there is no "tradition of assimilation" in the sense that the particular people have assimilated into the mainstream culture, because those particular groups have been there for so long they were already part of the mainstream culture.

    If instead you mean a tradition in the mainstream culture to assimilate immigrants, you seem to imply a dichotomy between America and the rest of the world that doesn't actually exist. Most countries aren't North Korea. You may not know that there is substantial human migration in the rest of the world, including within the Islamic world, and there is substantial variation in the extent to which immigrants assimilate or instead form enclaves. Just because the end result of assimilation doesn't precisely mirror America doesn't mean there was no assimilation.

    And on the other side of things, let's not pretend that America is 100% assimilated. Anyone looking at us from the outside can point to the Amish communities, the various black communities, to the Indian reservations, to the Chinatowns, and argue pretty convincingly that it's the Americans who lack a culture of assimilation. Hell, if there's one thing that can fairly describe a strong majority of Trump's voters, it's that they feel a disconnect with so-called "mainstream" American culture, that not only are they unassimilated, they do not want to be assimilated.

    For that matter, why do there need to be "liberal beliefs"? If you listen to Darth Nader and many others, liberal beliefs are the reason America sucks right now, so why not import some good conservatives with the RightThink positions on social issues?

  86. IForgetMyName says

    @MakingAmericaGreatAgain:

    "Equality" is never about equality.

    ZombieDr.MartinLutherKing,Jr.:

  87. IForgetMyName says

    @Anonguy:

    b) She clearly mishandled classified documents, which regardless of intent would have sent anyone else to jail.

    Can you please substantiate this assertion either by

    1) identifying the relevant statute Clinton would have violated, and then explaining how her actions fit all the elements of the crime (including the correct mens rea)?

    2) citing cases where somebody acted in the same way Clinton did, and was convicted of a crime, and that conviction was not subsequently overturned?

    I am not defending Clinton. In fact, I am quite willing to buy the argument that regardless of the law and the criminal penalties, the e-mail scandal was a lapse in judgment that makes her unfit to be President. However, I am–like many libertarian leaning folks, like many at this blog–a firm believer in due process and rule of law. I believe that people should go to prison only for breaking laws that were on the books when they committed the crime. I believe in fair notice, that the laws should clearly state what is illegal and what is not.

    I have heard countless people, most online, more than a few in person, express a sincere belief that Clinton belongs in prison over the e-mail server, and I have raised the same questions I do now. I understand that not everyone is a lawyer, or interested in learning about the law, but hopefully someone here will answer me, this being a law blog.

    One thing I sincerely respect about Mr. Trump is his stated goal of changing the system. What I want to see is a system that no longer favors the elites at the expense of the powerless. Fixing a system where the powerless get railroaded, while the elites like Mrs. Clinton do not, is a noble goal that I fully support. However, railroading the powerful isn't fixing the system–it's merely kicking out the old set of elites and installing yourself in their place. Now, changing the system so that nobodygets railroaded, no matter how powerless or hated they are, that would be a great first step in making America great again.

  88. Lagaya1 says

    Eric Atkiinson-
    Mr. Randazza suggested that you write notes to illegals? Where? I can't find that. Or when someone says "immigrant", do you immediately assume illegal? Says a lot.

  89. Allen says

    @IForgetMyName

    Just an observation. I think some of the folks with RightThink would find Sharia just peachy, that is if you can have a White Sharia run by them.

    Uh oh, I probably made a list somewhere. That's OK I've been on lots of Shit Lists. It must be my winning ways.

    Cheers

  90. IForgetMyName says

    @Allen:

    Don't worry, I think I'm on the same lists. Welcome aboard. It's a pleasure having you.

  91. Allen says

    IForgotMyName.

    IMO Relevant Law and section: 18 US Code 1924. "knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. "

  92. IForgetMyName says

    @All the anti-Trump people here (especially the new ones):

    Before you allow confirmation bias to take too much hold, you should keep a few things in mind.

    1) Most of the most ardent anti-Trump supporters here are posting under unfamiliar handles… I am guessing they are mostly new to commenting here.

    2) Previous Popehat posts have had other pro-Trump people who have been much more civil and, to be brutally honest, made far better constructed and substantiated arguments for Trump or against Clinton.

    3) The majority of the reasonable, civil pro-Trump guys making the good arguments… they seem to be Popehat regulars comment on other, non-Trump issues that matter to us all here. The guys who are loudest, and angriest, on both sides of the election–I imagine they're mostly here to hit and run.

    4) I think many Hillary supporters would agree with the proposition that if you treat all black people like criminals, you shouldn't be too indignant if they start acting like criminals. By the same token, if you treat all Trump supporters like they're all the worst Trump supporters commenting on this post, don't be surprised if they're less than civil in return. If a particular person on either side is making irrational arguments or being an ass, call him out on it, but if all you know is that a guy voted for Trump, start with the assumption that he's a decent human being who had good reasons for making his choice. The worst thing that can happen is that he proves you wrong.

    5) Clinton won the popular vote. Trump won the election, and he'll now have the chance to prove he can do better than his predecessors, but his election doesn't reflect the emergence of some sinister cabal that wasn't there before. A certain group of people who felt they weren't being heard before now feel they're being heard. That's not a bad thing. But when you run the numbers, a plurality of people were so troubled by what Trump said (or what the international mainstream banking and media Cabal claimed Trump said) that they were willing to vote for Hillary Clinton.

    6) You can buy guns, too. Guns in America are a culture-clash disguised as a Constitutional law debate. If you're so worried about "gun-totting rednecks" being emboldened to commit violence, remember you have the same right to protect themselves. Like I said, the actual danger to you from hate crime is minimal–certainly less than the danger from plain-ol' greed crimes. But if buying a gun and learning to carry it responsibly makes you feel safer, then do it. There might even be secondary benefits: When you're familiar with guns, how to use them, how to be safe with them, your fear of guns becomes more of a healthy respect for their power. Maybe it won't change your mind about gun control, but if it changes your preconceptions about the 1/3 of Americans who own guns, then maybe it'll also leave you open to changing your preconceptions about other Americans you don't understand yet.

    7) Even if your fear isn't really rational, it's real, and I respect that. Trump's supporters also have some fears, many not entirely rational, and perhaps some people are too quick to dismiss them as illegitimate because they're not entirely rational. But they are real, so maybe you should respect that.

  93. IForgetMyName says

    @Allen

    So when Comey stated there wasn't the intent element needed to warrant criminal charges, I am guessing he looked at the facts and decided there wasn't evidence that she understood a private server was not okay or that there were classified documents involved?

    It's been a while for me. I'm pretty sure willful blindness satisfies knowing, but can it satisfy intentional? I could certainly imagine the rules being written vaguely enough that it wasn't clear that a private server wasn't okay–if that's where the missing element is, that seems like a reasonable result.

  94. Allen says

    @IForgetMyName

    National Security Law is a funny breed of cat. My knowledge comes from the handling of that sort of material not from the legal side. Other people who did that kind of thing might have been indicted, but the Secretary Of State is given vast leeway by the President directly. It's more of a use your best judgement thing. I think 3 people have been charged under that code resulting in probation and a $1000 fine. It's small beer, as far as national security goes.

    What I think happened. Comey asks his people, "can we get an indictment?" Probably we could. "Can we get a conviction?" probably not, we would have to prove the server was intended to be the repository of classified material.

    The bottom line was indicting her would have thrown the election, and might not result in a conviction. If they did get a conviction it would be probation and a small fine. I know what I would have done. It truly was one of those calls where you have to weigh what is in the best interest of the nation. Careless, yes. Criminal, no. IMO.

  95. Richard Smart says

    Dear Mr White,
    Please give Mr Randazza a hug, because dear God on the above showing he's going to need one.

  96. Allen says

    @IForgetMyName

    Just so you know where I'm coming from on this. I did not like her policies or her plans. I did not vote for her.

  97. says

    I've been in Poland since the election. Got back last night. Literally the first person I met was an immigrant. My Uber driver was a woman from Ecuador.

    I asked her if people had been nastier to her since the election. She said "not really, but some people have always been a little bit angry or disrespectful." She told me a story about a guy who got in her car and upon hearing her accent, demanded to know if she was a "legal immigrant."

    So I told her (in accordance with my article I wrote a few days ago) "well I want to thank you for immigrating here. We are better because people like you come here."

    It really struck her. She said that nobody had ever said that before. I told her, because maybe we didn't feel like we needed to. But, she should expect to hear more of that, because a lot of us feel that way.

    Maybe I'm just having confirmation bias. But, at that moment, in that car, that little gesture seemed to matter.

    I'm hoping that in short time, I say that to someone and she says "you know, you're the third person to say that to me today? I didn't realize how much Americans really do like us."

  98. MakingAmericaGreatAgain says

    @IForgetMyName:

    Martin Luther King wasn't that different. He's deified because he was a charismatic speaker, because it's considered bad form to criticize the dead (especially the murdered), and because he had the revolutionary idea that blacks wouldn't get what they wanted by putting on Black Panther uniforms and shooting Whitey.

    But his version of equality? Faced with a reality where "too many" blacks are poor, he concluded that OBVIOUSLY the solution was to end capitalism and just pass the wealth around.

    "I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic… [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive… but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness." -MLK, 1952

    That's the same attitude that thinks reparations are a good idea. Or wants to give all the kids equal-sized participation trophies.

  99. Dale Walters says

    Although not daily, I visit Popehat fairly often (although I don't think I've ever posted before). And in full disclosure, I did (grudgingly) vote for Trump.

    @Ken, you seem pretty frustrated… is it because of the opposition to Marc's idea, or to the general comments? (i.e. the spat with DarkChocolate, the re-hashing of the election, etc).

    Marc, it seems like you have very good intentions, and your idea does have some merit. With respect, though, I think it has a flaw nobody else has pointed out. If I go up to random folks and thank them… how are they going to know I'm a Trump supporter? If I tell them I am, I think I'd come across as condescending. If I don't (and if they have a dim view of Trump supporters), they might assume I'm on the left, and it'll reinforce any (perhaps wrong, perhaps not) assumptions they already have. So in my (hopefully-not-too-biased) opinion, I'm not sure this would work.

    Just my .02… take it for what it's worth :-)
    Dale

  100. Dale says

    Although not daily, I visit Popehat fairly often (although I don't think I've ever posted before). And in full disclosure, I did (grudgingly) vote for Trump.

    @Ken, you seem pretty frustrated… is it because of the opposition to Marc's idea, or to the general comments? (i.e. the spat with DarkChocolate, the re-hashing of the election, etc).

    Marc, it seems like you have very good intentions, and your idea does have some merit. With respect, though, I think it has a flaw nobody else has pointed out. If I go up to random folks and thank them… how are they going to know I'm a Trump supporter? If I tell them I am, I think I'd come across as condescending. If I don't (and if they have a dim view of Trump supporters), they might assume I'm on the left, and it'll reinforce any (perhaps wrong, perhaps not) assumptions they already have. So in my (hopefully-not-too-biased) opinion, I'm not sure this would work.

    Just my .02… take it for what it's worth :-)
    Dale

  101. says

    Marc, it seems like you have very good intentions, and your idea does have some merit. With respect, though, I think it has a flaw nobody else has pointed out. If I go up to random folks and thank them… how are they going to know I'm a Trump supporter?

    Irrelevant who you supported. You're just thanking them for being here.

  102. princessartemis says

    Marc, your example with your Uber driver is just the right way to do this sort of thing.

    Just be careful about picking random 'foreign sounding' names out of a phone book (they do still exist!) and mailing them a postcard. Some people would be touched by a random kindness like that. Others would be wildly insulted and take it as more proof of how deeply racist the US really is.

    Probably a good idea to confine this sort of thing to people you actually have some passing familiarity with. And yea, it really doesn't matter who you voted for or who you supported.

    I've got other things I could say, regarding things brought up in the comments, etc., but there's no point.

  103. says

    Just be careful about picking random 'foreign sounding' names out of a phone book (they do still exist!) and mailing them a postcard. Some people would be touched by a random kindness like that. Others would be wildly insulted and take it as more proof of how deeply racist the US really is.

    You are probably right about that.

  104. Meriweather says

    Marc – Usually while I disagree with at least part of your more editorial or political posts (on law I'll happily cede the floor) there are few that I think have missed the boat quite as much as this one.

    I can't speak for more recent immigrants, but anyone who spent much time in the US School system past about 1980 knows that 'thanks for participating' is a lie told by adults who didn't want to deal with the fallout of saying 'you're not good at dodgeball.'

    'Thanks for being here' is a volley that shoots past the reasons why people are scared without even glancing them. Maybe for immigrants– that I don't know. The very latest branches of my family got here around the time there was a potato famine so I can only hypothesize. I can imagine a scenario where 'thank you for being here' might be just what someone needs, but man, don't quote me.

    Speaking as I am — a financially stable-ish dyke in a nice liberal bubble with a nice liberal governor who is still quote unquote scared– 'thank you' is a pretty confusing response.

    See, here's why I'm a little freaked out about the election:

    For my personal safety, 'scared' is a bit strong. Anxious is more like it. I think that Trump's financial and tax policies are based on fairy dust and one too many readings of 'The Secret' and are likely to lead to another recession like the one that t-boned the trucking industry around 2008 – 2009. (No modern forecasts of the market took into account the possibility that people would stop buying groceries en masse. We fell through our minimum floor of demand for class 6-7-8 trucks and sat there on our asses looking stunned). So yes– I see more furloughs and layoffs possible in my future. That's survivable: sure rather not go through it again.

    I am 'scared' for friends I left behind in North Carolina — a lot of them rely at least partially on government benefits and are going to go hungry if there's a massive overhaul and/or cutback. Most of them are in school and/or working at least one job. And a some of them have that job at the truck plant — if the layoffs come they'll go first, and that's going to suck. Survivable: I'd sure rather they not go through it.

    I am 'scared' for my disabled roommate — if the ACA is gutted and replaced by high deductible HSAs like Trump kept promising it would and Paul Ryan gets to privatize medicare like he wants, she's fucked. (This isn't to say that the ACA isn't a mess of duct-tape and bad compromises, but I know plenty of people who rely on it for medications they need to function. Including hormonal birth control — I don't like the idea of women's health in the hands of people who genuinely believe that not wanting your uterus to be a football covered in scarred tissue is some kind of irreligious vice). Survivable, but, etcetera.

    Does Trump hate women? No. Does he know a damn thing enough about women – about the poor- about institutional racism – about the economy – about world politics – about law enforcement – about the environment – to make policy about them? Oh God, no. No, that is 'scary' to me.

    Does Pence want to fund electroshocks-for-the-gays? No. Does he stand firmly behind a parent's right to take any medical intervention they see fit for their kid– including conversion therapy (which these days is electroshock free but has a 30% rate of attempted suicides among participants and a 10% rate of those attempts being successful?). Yes. That's 'scary'.

    Yeah, I'm 'scared'. I'm anxious. I think that a Trump presidency is going to be bad for the US economically, and it's also going to make life a lot shittier for a lot of people in my tribes (Clan Lady. House Queer. The Axis of People with Trans Siblings). I think the administration seems friendly enough to a bunch of racist assholes that said non-government-sponsored assholes are going to start pushing the envelope and making life shitty for people outside my clan– and I don't think I can trust this administration to protect American citizens whose lives are being made shitty in increasingly illegal ways. I mean. I trusted Obama as much as I can trust a president and he used the kid gloves on the state government in Flint and the contractors near Standing Rock — what'll a staunch supporter of Citizens United do?

    There are people who are still reading huffpo and may really think the concentration camps are coming. They're the ones you're thinking of when you say dandle them on your lap and give them a pat on the head. I think you're over-estimating the percentage of them vs. the percentage of us who've thought this through and have an at least arguably solid standing for having a little dip in the stomach.

    'Thank you' isn't very reassuring for the rest of us.

    You being a first amendment lawyer who fights hypocrisy and bullying regardless of the politics of the hypocrite and bully? That's what I find reassuring. You encouraging your readers to look out for the rights of their fellow citizens regardless of politics, that's what I'd find reassuring. Getting people who were dumped off voting rolls two weeks before the election back on those rolls and keeping them there, regardless of their politics, that's what I'd find reassuring.

    I'm cool without the thanks.

  105. Anonguy says

    @IForgetMyName: Best I can do is point you to several articles. Here are some: https://2001-2009.state.gov/m/ds/rls/79141.htm;

    http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3177289&page=1

    https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

    http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/472991438/officials-scrutinized-over-classified-information-but-rarely-found-criminal

    @Encinal:

    Poor math on my part (never do math in public). The quote was half of Trump supporters, so that would be about 25% of the (voting) country based on the election results.

    From a generally pro-Clinton site;
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-basket-of-deplorables/

  106. Tom Scharf says

    One of the reasons there is some rage here is that proposing one sided empathy can be interpreted as crapping on the other side pretty easily. All this post took was to include some poor white people in the empathy Olympics and rage would have been cut down by a magnitude. I'd give it even odds that the author included this originally and decided to remove it based on their temper tantrum from the election results.

    Is it really that hard to say there are lots of people out there that are having a hard time and it is irrelevant what their skin color or religion is? We have to create a sorted list based off identity politics (and specifically what red/blue tribe they belong too). Anybody with an IQ over 80 knows when they are being disrespected no matter how clever the writer thinks they are. I invite Randazza to go knock on a door at the local trailer park and say the same thing and see what reaction he gets.

    Bigotry: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself".

    If that shoe fits, you have to wear it no matter what tribe you are in.

  107. Careless says

    So Randazza wants to tell immigrants "thank you" because he knows, without knowing anything about them, that they're making this country a better place. And then we have the complaints about the new people posting here.

    Come on, Marc, don't tell them to "eat shit", tell them "thank you for posting!"

  108. Ken B says

    Unless you are including Trump voters in those you thank this is bullshit, merely a way to call attention to yourself as "one of the good ones, not like those worthless bigots."

  109. Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey says

    A majority of government workers have Democratic leanings because to some extent civil service examinations serve as tests for intelligence and literacy. (That's why Scott Walker has just abolished them, of course.)

  110. Azathoth says

    Say thank you to the people who might be feeling marginalized?

    And then you list Muslims, immigrants, gay people, black people, and the rest of the Progressive Stack.

    What about the other people who are feeling marginalized?

    People who are told that everything they do, everything their ancestors have done, every invention and philosophy, every work of art and piece of infrastructure–everything about them is an evil fueled by a belief in the superiority of their race?

    Why did you leave them out?

    Even the 'good' ones are required to endlessly apologize for supposedly believing in the superiority of their race–even if they have never had a thought in their heads that even suggested that they believed such a thing.

    Why leave them out?

    Just do something to thank them, too. "Because, without them, we aren't America. "

  111. echo says

    A majority of government workers have Democratic leanings because to some extent civil service examinations serve as tests for intelligence and literacy.

    Yeah, I'm done with sympathy, understanding, tolerance, and everything else that gets in the way of saving this country and my people from things like this.

  112. echo says

    And at the risk of quoting Hillary Clinton:

    It goes without saying that we have to beat these people. But I want to beat them so decisively that their kind never rises again

  113. Ann says

    I scrolled down to see if "lower class white people dying from opioid overdose and no economic opportunities who voted their economic interests in the form of Trump" was on your thank you list and shocker, it wasn't.

    Indeed.

    As compared with most Americans, Trump’s voters are better off. The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both.

    Therefore:

    Are we still subscribing to the Scalzi-esque notion that playing life on a white male of any education level is still "easy mode"? Can we not console those people about their situation in life?

    Because that's how we got here,

    You're mistaken. How we got here is that there are a whole lot of people (who don't have it any worse than all the people in the country who somehow managed to deal with their feelings about their situation in life without voting for a hateful bigot whose chief campaign strategist is a white supremacist, and who actually have it better than many) who freely chose to vote for Trump.

  114. Ann says

    What about the other people who are feeling marginalized?

    People who are told that everything they do, everything their ancestors have done, every invention and philosophy, every work of art and piece of infrastructure–everything about them is an evil fueled by a belief in the superiority of their race?

    Why did you leave them out?

    I can't speak for Randazza. But I imagine that would be because people who are so sensitive that they can't sustain being vaguely aware that there are a few small pockets of the culture where people are speaking critically about white people without feeling marginalized by it don't actually have a cause for fear that's equivalent to that of people who have a reasonable expectation of possibly being assaulted, harassed, detained, or otherwise deprived of their rights, welfare, and/or liberty because of who they are.

    Especially if the former group doesn't actually live at the margins of society, but rather at its center. I mean, you'd just be enabling a paranoid delusion if you pretended otherwise. Whom would that help?

  115. Ann says

    Yeah, I'm done with sympathy, understanding, tolerance, and everything else that gets in the way of saving this country and my people from things like this.

    You're saving your country and your people from quotes that might transiently hurt the feelings of some of them?

    Seems very emotionally impulsive to ditch sympathy, understanding, tolerance, and everything else that gets in the way of that on so slight a cause. Hysterical, really.

  116. Ann says

    Could someone who actually lives there explain something to me, as I really do not understand all the wailing inside the US about the Prez:
    It was my understanding that in the American system the president had remarkably little power domestically,

    Well. This particular president will presumably fill the open seat on the Supreme Court, a nominee to which the GOP has been refusing to consider for about a year. The Dems could filibuster, but that could in turn lead to a change in the rules, so I think it's a reasonably safe presumption.

    This augurs very poorly for the rights of black people to vote, of women to have bodily autonomy, and of gay people to marry. And (obviously) Supreme Court justices last a lot longer than presidents.

    The other thing that Trump could do that should be of serious concern to everyone alive everywhere is appoint a climate-change denier to head the EPA and withdraw from the Paris Agreement. And that's exactly what he seems to intend on doing.

    If he does repeal (or allow for the repeal) of Obamacare, millions of people could lose access to health insurance, although it's not too clear that he's going to keep that promise.

    He seems to want to do away with birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, which would be….I don't know what that would be. Maybe an amendment to the Constitution, I guess. But possibly they'd just come up with an innovative interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

    This seems like a can of worms to me. (What about the third-generation progeny of illegal immigrants? Etc.) However, I admit that I don't know if he has a viable way to do it.

    Also, White House policy is now being set by a white supremacist. (Meaning Bannon, not Trump.)

    I personally would say that (apart from the climate-change denial), the thing that really justifies wailing (rather than, say, grousing) is stuff like that, though not necessarily along white-supremacist lines. Some of the people he's considering putting in very consequential and powerful positions — such as Secretary of Defense, etc. — are literally unhinged lunatics with paranoid delusions (Clare Lopez), as are some on his transition team (her associate, Frank Gaffney).

    I mean, that's really very troubling.

    Furthermore — difficult to believe as it may be — his refusal to release his tax returns, his apparent intention to keep his business up and running and in the hands of his children, and his affinity for Vladimir Putin are concerning. There's no way to say how concerning, because he refuses to release his tax returns. But still.

    Additionally, he appears to be trying to avoid any further action in the Trump University fraud case until after his inauguration, at which point he'd be in a position to have legislation passed that prevented sitting presidents from being tried for defrauding widows and retirees out of their life savings.

    I think that if that succeeds, it would set a very bad precedent. However, on the upside, if it fails, he might be impeached before he's had time to do a single thing as president apart from take the oath of office.

    I would not discount that possibility, assuming the trial occurs and goes badly for him. I'm sure that Paul Ryan and Reince Priebus would be just as happy with President Pence, if not happier.

    Does any of that help?

  117. Lagaya1 says

    Echo-

    I couldn't agree less. Ann set out a very well-reasoned and calm explanation of her concerns. Were you just itching to use the word "histrionic"? I thought so.

  118. princessartemis says

    @Ann, you sound smart enough to know that one single quote might just be an example of an avalanche of hostility that has been going on for years. Background radiation, as I've heard feminists call it. There's no need to be insulting when you could, instead, exercise some empathy.

    @Legaya1, Echo got angry about a smug jackass insulting everyone but Democrats, so Ann called Echo hysterical, then Echo called her histrionic in retaliation. Any reason you chose to snark at Echo instead of Ann?

  119. says

    So, um, anyway, about the post….
    Has anyone (other than Marc) actually tried this yet?
    I did. I thanked a new friend of mine who is an immigrant for being in this country.
    I thought it would be awkward at best, or mildly insulting at worst. I mean, I am blatantly pointing out, "You're an immigrant. You're not from around here. You're different." That's kind of an offensive thing to point out.
    It actually went so much better than I could have imagined. She was touched. We had a very nice conversation about how much we appreciated one another in general.

    This isn't about politics. It's about being good to one another, and going just a little bit above and beyond to make someone feel good.
    How much work does it really take to tell someone that you appreciate them? Almost none.
    How often do we actually say it? Almost never.

    My friend and I had had political conversations. She had never expressed fear related to the Trump presidency. And yet she still appreciated being told "thank you for being here." Because it's got nothing to do with politics.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *