Donald Trump’s objection to a hand recount of nearly 4.8 million votes in Michigan, which the Trump campaign submitted yesterday, is the latest in a series of efforts to block three states from verifying the accuracy and integrity of their elections. His campaign team is aggressively working to obstruct and weaken recounts demanded by voters in:
Pennsylvania, where late Thursday evening, just hours after his vote lead fell from more than 70,000 to 46,435, Trump moved to block the vote recount, claiming that it “puts Pennsylvania at grave risk”;
Wisconsin, where Trump allies in the State Republican Party logged a complaint with the FEC, arguing for the full recount to be thrown out; and Trump’s Super PAC and others filed a federal lawsuit against the Wisconsin Election Commission to enjoin the recount;
Michigan, where Trump lawyers filed an objection with the Board of State Canvassers to block Michigan’s recount, and the state’s Attorney General similarly moved Friday to halt the recount.
“We won’t stand down as Donald Trump and his allies seek to frivolously obstruct the legal processes set up to ensure the accuracy, security and fairness of our elections. – Jill Stein
If you would like to donate to the recount efforts, which are being publicly funded and are still in need of around $2m to go through, you can do so here. You do have to be an American to donate, unfortunately, but please pass this on to your American followers if nothing else.
“Advocacy and organizing is the thing that has always made the difference. From the suffragist movement that won us the right to vote in 1920, to the feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s that won us independence through reproductive freedom, to the reproductive justice movements of the last decade that have shined a bright light on the continuing inequities for poor women and women of color, there’s no substitute for the power of working hand in hand to change minds and hearts, and bring our collective voices into the political sphere.
That’s what we live and breathe here at NARAL, and we want to work with you all. Here’s how.”
Andrew O’Hehir uses hyperbole the way others employ punctuation, and the result is deeply troubling but oh so dead-on. Brace yourself:
How much of the “news” is fake? How much of reality is “real”? After an election cycle driven by lies, delusions and propaganda — including lies about lies, multiple layers of fake news and meta-fake news — we are about to install a fake president, elected by way of the machineries of fake democracy.
The country that elected him is fake too, at least in the sense that the voters who supported Donald Trump largely inhabit an imaginary America, or at least want to. They think it’s an America that used to exist, one they heard about from their fathers and grandfathers and have always longed to go back to. It’s not.
Hillary Clinton was the ultimate Establishment candidate facing the ultimate outsider, and also a quintessential old-media personality facing a veritable Voldemort of social media. Given that, she came pretty damn close to pulling it off. But Clinton was also a candidate from reality facing a shimmering celebrity avatar, a clownish prankster who took physical form in our universe but who could say anything and do anything because he was self-evidently not real. That disadvantage proved impossible to overcome.
Furthermore, Trump’s supporters may be delusional and misguided, but they aren’t half as dumb as they often look to “coastal elites.” Many of them understood, consciously or otherwise, that his incoherent promises could not be taken literally and that his outrageous personality did not reflect the realm of reality. They were sick of reality, and you can’t entirely blame them. For lots of people in “middle America” (the term is patronizing, but let’s move on) reality has been so debased, or so much replaced, as to seem valueless.
If reality means lives of pointless service-sector drudgery, downward mobility or stagnation, fast-food dinners, opioid addiction and traffic jams, then escape into fantasy seems forgivable. Donald Trump is a creature of the nurturing electronic cocoon that disrupts or replaces reality, an overlord of consumerism. (He is not in any meaningful sense a “capitalist.” Capitalists produce things, in the real world.) To paraphrase Michael Moore, Trump represented a historic opportunity to extend a giant middle finger to reality itself, and to the forces that have rendered it so dismal.
When I suggested a few weeks ago that Trump’s worldview resembled the narcissistic simulated universe of “The Matrix,” I had no idea how far the analogy would go. His election represents the moment when roughly half our voting population — slightly less than that, to be fair — spoke out clearly: Give us the blue pill! That’s the one where you wake up in your beds and believe whatever you want to believe, leaving reality behind. If onetime movie star Ronald Reagan was the first postmodern president (the word still meant something back then), Trump will be the first post-reality president.
Go read it. O’Herir says we have fallen out of context, we’re in the Matrix:
I believe we must behave as if democracy were in dire and perhaps terminal peril, and as if this might be the moment when our two-century-plus experiment in republican self-government tips over into squishy, soft-focus and nearly content-free fascism. But even that analysis, on reflection, feels too limited. It’s too closely tied to the vanquished world of reality, the world where history mattered and where actions were understood to have consequences. The world of context.
It’s not about democracy, per se, either. We have to escape the Matrix before we can do anything.
America has always
been aspirational to me. Even when I chafed at its hypocrisies, it
somehow always seemed sure, a nation that knew what it was doing,
refreshingly free of that anything-can-happen existential uncertainty so
familiar to developing nations. But no longer.
The election of Donald
Trump has flattened the poetry in America’s founding philosophy: the
country born from an idea of freedom is to be governed by an unstable,
stubbornly uninformed, authoritarian demagogue. And in response to this
there are people living in visceral fear, people anxiously trying to
discern policy from bluster, and people kowtowing as though to a new
king. Things that were recently pushed to the corners of America’s
political space—overt racism, glaring misogyny, anti-intellectualism—are
once again creeping to the center.
is the time to resist the slightest extension in the boundaries of what
is right and just. Now is the time to speak up and to wear as a badge
of honor the opprobrium of bigots. Now is the time to confront the weak
core at the heart of America’s addiction to optimism; it allows too
little room for resilience, and too much for fragility. Hazy visions of
“healing” and “not becoming the hate we hate” sound dangerously like
appeasement. The responsibility to forge unity belongs not to the
denigrated but to the denigrators. The premise for empathy has to be
equal humanity; it is an injustice to demand that the maligned identify
with those who question their humanity.
loves winners, but victory does not absolve. Victory, especially a
slender one decided by a few thousand votes in a handful of states, does
not guarantee respect. Nobody automatically deserves deference on
ascending to the leadership of any country. American journalists know
this only too well when reporting on foreign leaders—their default mode
with Africans, for instance, is nearly always barely concealed disdain.
President Obama endured disrespect from all quarters. By far the most
egregious insult directed toward him, the racist movement tamely termed
“birtherism,” was championed by Trump.
Yet, a day after the election, I heard a journalist on the radio speak of the vitriol between Obama and Trump.
No, the vitriol was Trump’s. Now is the time to burn false
equivalencies forever. Pretending that both sides of an issue are equal
when they are not is not “balanced” journalism; it is a fairy tale—and,
unlike most fairy tales, a disingenuous one.
is the time to refuse the blurring of memory. Each mention of
“gridlock” under Obama must be wrought in truth: that “gridlock” was a
deliberate and systematic refusal of the Republican Congress to work
with him. Now is the time to call things what they actually are, because
language can illuminate truth as much as it can obfuscate it. Now is
the time to forge new words. “Alt-right” is benign. “White-supremacist
right” is more accurate.
Now is the
time to talk about what we are actually talking about. “Climate
contrarian” obfuscates. “Climate-change denier” does not. And because
climate change is scientific fact, not opinion, this matters…
GUYS WE DID IT WE HAVE A LEFT-WING PRESIDENT I CANNOT BELIEVE IT :) :) :) :) :) i mean this was the third time we’ve tried to elect him and finally, it worked. i mean i’m still scared as far as next year’s parliament election is concerned, but this is HUGE given the political circumstances all around us.
You know, as someone who was born in the same district where Hitler was born, Hofer (our far right candidate) scared me a great deal and it was even more frightening to see my district being clearly pro-Hofer. People whose fathers and grandfathers died in the war were giving their vote to someone who is equally dangerous, but was very good at hiding it. And even if he did voice his (disgusting) opinions on equality of any matter, people were cheering to him.
But now, now I can breathe a bit more. Thank you. The woman and lesbian in me can finally calm down and be less frightened.