Yeah, that’s a great idea. Mock and make fun of people who genuinely feel afraid and are grieving right now.

Real classy, people.

I have family and friends who are going through that right now, young, middle age and elderly, and most of us know lots of people who have every right in the world to be seriously afraid of a Trump/GOP presidency. That is, if we know black and brown people, women, Muslims and LGBT folks, especially.

It’s to be expected that more than a few Trump voters would do this, given their support for an authoritarian bigot and lying, chickenhawk bully. But too many people on the left are piling on too. And that does surprise me.

The French produced some great war poetry as well. But, like the German, I’m stuck with reading translations. I still get so much from those, and try to find alternative translations for my favorite poets — 99% via actual books, not online.

To shorten the list, Robert Desnos, Guillame Apollinaire and Paul Eluard, might be good places to start.

Eluard’s Liberté

https://allpoetry.com/Libert-

Liberté
On my school notebooks
On my desk and on the trees
On the sands of snow
I write your name

On the pages I have read
On all the white pages
Stone, blood, paper or ash
I write your name

On the images of gold
On the weapons of the warriors
On the crown of the king
I write your name

On the jungle and the desert
On the nest and on the brier
On the echo of my childhood
I write your name

On all my scarves of blue
On the moist sunlit swamps
On the living lake of moonlight
I write your name

On the fields, on the horizon
On the birds’ wings
And on the mill of shadows
I write your name

On each whiff of daybreak
On the sea, on the boats
On the demented mountaintop
I write your name

On the froth of the cloud
On the sweat of the storm
On the dense rain and the flat
I write your name

On the flickering figures
On the bells of colors
On the natural truth
I write your name

On the high paths
On the deployed routes
On the crowd-thronged square
I write your name

On the lamp which is lit
On the lamp which isn’t
On my reunited thoughts
I write your name

On a fruit cut in two
Of my mirror and my chamber
On my bed, an empty shell
I write your name

On my dog, greathearted and greedy
On his pricked-up ears
On his blundering paws
I write your name

On the latch of my door
On those familiar objects
On the torrents of a good fire
I write your name

On the harmony of the flesh
On the faces of my friends
On each outstretched hand
I write your name

On the window of surprises
On a pair of expectant lips
In a state far deeper than silence
I write your name

On my crumbled hiding-places
On my sunken lighthouses
On my walls and my ennui
I write your name

On abstraction without desire
On naked solitude
On the marches of death
I write your name

And for the want of a word
I renew my life
For I was born to know you
To name you

Liberty.

All rights reserved, © Carla Yasmine Atwi. Copying without permission for non-personal use is forbidden. © by owner. provided at no charge for educational purposes

Thanks, Nittany.

___

Zooey,

Have you considered Paul Celan’s Deathfugue? It’s beyond devastating. I don’t read German, but I bought his (bilingual) selected prose and poetry, translated by John Felstiner. Have previously read his excellent bio on Celan, with its essential (side) discussion on the difficulties of translation.

I read it too long ago to be sure about this, but I think Celan’s poem was at least in part an answer to Adorno’s comment, “There can be no (lyric) poetry after Auschwitz.”

(That comment has been translated with or without the lyric part.)

https://www.celan-projekt.de/todesfuge-englisch.html

Black milk of daybreak we drink it at evening
we drink it at midday and morning we drink it at night
we drink and we drink
we shovel a grave in the air there you won’t lie too cramped
A man lives in the house he plays with his vipers he writes
he writes when it grows dark to Deutschland your golden hair Margareta
he writes it and steps out of doors and the stars are all sparkling, he whistles his hounds to come close
he whistles his Jews into rows has them shovel a grave in the ground
he commands us to play up for the dance.

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at morning and midday we drink you at evening
we drink and we drink
A man lives in the house he plays with his vipers he writes
he writes when it grows dark to Deutschland your golden hair Margareta
Your ashen hair Shulamith we shovel a grave in the air there you won’t lie too cramped

He shouts jab the earth deeper you lot there you others sing up and play
he grabs for the rod in his belt he swings it his eyes are so blue
jab your spades deeper you lot there you others play on for the dancing

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at midday and morning we drink you at evening
we drink and we drink
a man lives in the house your goldenes Haar Margareta
your aschenes Haar Shulamith he plays his vipers
He shouts play death more sweetly this Death is a master from Deutschland
he shouts scrape your strings darker you’ll rise then as smoke to the sky
you’ll have a grave then in the clouds there you won’t lie too cramped

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at midday Death is a master aus Deutschland
we drink you at evening and morning we drink and we drink
this Death is ein Meister aus Deutschland his eye it is blue
he shoots you with shot made of lead shoots you level and true
a man lives in the house your goldenes Haar Margarete
he looses his hounds on us grants us a grave in the air
he plays with his vipers and daydreams der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland

dein goldenes Haar Margarete
dein aschenes Haar Shulamith

(Übersetzung von John Felstiner, in: Paul Celan – Poet, Survivor, Jew. New Haven 1995.)

bnw wrote:

Then tell Obama not to say he was born in Kenya. Tell his Kenyan relatives too.

He didn’t. He’s always said he was born in Hawaii. Which he was.

What do you think, personally, bnw? Do you think he was born overseas and shouldn’t have been president because of that?

bnw wrote:

We have gone over this before. Better trade deals, less regulation, tax breaks, repatriation of corporate cash from abroad, tariff on goods brought into the US by manufacturers that stiffed the US worker and taxpayer, $1 Trillion infrastructure modernization and a stop to illegal immigration. A very synergistic approach.

The only thing on that list that will help any worker is the trillion for infrastructure. If he gets that through a GOP congress which fought against all of Obama’s infrastructure proposals, it will be a miracle. But I’d definitely support that. Big time.

All the rest just help the 1% or the 0.1%. It’s just standard issue trickle down. The GOP has peddled that for decades, and it’s never worked for anyone but the rich.

Every time we’ve tried that tax holiday stuff — the last time was 2004 — it’s been an utter failure. Google it and you’ll find even conservative publications blasting that idea. No serious economists support it. It’s just rewarding anti-American corporate behavior, and has never resulted in net benefits for us.

Repatriation Tax Holiday Would Lose Revenue And Is a Proven Policy Failure

And tariffs? Under the system of global capitalism, which conservatives helped bigly to create, and Trump exploits, that would backfire big time. You don’t think other nations would respond in kind? At best, that cancels out Trump’s move. At best.

btw,

Also: If Trump does go against decades of GOP policy and plans to lift up the 1% and crush the 99% — if he does, in fact, focus solely on making life better for all Americans, instead of just the 1%, then I’d support that too.

But, right off the bat, he’d have to at least dump his tax proposals, because all of that is just standard issue, feed the plutocrats bullshit. All of that just wildly increases the gap between rich and poor, rich and the middle, the middle and the poor.

And, hands piles and piles of cash to Trump himself and his children in the bargain.

You’ve never dealt with that aspect of his proposals either, bnw.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

Who was following Trump on twitter in 2012?

So that excuses his meltdown? That excuses his racist crusade against Obama beginning in 2011, cuz he didn’t have as many twitter followers as he does now? That’s when he started his hysterical bullshit about Obama’s place of birth, and his college degree, and his supposedly sinister background, because electing the first black president simply could not stand in his eyes, and in the eyes of the alt-right which was yet to get their time in the sun.

To disagree with Obama is not being racist.

That’s a straw man. No one ever said it was, bnw. But it is racist to rant and rave about him not being born here, and demand for proof that he was. It is racist to ask for his papers, and endlessly question how he got into college, thrived there, was editor of the Harvard Review, taught Constitutional law for twelve years, etc. etc. It is racist to discriminate against blacks in his own rental properties. It is racist to launch a campaign against the “Central Park Five” and to still say they were guilty after being proven innocent.

I’m one of the Central Park Five. Donald Trump won’t leave me alone. The Republican candidate’s antics have filled me with fear.

The list goes on and on and on. But his supporters are still in denial about all of that, and that in no way surprises me.

bnw wrote:

Zooey wrote:

— X — wrote:

zn wrote:

Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

I submit that it’s THAT, and not some sort of White Supremacist movement, that got Trump in.

I completely agree.

The white supremacists did endorse Trump, but for all the attention they got, they just aren’t that big of a bloc. And they would never vote for a democrat anyway since Democrats are allegedly the party of color.

I believe it is completely the fact that the Democrats have abandoned the working class, and Trump appealed to them.

Wow you finally admitted Trump wasn’t elected because of racism. Good job.

Well, I disagree with Zooey on that one. Obviously, all the people who voted for Trump weren’t racists. But all the racists voted for Trump. And under our election system, with a seriously divided nation and lots of close calls state by state, that percentage was the key to helping him win the Electoral College.

And he hired a racist to be his campaign manager, Steve Bannon.

It’s looking more and more like Clinton will win big in the popular vote, btw. Most of the outstanding votes are in California, Washington and New York. She’s already up to something like a lead of 1.8 million. She may well end up with a 3-million-vote edge.

And Trump is going to end up in the Romney and McCain range. A loozer. That sure is some “majority” mass movement you got there.

— X — wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

X,

Would you take a moment and address this?

Trump is breaking with more than a century of precedent by refusing to place his large business holdings in a blind trust. His children, who are a part of his transition team, will be taking over all of that, directly. Trump obviously knows what he owns, the stocks, the companies, the land, the deals in place and pending. If it was questionable or worse for the Clintons to run a charity while HRC was at State, why is it not an even greater issue when Trump is in the White House and his kids continue to run his business empire?

Okay.

A. He’s not the President yet, so he’s not doing anything wrong — yet.
B. Did you expect him to totally divest and put his holdings in the hands of 5 other people within 4 days?
C. Trump’s fortunes are largely built on his brand. How do you put a “brand” in a blind trust? Anything Trump does as president will affect the value of that brand anyway. His kids are also a huge part of his businesses too, so how does he then eliminate the conflict of interest between the business and his job as POTUS? Divest his kids? If one of them creates a new business in the next couple of years, is there a conflict of interest for Trump if he signs a bill into law that ends up benefiting *that* business? Do they also need to put *their* holdings in a blind trust?

Billy_T wrote:

Is it only “crony capitalism” when anyone but a Republican does it? Is it only a conflict of interest and “pay to play” when anyone else but a Republican does it?

Are you suggesting I’m being hypocritical somehow?
Or is that one of those questions you just threw out there into the ambient air?

A. He told us he would not put his business in a blind trust and that his kids would run it. He told people that before the election. He also broke with decades of precedent by hiding his tax returns, though we managed to see a couple. This, too, shielded the American people from the truth about his entanglements and potential conflicts of interest. But from his financial statement, we still got a pretty good idea that they’re legion.

B. It’s not about timing. He said he won’t do it. It’s not that it takes time and we need to be patient. He won’t be doing what all other presidents have done for well over a century, and for obvious reasons.

C. What you describe is not our problem. It’s not just up to the American people to try to figure out a way to make sure Trump doesn’t act to increase his wealth. That’s on him, and he’s taken absolutely no steps to come close to doing so. And, you’ve also described why it was insane to elect him in the first place, and why it’s always going to be insane to elect a billionaire businessman or woman. Even with a serious blind trust, they are ripe for mega-conflict-of-interest.

And then, there’s Donald Trump, back in 2012, preaching revolution because Obama won reelection.

Donald Trump Freaks Out on Twitter After Obama Wins Election

Shortly after President Barack Obama was announced the winner of the 2012 election, Donald Trump had what some might call a melodramatic freak out on Twitter. He condemned America’s democratic process, said the Electoral College should get out of town and called for a revolution.

But Trump is still OK with the concept of freedom of speech and told the Twitterverse just how he felt.

He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

We can’t let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

More votes equals a loss…revolution!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

Our country is now in serious and unprecedentedtrouble…like never before.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

Don’t worry all hope isn’t lost though, Trump still has faith in the Republican controlled House of Representatives to carry the country, but of course only if it’s on Trump’s own terms. But no word yet if the House of Reps even know who the fanatic guy on Twitter is.

Hopefully the House of Representatives can hold our country together for four more years…stay strong and never give up!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

House of Representatives shouldn’t give anything to Obama unless he terminates Obamacare.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

Do you think Trump is going to pack up and head to Canada now?

Image courtesy of Flickr, Gage Skidmore.

[UPDATE: Donald Trump deleted a few of his earlier tweets from the night after negative backlash. But here’s a screenshot of all of them, courtesy of New York Magazine.]

• This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

X,

Would you take a moment and address this?

Trump is breaking with more than a century of precedent by refusing to place his large business holdings in a blind trust. His children, who are a part of his transition team, will be taking over all of that, directly. Trump obviously knows what he owns, the stocks, the companies, the land, the deals in place and pending. If it was questionable or worse for the Clintons to run a charity while HRC was at State, why is it not an even greater issue when Trump is in the White House and his kids continue to run his business empire?

Is it only “crony capitalism” when anyone but a Republican does it? Is it only a conflict of interest and “pay to play” when anyone else but a Republican does it?

Seriously. How can this not piss off the very people who screamed bloody murder about “The Clinton Crime Syndicate” with all of their allegedly shady deals, real or imagined?

And while it looks like the board basically ignored this article, I think it really, really needs to be read. It’s stunning how little attention this has gotten from the media, IMO:

Trump’s conflicts of interest take White House into uncharted territory With his children, and not a blind trust, running his company, little prevents the president-elect’s political and business careers from bleeding into each other

The above isn’t some left-wing fabrication. No one in the Trump camp is denying any of this. In fact, Trump proudly told his own rallies that his kids would run his businesses while he’s prez, and he would break with more than a century of precedent by refusing to put all of that in a blind trust.

Seriously. Think about the massive number of likely conflicts of interest regarding his holdings — and they’re all over the world. Actions he and the GOP take or don’t take will have direct impact on his wealth, and he’s going to know all about that on a day to day basis.

The fight over the Dakota Pipeline? Trump has large holdings in that company. People don’t think that’s going to impact his decision to go forward or side with the Native American population there?

I’ve got some great beachfront property in Afghanistan for ya if you don’t think that will matter.

wv wrote:

Hitler on the Election

Is there one in which Hitler is happy Trump won? Cuz, um, that would make a hell of a lot more sense, given his strong alt-right, Neo-Nazi, White Nationalist and KKK support — not to mention his extremely low totals when it comes to black and brown voters.

wv wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

OK, I’m cutting back in to make one last comment.

I know the GOP increased the use of fillibusters. I knew that when I posted my link. I believe that to be the result of a president who tried to force things through rather than negotiate. He is the one who said “elections have consequences.” That should be a red flag for any party to hear. I want to see a President who will take the time to discuss with the other side and find ways to compromise

————-

Well you are coming at that from a point of view on the ‘right’. You know how us leftists see it? — Obama didnt fight hard enough for ANYTHING. He was MR COMPROMISE. Or actually MR THROW IN THE TOWEL WITHOUT FIGHTING FOR ANYTHING. Honestly thats how leftists view him.

So, different ‘truths’ based on where we stand politically.

Different views.

I will not try to change your mind though. I’ll not hammer you with a gazillion reasons why you are ‘wrong’ and why you should change your mind, etc. THAT is where political boards always simmer and boil over.

We all gotta stop trying to prove the other person WRONG about stuff. Just share
yer view, listen to the opposing views, and acknowledge the difference and…..next topic.

w
v

Yep. That’s how we see Obama and the Dems.

NewMexicoRam wrote:

OK, I’m cutting back in to make one last comment.

I know the GOP increased the use of fillibusters. I knew that when I posted my link. I believe that to be the result of a president who tried to force things through rather than negotiate. He is the one who said “elections have consequences.” That should be a red flag for any party to hear. I want to see a President who will take the time to discuss with the other side and find ways to compromise. That’s the way things get done. I believe we are seeing Trump begin to do that. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but I doubt it. I’m ok with the fact that the GOP won’t get everything they want. And the left should feel the same.

And I’m sure there are over 300 million ways in this country to take positions on an issue. Somehow, over our history, this has boiled down to 2 major parties instead of the 3,4,5 or whatever numbers of positions there are. It works as a 2 “position” platform for the most part, with each party having its disagreements within their ranks. But it still works as a big awkward 2 party system. So, while I respect the opinions of everyone here and their multiple sides, 2 parties is what is largely seen in public and I’ll use terminology that fits as best it can within that, hoping people realize I know there are a multitude of opinions and positions.

I am not going to be a guy who takes his ball and bat and goes home whining. Please don’t think that of me. But I want to see discussions that recognize none of us are perfect, no party or position is perfect, and we live with flaws. I can respect the positions of others here, while disagreeing. But let’s not use “they always, or never” and terminology like that, please. If there are multitudes of positions, please recognize that in “the other side” as well. I tend to vote GOP, but believe me, there are things that frighten me about doing so. I just hope and pray that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can continue for years to come.

NMR,

On that part in bold. If that harmless little statement caused problems among the GOP — and I don’t for a second believe it did — then the people who did react to it are incredibly sensitive and need to buck up. It’s also a statement I’ve heard come out of the mouths of presidents and congressional leaders after every election in my lifetime. It’s standard fare. Nothing more. Both parties always say that.

And, again, Obama did take the time to discuss the issues with the GOP. He continuously reached across the aisle and had his hand slapped down. As ZN said, I’m highly critical of this, that the Dems do this all the time, that they go fetal, spineless, cave in. It pisses me off. But, from everything I witnessed and read about, following politics far too closely for my own health, I have never in my life seen a president more willing to work with the other side — to a fault. This is all the more stunning given the way his overtures were met.

Take the ACA. The Dems and Obama set up endless meetings between the two parties, industry, etc. etc. including the Gang of Six — basically three conservadems and three republicans. They hashed things out for nearly two years. The Dems agreed to more than 150 GOP amendments in hopes of getting them on board, and they began the entire thing with the Heritage Foundation and Romneycare as its basis. It started on the Republican side and they still added 150 GOP amendments. Did the Dems receive a single GOP vote after all of that?

Um, nope.

This happened with the Stimulus too. Major concessions toward the Republicans, including tax cuts that made up nearly a third of the Stimulus. That wasn’t good enough either.

(more below, to split this up a bit).