Darren McCollester / Getty Images

Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz agree: ISIS is committing genocide against Christians.

Since beginning its campaign of terror in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has targeted religious minorities, including Yazidis, Christians, and Shi’a Muslims. But designating the nature of those attacks has proved somewhat more complicated. 

According to a mid-November report by Michael Isikoff, the State Department is currently considering designating ISIS’s destruction of the Yazidi community as a genocide. But Isikoff also noted that there has been internal disagreement over whether or not to apply the same designation to ISIS attacks on Christians.

Another complicating factor in the administration deliberations is what the government says, if anything, about IS atrocities aimed at Christians and other small minorities,” he wrote, adding that “officials counter that IS attacks on those groups, while likely ‘crimes against humanity,’ do not appear to meet the high bar set out in the genocide treaty...”

Since then, the classification of ISIS attacks on Christians as genocide has become a kind of culture war touchstone, with conservatives accusing the Obama administration of “a familiar pattern ... of a politically correct bias that views Christians...never as victims but always as Inquisition-style oppressors.” Candidates like Ted Cruz have been emphatic that Christians in Syria and Iraq are facing genocide, and other organizations have called on the Obama administration to include Christians in any recognition of the same. 

Now, by telling a New Hampshire crowd that she will classify ISIS attacks on Christians as genocide, in spite of the Obama administration’s hesitation, Clinton has transcended a tense cultural boundary in our national interpretation of ISIS’s atrocities abroad. 

December 09, 2016

The Washington Post / Getty Images

It’s almost as if Donald Trump is just a plain old Republican.

Last night at a rally in Des Moines, Iowa, the president-elect addressed criticism of his cabinet appointments, a motley group of plutocrats, hacks, and hangers-on. “One newspaper criticized me, ‘Why can’t we have people of modest means?’” Trump said. “Because I want people that made a fortune. Because now they’re negotiating with you.”

Never mind that these cabinet members should be negotiating for you and not with you. Trump was supposed to be an unorthodox Republican, a champion of the (white) working class. Instead his cabinet picks represent mainstays of the Republican elite: neoconservative hawks, Wall Street bankers, climate change deniers, a guy literally nicknamed the “foreclosure king.” His pick for Labor, Andrew Puzder, is even pro-immigration, a classic GOP elite position.

If voters were hoping to express their disgust at both Republicans and Democrats in electing Trump, too bad.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Is violence against women disqualifying in the age of Trump?

Old reports have resurfaced that Andrew Puzder, Trump’s pick to head the Department of Labor, abused his first wife in the 1980s. The former St. Louis attorney, who is now the head of a fast-food empire that includes Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr., has long denied the charge, but police were called at least twice to the couple’s home. The Riverfront Times reports:

In her divorce filing, [Lisa] Henning alleged that Puzder hit her, threw her to the floor and unplugged the phone after she tried to call the police for her help. Puzder would later acknowledge in a deposition that he “grabbed her by the shoulders and pushed her back,” but said he did it to stop her from hurting herself.

The divorce filing also detailed two other incidents: One in the late ‘70s in which the neighbors called the police after a shouting match turned into a plate-throwing fight, and one in which Lisa Henning alleged that Puzder punched her in 1985 while they were driving in a car.

Henning has since retracted the claim. In an email to Puzder dated November 30 and disseminated by Trump’s transition team, Henning declares, “You were not abusive.” She also writes, “I impulsively filed for a divorce without your knowledge and was counseled then to file an allegation of abuse. I regretted and still regret that decision and I withdrew those allegations over thirty years ago.”

It would appear that the Trump team has its bases covered. And there are plenty of reasons to oppose Puzder’s nomination beyond his domestic affairs, most notably his outright hostility toward policies that would improve the lives of workers. But one of the (many, many) depressing aspects of Trump’s election victory was that it showed that a lot of voters simply didn’t care that a candidate for the highest office in the country was facing nearly two dozen allegations of harassment and assault against women, most of whom decidedly refused to retract their allegations. Why wouldn’t Trump think he could get away with putting like-minded men in his cabinet?

December 08, 2016

Noel Celis/Getty

Rodrigo Duterte should work on his Trump impression, which is bad.

Everyone thinks they can do an impression of Donald Trump because Trump himself always seems to be doing one, from his gruff but oddly high and nasal voice, to the creepy way he moves his mouth, constantly pushing his lips together in a tight, often gross oval. The two most popular Trump impressions have been on Saturday Night Live, where the transition from Darrell Hammond’s buffoonish Trump to Alec Baldwin’s thuggish one mirrored a change in thinking about Trump on the left—almost overnight, he went from being a joke to a threat. (Anthony Atamanuik’s Trump is my favorite, but calling it an impression is a bit of a stretch.)

On Wednesday Philippine strongman/president/Trump’s id Rodrigo Duterte unveiled his Trump impression. Suggesting he may have a finer and subtler grasp on irony than previously imagined, he regaled a conference at the U.N. Convention Against Corruption with his take on a recent conversation he had with Trump.

This is a horrible Trump impression. Duterte does what many comedians do with Trump—ramp up his vulgarity, in this case by cursing a lot—but he makes no effort to get the voice or the mannerisms right. The substance of what he had to say, though, is interesting. “Oh, President Duterte,” Duterte says, speaking as Trump. “We should fix our bad relations. It needs a lot of, y’know, you just said something good here. And you’re doing great. I know what’s your worry about these Americans criticizing you. You are doing good. Go ahead. I have this problem on the border of Mexico and America and these goddamn shit guys are [unintelligible]. ... Maybe you can give me a suggestion, one or two, how to solve this goddamn bullshit son of a bitch.” If this is what Trump said to Duterte it makes almost no sense.

Duterte’s Trump impression did not address Trump’s alleged support for the ongoing, Duterte-instigated massacre of thousands of Filipino citizens.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

If Democrats go left, donors may get in the way.

According to a new Demos report, both major political parties draw from a mostly white, mostly male donor classand those donors tend to be more conservative than voters overall. Among the key findings from Whose Voice, Whose Choice:

While three-quarters of the adult population is white, and about 63 percent of the total population is white, 91 percent of federal election donors in 2012 and 92 percent of donors in 2014 were white. Among donors giving more than $5,000, 94 percent were white in 2014 and 93 percent were white in 2012.

• Men make up slightly less than half of the population, but comprise 63 percent of federal election donors. The pool of donors who give more than $1,000 has less gender diversity, with men making up 65 percent of donors giving more than $5,000.

• White men represent 35 percent of the adult population, but comprise 45 percent of federal election donors and account for 57 percent of money contributed.

Democratic donors are ideologically closer to the party’s voter base than Republican donors are to theirs. But when Democratic donors did diverge from voters, the results frequently undercut progressive policy initiatives. They mostly fought Obama’s push to expand SCHIP, his stimulus plan, and the Affordable Care Act. White male donors overall were more conservative than women donors on reproductive justice and specific policy issues like the Hyde Amendment. And the wealthier the donor, the more conservative they were likely to be.

These trends offer a partial explanation for the Democratic Party’s reluctance to take on a more progressive policy platform: It’s still beholden to the whims of a few exorbitantly wealthy white men. And that’s a significant obstacle to the party’s populist wing.

Jason Kempin/Getty Images

Trump’s Labor pick proves that he was never about the working class.

Andy Puzder, the CEO of CKE Restaurants Holdings Inc., which owns fast food chains like Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s, is expected to be Trump’s pick to run the Department of Labor. It’s hard to think of someone who has been a worse advocate for workers over his career. Puzder consistently rails against raising the minimum wage, even to just $9 an hour, and advocates for rolling back regulations on corporations. He also opposed President Obama’s new overtime rules. When investigated by the DOL, more than half of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s restaurants examined had at least one wage and hours violation. And, according to Talk Poverty, Puzder makes more in one day than one of his minimum wage employees makes in an entire year.

If he could, Puzder would replace all those pesky human workers with robots anyways because, in his own words, robots are “always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case.”

Puzder isn’t foreign to such cases. Do you remember those sexist Carl’s Jr. ads featuring blonde women eating burgers in bikinis that tons of women found offensive? Puzder defended the ads, saying that he was shooting for the “young hungry guy” demographic. As he told Entrepreneur magazine, “I’m 64, I want to be a young hungry guy. Some young ladies in your age group like to date young hungry guys.” This “young” hungry guy is now going to be in charge of our country’s labor policy.


Nigel Farage had an even better 2016 than Donald Trump.

Barring some dramatic turnaround, the Brexit leader and former head of the UK Independent Party has accomplished his longtime goal of ejecting the United Kingdom from the European Union. Moreover, as Thursday’s Bloomberg Businessweek profile makes clear, he’s gone from leading a small, anti-immigration political party—which only recently got a major foothold in British politics—to being a worldwide symbol of what he sees as a populist uprising and white working class backlash.

Farage is now beginning a whole new act in American politics. He appeared at a campaign rally this year with Trump, who, Businessweek’s Joshua Green writes, “adopted Farage as something between a talisman and a mascot” and promised an election result that would be “Brexit times 50.” After delivering on that promise, the president-elect made sure Farage was the first foreign politician he met with and even lobbied on Twitter for Farage to be Britain’s ambassador to the United States.

Now Farage is running around Washington as a right-wing celebrity among Republicans, going to parties, taking selfies with admirers, and pitching members of Congress like Senator Rand Paul on his latest political project: a bilateral trade agreement between America and the United Kingdom. “His ideas will always be listened to seriously in a Trump White House,” Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, told the magazine.

The best part for Farage is that he has no real responsibilities. He can bask in his newfound influence and celebrity, and promote his agenda—which partly is to promote himself. But unlike Trump, he doesn’t bear the burden of actually having to govern.

Kimberley White/Getty

Rest assured: Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg says fake news didn’t sway the election.

Facebook, you may have heard, has a fake news problem. That is a problem because Facebook has a stranglehold on news distribution online, which means that Facebook itself is the problem.

A week after Donald Trump’s election, it was revealed that the company had a fix for fake news, but didn’t roll it out, presumably to avoid pissing off lunatics and other people who love posting crazy stuff online. Mark Zuckerberg has since addressed the issue, outlining steps to curb the dissemination of fake news posts. But Zuckerberg has also, as my colleague Sarah Jones notes, refused to take real responsibility for the crisis, saying that “of all the content on Facebook, more than 99 percent of what people see is authentic” and that “identifying the ‘truth’ is complicated.”

With the controversy still swirling, Facebook sent celebrity feminism avatar Sheryl Sandberg to the Today Show to calm everyone down. “There have been claims that it swayed the election, and we don’t think it swayed the election,’’ Sandberg told Savannah Guthrie. “But we take that responsibility really seriously. And we’re looking at things, like working with third parties, helping to label false news, doing the things we can do to make it clearer what’s a hoax on Facebook.”

There are a few problems here, however. The first is that Hillary Clinton lost a number of key states by fewer than 100,000 votes. Without evidence, Facebook’s insistence that it did not play a major role in the election should be treated with an enormous amount of skepticism, considering that a lot of Americans get their news from the social network.

Second, Facebook’s market-oriented response to the problem does not ameliorate any of these concerns. “We know that people don’t want to see hoaxes on Facebook, and we don’t want to see hoaxes on Facebook,” Sandberg told Guthrie. “And so we’re working on it because misinformation is something we take seriously and something we’re going to continue to iterate on the service.” Facebook cares about fake news only because it cares about “user experience,” not because it is invested in nurturing a new kind of public discourse after it disrupted the old kind. This problem won’t go away until Facebook takes that responsibility seriously.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

If Donald Trump keeps being a bully on Twitter, someone’s going to get hurt.

Last night, Chuck Jones, president of United Steelworkers 1999, was quoted in a CNN segment saying that the president-elect had “lied his ass off” about the deal to save jobs at the Carrier plant in Indiana. According to Jones, only 730 union jobs were being saved (Trump had given the figure of 1,100, but that included non-union jobs that were not going to be out-sourced).

Trump responded with two petulant tweets attacking Jones and the union:

Trump has more than 17 million Twitter followers, and some of them took Trump’s words as a call to harass Jones in real life. As The Washington Post reports:

Half an hour after Trump tweeted about Jones on Wednesday, the union leader’s phone began to ring and kept ringing, he said. One voice asked: What kind of car do you drive? Another said: We’re coming for you.

He wasn’t sure how these people found his number.

“Nothing that says they’re gonna kill me, but, you know, you better keep your eye on your kids,” Jones said later on MSNBC. “We know what car you drive. Things along those lines.”

The incoming president of the United States is using social media to launch personal attacks against private citizens that have criticized him. This behavior, one of the many ways that Trump is violating the norms that govern his office, could lead to real violence.

December 07, 2016

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Joe Biden is the only person enjoying Trump’s transition.

While most everyone else, including the president-elect, seems to be in a foul mood amid the formation of a new cabinet, the outgoing vice president is having a ball, engaging in multiple consecutive days of trolling. Last night, he joked about making an improbable third run for the presidency against Trump in 2020—at which point Biden will be 77 years old. “I mean, hell, Donald Trump’s gonna be 74. I’ll be 77 and in better shape,” he told Stephen Colbert. “I mean, what the hell?”

Biden was even more provocative on Capitol Hill Monday, saying, “I’m going to run,” while also adding, for good measure, “What the hell, man.”

“I’m not committing not to run,” he told reporters. “I’m not committing to anything.”

No one’s quite sure what Biden’s playing at here, but maybe he’s simply resolved to enjoy himself in his final days in office. As I’ve previously argued, his legacy is better off if he doesn’t ever seek the White House again, but floating the idea is certainly one way to make sure he’s not forgotten in the administration’s waning days.

When NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell pressed him on a run as he walked into a meeting with House Democrats Tuesday, Biden smiled and joked, “I’m going to announce right now.”

Know who else was Time’s Person of the Year?

Bono. But also Hitler, in 1938, as was pointed out repeatedly on Wednesday. Remember, the Person of the Year isn’t necessarily heroic or even admirable. Time simply bestows the distinction on “the person who had the greatest influence, for better or worse, on the events of the year.”

Some, however, are noting some similarities between Trump’s Person of the Year cover and a separate Time cover of Hitler from April 14, 1941. Coincidence?