Mourning in America - Trump Year One: November '16 to

marcos, fwiw, it's an NBC News story reposted by whatever the hell Newsmax is. If I get what you are saying.

is "newsmax" actually a real news source?!

― Mad Piratical (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall),

the NBC News story to which it linked is real

sorry about the newmax links guys. i know in this time of fake news we can only trust certain sources

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-didnt-obama-do-more-about-russian-election-hack-n696701

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/16/china-live-fires-aircraft-carrier-group-amid-taiwan-tensions-with-us?CMP=share_btn_tw

everything is fine

I bet Trump is asking his people if the US can just give Taiwan to China.

Man, I hope he does not start a war with China before he becomes president.

I have a question, does he have or is he trying to build hotels or other holdings in Mainland China?

Dalai Lama named US ambassador to China.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/16/china-seizes-us-underwater-drone-south-china-sea

That second one seems a lot less consequential. Just some sort of aquatic science thing. Reportedly.

And this is only a month since the election... great.

I have a feeling in years back we will look at Russian interference in the election the same way we look at the Supreme Court case that gave us George Bush.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, who is the worst possible choice Trump could make? Because we will probably get that person.

o btw I'm finding postmortems quite unpleasant now rn, but for people whose alternative vision of history suggests that HRC ran a campaign of "vote for me instead of the BAD MAN," please see this Vox piece.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech

The issue she talked about more than any other was jobs.

http://tedcruz.trendolizer.com/assets_c/2016/01/2403011-thumb-300xauto-2089884.jpg

xpost

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3361334/The-jury-s-Straight-talking-Judge-Judy-gives-verdict-Donald-Trump-tells-tone-speeches-down.html

Judge Judy is crazy about trump, anyone know her political leanings?

im trying to remember the circumstances under which bush withdrew his nomination of harriet miers and i wonder whether the same type of thing would happen w/ the current GOP and a dumb trump nomination

Newsmax, Daily Mail... Some great news sources today, guys.

Chronology:

Sandra Day O'Connor announces retirement.
Bush nominates John Roberts to take her spot.
Rehnquist dies.
Bush movies Roberts to fill his spot.
Bush nominates Harriet Miers
The Western world has a fit; Miers pulls out of nomination.
Bush nominates Sam Alito

xpost Bruh. As has been mentioned at least three times, the Newsmax thing is directly quoting an NBC News story.

Michael Cohen for SC justice, surely?

o btw I'm finding postmortems quite unpleasant now rn, but for people whose alternative vision of history suggests that HRC ran a campaign of "vote for me instead of the BAD MAN," please see this Vox piece.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech

The issue she talked about more than any other was jobs.

― troops in djibouti (Ye Mad Puffin), Friday, December 16, 2016 12:31 PM (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No, the word "job" was the most common word. For example, this speech has it three times, zero of them having anything to do with "jobs."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/transcript-hillary-clinton-alt-right-reno-227419

We all remember when Trump said a distinguished federal judge born in Indiana couldn’t be trusted to do his job because, quote, “He’s a Mexican.”

Looks Like A Lot Of China To Me. Shit.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/16/china-seizes-us-underwater-drone-south-china-sea

sorry missed the post upthread

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech

according to this she never even talked about Trump at all!

i bet he'll nominate peter thiel

It's also so classically Vox to be like "Her loss clearly didn't relate to economic issues, she said the word economy a lot!"

Thiel for press secretary, maybe? I dunno. It would be a perverse nomination, no doubt, but does it hit the sweet spot of maximum possible perversity wrt that particular position? With metrics like this, it's no wonder it's taken him so much time to iron out his cabinet!

Like, if there was a Department of Vegetarians, would you nominate a man wolfing down a bloody T-bone or the steak itself?

doubtful thiel would move to dc and give up his fawned over his sf tech billionaire life

Eh, he can just Skype in.

Trump has joked about nominating his sister to the SC, so maybe he'll do that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryanne_Trump_Barry

Been a while since we had a Marion/Maryanne Barry in DC.

Clinton's ads and the stuff her surrogates said was more noticeable than her speeches.

I dont't dislike Secretary Clinton but I also don't get this urge to protect her, or to say she somehow ran an acceptable campaign. She lost to a cartoon villain.

Michael Cohen for SC justice, surely?

Argh, my head just exploded.

Ghost of Roy Cohn

GHOST OF BORK

Holy shit, Cohen went to Cooley Law School?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Cohen_(lawyer)

I mean I normally avoid *elitist* credentialism, but that law school is literally a running joke.

uh, scratch that "literally", I don't think the joke is on foot

Ranking way down in I believe the fourth tier of US News law school rankings, Thomas Cooley famously created its own ranking system that places Cooley in the top ten in the country, largely by giving outsized weight to library square footage, iirc.

I dont't dislike Secretary Clinton but I also don't get this urge to protect her, or to say she somehow ran an acceptable campaign.

Basic human defensive reaction, innit, just to lessen the pain of being wrong. "When Prophecy Fails" and all that.

The campaign was so emotionally wrought that a lot of people wound up deeply tied-in to it, and those emotional connections ain't detached too easily, esp. due to the shock & trauma of the loss.

All of this only makes a nomination feel more likely. xp

I'm less inclined to blame Clinton herself than the Democratic Party as a whole. The had 4/6 Presidencies and a lot of Congressional control and real wages/inequality/etc. have not been strongly combatted. "But Republicans obstruct" is a lousy slogan and difficult for people to comprehend, particularly when your own party has played a part in killing things that would help.

Democrats have not shown themselves inclined to support even vaguely radical solutions, the kind of things on which they might get beaten but can point to real ideas - die on the hill of a public option/single-payer, living wage fights, minimum basic incomes, fighting for unionization. Bernie's low level social democracy struck a chord and seemed wild because our 'left' party hasn't been on board with things even right-wing European parties generally accept.

otm

No one here talking about the shit that's going down in North Carolina (is it on another thread)? It looks like a pattern that we're going to be seeing more of, both at the national level and in Republican-controlled state legislatures.

I know it's obvious by now, but this is what it looks like when fascists consolidate power using legal fig leaves, in the period before they can afford to ignore the law completely.

Except on whether to blame Clinton. I mean so far we've seen her win a virtually unlosable senate seat, lose a presidential primary where she was originally the heavy favorite, and then lose a presidential election she absolutely should not have lost. It's hardly a slam dunk, but it makes you wonder if there's an issue with her management style or what kinds of people she chooses to run her campaigns. Some of her associates have started to seem like absolute dingbats.

I'm less inclined to blame Clinton herself than the Democratic Party as a whole. The had 4/6 Presidencies and a lot of Congressional control and real wages/inequality/etc. have not been strongly combatted. "But Republicans obstruct" is a lousy slogan and difficult for people to comprehend, particularly when your own party has played a part in killing things that would help.

Democrats have not shown themselves inclined to support even vaguely radical solutions, the kind of things on which they might get beaten but can point to real ideas - die on the hill of a public option/single-payer, living wage fights, minimum basic incomes, fighting for unionization. Bernie's low level social democracy struck a chord and seemed wild because our 'left' party hasn't been on board with things even right-wing European parties generally accept.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, December 16, 2016 1:50 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

agreed

Dan -- I think there was some talk of that in the U.S. Politics thread.