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

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.

'dying on the hill' of public option/single-payer not actually so useful for people who couldn't get health care. what people seem to forget is that passing obamacare was a die on the hill moment - and most of his presidency was us dealing with the fallout after 2 fairly progressive and productive years of american government.

also is anyone watching the press conference, I am sitting in a doctor's office

― jason waterfalls (gbx), Friday, December 16, 2016 2:44 PM (six minutes ago

aren't you always sitting in a doctor's office

today I am a patient!!

Did someone just faint? Why are they calling for a doctor?

Nevermind. Sorted.

(Even with stuff like that I can't help but think Trump would turn this into a disaster).

still i feel like not much is going to come of this..... if it benefits the GOP and they are the dominant party then what the fuck is gonna happen?

― marcos

you mean beyond the collapse of democracy as a viable political system?

like he said: if it benefits the gop,

didn't watch obama's address but the reaction from liberal twitter is not good

Obama being the wrong kind of don't give a fuck.

guess he doesn't care about his legacy after all

he does come across a tad defeatist, but I can't really blame him tbh. All these q's of journalists basically begging him to tell this and that to Trump in the transition. He can say it, but no chance in hell Trump is gonna listen.

O hay I see Hannity (and surely many others) are calling out a mythical 'alt-left' now. These fuckers play the 'rubber, meet glue' game like they've been eight-years-old forever.

I assume this 'alt left' is BLM and their legions of inspired cop killing followers

good for obama for not helping anyone pretend this isn't happening.

i was pretty let down by his press conference. he just seemed... low. defeated.

Per Corey Robin, reactionary assholes have had no problem in parroting & perverting reformer or progressive language for like 4+ decades now.

I'm watching it now. He's being extra careful, more "uhs" than usual

But he was firm about Putin's involvement and condemning the right for propagating fake news and for loving Putin

Given the context and the weight of this transition, I'm somewhat impressed that Obama is able to hold a press conference at all without going full Budd Dwyer.

He sounded very much done with all this shit, and maybe a little resentful that people are abandoning him for literally the worst alternative.

Kinda curious what Joe Biden's last press conference would sound like

Just a long sigh.

Still watching this btw, press q's now. Earlier he said something about how it's wrong to see democrats as 'latte sipping pc people'. Just now he took a sip of what I think was... a latte.

He should've very pointedly and exaggeratedly sipped his latte while making a jerking off motion with the other hand.

Lol.

Suppose this moment had to come to throw out the cliche that despite this lackluster appearance, I too will miss this great Kenian.

according to lester holt there at the end, that was the longest obama press conference

I went to the loo twice during it. Presidential bladder tbh.

Haven't seen the press conference to judge the tone for myself, but if I had to guess why he seems defeated, I would assume that a month of trying to ease his successor's transition and ultimately coming to the same conclusion as everyone else who's dealt with the douche that he doesn't give a fuck about learning or understanding anything probably has a little something to do with it.

He sounded very much done with all this shit, and maybe a little resentful that people are abandoning him for literally the worst alternative.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, December 16, 2016 8:54 PM (eighteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

imagine dealing with the cognitive dissonance between what trump ran and won on and the current state of the economy and obama's approval rating. I would want to get out and move the fuck on too.

Old Lunch otm

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/politics/donald-trump-david-friedman-israel-ambassador.html?smid=tw-bna

― 龜, Friday, December 16, 2016 7:58 AM (five hours ago)

uh have we discussed the fact that this dude is literally Trump's bankruptcy lawyer (or at least one of them)?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/16/505805411/trumps-pick-for-ambassador-to-israel-end-the-2-state-narrative

photo:
Attorney David Friedman (left) exits U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Camden, N.J., with Donald Trump and Trump's daughter Ivanka in a 2010 case involving Atlantic City casinos. The president-elect plans to nominate Friedman as U.S. ambassador to Israel.

I don't get what people were expecting Obama to do. He doesn't have a magical lever that can stop Trump from being president. I'd love a deus ex machina now as much as anyone, but I really doubt it's coming, whether in the form of the electoral college, Russia investigation, etc., so best prepare for a long, drawn out fight. And if one does come, it will be due to GOP-infighting and leave us with some other marginally more tolerable GOP shitbag and the same GOP shitbag congress, in which case we will still have to prepare for a long, drawn out fight.

i don't know anything about friedman, but josh marshall isn't a fan:

Friedman represents the extremes of the most vicious and destructive elements of rightist Zionism and the indeed the most radical elements of American Jewry.

Chemi Shalev captures the essence here.
By Israeli standards, Donald Trump’s designated Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is an extreme right-winger. He might find a place in the settler movement or with Naftali Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi Party, but only on its right-wing fringes. He makes Benjamin Netanyahu seem like a left-wing defeatist. From where Friedman stands, most Israelis, never mind most American Jews, are more or less traitors.

Friedman has repeatedly attacked J Street, the pro-Israel, pro-Peace group, and its members as worse than the Jewish collaborators who served the Nazis during the Holocaust.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-worst-of-the-worst

I wasn't expecting a deus ex machina, just more... spirit? it was his energy that threw me off.

is "American Jewry" a good term to use?

man alive otm

is "American Jewry" a good term to use?

― akm, Friday, December 16, 2016 4:34 PM (ten minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

josh marshall is jewish

it is a standard accepted term yes

So Obama did not make a bigger stink about Russian meddling before the election because he didn't want to seem like he was meddling. And now that there is more and more consensus about the extent of the Russian meddling, he doesn't want to meddle.

another chess move! that's our obama

I don't get what people were expecting Obama to do. He doesn't have a magical lever that can stop Trump from being president. I'd love a deus ex machina now as much as anyone, but I really doubt it's coming, whether in the form of the electoral college, Russia investigation, etc., so best prepare for a long, drawn out fight. And if one does come, it will be due to GOP-infighting and leave us with some other marginally more tolerable GOP shitbag and the same GOP shitbag congress, in which case we will still have to prepare for a long, drawn out fight.

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Friday, December 16, 2016 4:22 PM (forty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yup

i do wish obama was more aggressive in his last couple years of a two-term presidency but hey i guess that is not him

So Obama did not make a bigger stink about Russian meddling before the election because he didn't want to seem like he was meddling. And now that there is more and more consensus about the extent of the Russian meddling, he doesn't want to meddle.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, December 16, 2016 5:07 PM (nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

What sort of meddling would you like him to do?

Not a rhetorical question, necessarily, I just don't really understand the gameplan with this whole panic about Russia thing. How do you strategically use this other than just raising it and trying to tarnish Trump?

There needs to be a way to establish that members of the Trump campaign were in contact with Putin's government during the election. There is no other plausible explanation for some of Trump's moves, especially revising the Republican party platform to make room for Russian aggression and saying, during a debate, that the Syrian opposition forces were "worse" than Assad. He was inconsistent on nearly everything, but consistent on this. It can't just be a series of coincidences.

This isn't to say Trump or his campaign condoned of the hacking or knew of it directly from Putin, but their secret collaboration with a regime carrying out a cyber war on his behalf has to come to something. You can't just do that.

That wasn't eloquent or advancing the conversation in any way, I realize. But come on Democrats. Find a way to nail him on this.

Well, that's the catch: there is no way to pursue it without tarnishing Trump. Pretty much by definition, since his legitimacy is at stake. But Obama is still president for a few more weeks, and won't be after that, ever again. So if these claims are truly serious, treat them as such. Don't just punt it to the press, say this is a serious, serious infraction, and the fate of our democracy hinges on it. And then keep at it. And if it's not serious, then say so and we can move on. I would be happy if Obama, directly and forcefully, told the American people (who like him!) to keep pressure on their legislators, because this is going to happen again in future elections, whether they like the candidate or not, and that it's vital that Americans regain some lost trust through closure. He's a good speaker. He's a great speaker. He could make a case that this case needs to be closed. Call for a special commission. Do something conspicuous whose undoing would be even more conspicuous.

Same with Garland, by the way. Just appoint the fucker by any means necessary, and make the new government sue to undo the appointment. Why do their work for them by doing nothing? Do what is within your rights, whether its pushing the Russia stuff or the SC or whatever, and let them deal with it. Because as it is we all are going to have to deal with the dick elected.

xpost Like, there are so many things still floating out there that are just starting to float further away. Manafort, Roger Stone ... Sean Hannity had Assange (who is partly employed by Russia's RT) on to insist he did not get the leak from Russia but from someone else. Who was this someone else? And were they connected to Russia? It's all very conspiracy-y, but there seems to be as much going on here as there was in Watergate. Except it involves state sponsored election meddling, too. I dunno, a lot of threads to pull on or tie together.

It feels like they are making it as blatant as possible, daring us to draw the obvious conclusion. Maybe that's the trap -- draw the left into a conspiratorial scrum fight, kick them off the high ground they occupy for still believing in constitutional governance.

Well, that's the catch: there is no way to pursue it without tarnishing Trump. Pretty much by definition, since his legitimacy is at stake. But Obama is still president for a few more weeks, and won't be after that, ever again. So if these claims are truly serious, treat them as such. Don't just punt it to the press, say this is a serious, serious infraction, and the fate of our democracy hinges on it. And then keep at it. And if it's not serious, then say so and we can move on. I would be happy if Obama, directly and forcefully, told the American people (who like him!) to keep pressure on their legislators, because this is going to happen again in future elections, whether they like the candidate or not, and that it's vital that Americans regain some lost trust through closure. He's a good speaker. He's a great speaker. He could make a case that this case needs to be closed. Call for a special commission. Do something conspicuous whose undoing would be even more conspicuous.

ta-nehisi coates (im sure I spelled this wrong) was on the slate politics gabfest and he expressed frustration with obama both saying that trump was an 'existential threat' and ultimately not so bad.. you cant say both and have both be true. one is true and one is not.