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

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.

its also frustrating to see obama not go hard after his rivals when the gop wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire..

well they probably would piss on him, but not enough to extinguish the fire

Obama is a man of principle. He believes in our system of government. He also believes in doing the right thing -- he sees the risks of a narrow consequentialism that would erode norms. I admire him so much but you're right, it has been frustrating to watch the Republicans exploit his strength of character as if it were a weakness these past eight years. Now it's something more than frustrating.

He's going to Hawaii for the next two weeks so it doesn't look like he is going to make a major stand now. It's tragic.

Oh look, Sam Kriss is in slate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/what_the_hell_is_wrong_with_america_s_establishment_liberals.html

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.

― Josh in Chicago,

Just like how Obama whiffed going HAM on the banks in 2008.

I agree with him that the Garland tweets are garbage and that Trump's victory wasn't the result of a grand conspiracy. But I don't think you can just dismiss every "Russia-Trump" claim out of hand so easily. His international conflicts of interest are a serious problem.

"Him"= sam kriss

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause.pdf

obama knows better than anyone what the extent of the russian involvement in the election was, ftr

that brookings article has some false ass hope in the final footnotes about how electors shouldnt vote for him. I fucking wish.

sorry not a footnote technically. this is in the 'what can we do about it' section.

First, given that Mr. Trump would arrive in office as a walking, talking violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, the Electoral College would be justified in concluding that he is unqualified for the Office of the Presidency. For that reason, among others, individual electors must be considered free to decline to cast votes for Mr. Trump.

fn: We are aware of the debate over so-called “faithless electors,” a term that in our view is a misnomer and fails to account for the role of the Electoral College in our constitutional system. We do not address that debate here, other than to note that strong arguments have been made for the proposition that electors are free to vote their conscience without fear of legal sanctions. See, e.g., David Pozen, Why G.O.P. Electoral College members Can Vote Against Trump, N.Y. Times (Dec. 15, 2016).

If I was an elector I'd be like WTF this is that part of the job description nobody even reads please stop trying to make this hard

GOP Electors are all that guy in the movie who doesn't want to jump out of the airplane screaming about how he didn't sign up for this

imagine dealing with the cognitive dissonance between what trump ran and won on and the current state of the economy

Josh, would you be including decades-long stagnant wages in this formulation? (w/out any expecs that this will change under the coming regime)

i read a little about the ineligibility clause and have concluded that it's kind of dumb

correction i guess there are 2 emoluments clauses?

xpost

imagine dealing with the cognitive dissonance between what trump ran and won on and the current state of the economy

I didn't write this, Morbs. But yeah, I'd say the economy is currently at least stable, which it wasn't less than 10 years ago, when we were on the brink of some sort of economic collapse, and while there is a lot of work to do in terms of wages and whatnot, I'm not sure what more Obama could have done in less than 8 years, especially with an obstructionist congress. So yeah, he didn't singlehandedly raise the standard of living for all Americans great and small, but there is no doubt the country is better off now than it was in 2008. But people want results faster, bigger, which is perhaps in part what drew so many to the bluster of Trump. "I can do it. I can fix it. Only I can solve it. America will be the best EVER." Vs. grown up Obama who told the truth re: the economy, and did the best he could, imo, especially if you factor in the ACA and what that did for millions of people with decades-long stagnant wages *and* struggles with health care.

But hey, that's all in the past, because what little progress we made, what few steps toward stability and problem-solving we made and Obama nurtured, re: health care, employment, national debt, all of that is going backwards or bye-bye. So yeah, if I were the guy, I'd be pretty bummed at Trump's reactionary repudiation of progress. Obama's a two-term president leaving the office with the dejected countenance of a single-termer.

This Jerusalem embassy shit will end up with lots of dead people

I'm starting to think we might need a separate thread specifically for Trump's foreign policy disasters

Can't wait to see how he bitches out of NATO and what he does to fuck up India / Pakistan

i saw some of the press conference. feel like he's probably just tired? it's an election year and he just served for 8 years as president. yes he slows down a bit at the end but try talking for an hour, straight giving an oral pop quiz on the entire world, and see if you don't get tired. he's gotten older but we all have in 8 years.

tbh he sounds composed as ever. Obama has never failed to impress me, always effortlessly professional and dignified.

Don't know what he's trying to accomplish with this tactic, but I guess I agree?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-says-supporters-were-vicious-violent-nasty-mean

The full WaPo take on that event was that Trump supporters are *still* chanting "lock her up."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/trump-tries-to-calm-his-vicious-violent-screaming-supporters/

I glanced at the comments and someone actually criticized the paper for calling his supports "vicious" and "violent," even though they were quoting Trump *directly* in the article being commented on.

On the less serious end of his offenses, his lecturn placard designs are the ugliest

jfc "unpresidented"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/17/donald-trump-china-unpresidented-act-us-navy-drone

i wonder if autocorrect changed it to unprecedented and then he changed it back

The full WaPo take on that event was that Trump supporters are *still* chanting "lock her up."

can't believe the worst president ever got elected and it's the person who lost whose physical safety I have to worry about

"unpresidented" - fuck, if this was in a novel I'd say it was too on the nose

Perhaps it will be a biography title someday.

I didn't write this, Morbs. But yeah, I'd say the economy is currently at least stable, which it wasn't less than 10 years ago, when we were on the brink of some sort of economic collapse, and while there is a lot of work to do in terms of wages and whatnot, I'm not sure what more Obama could have done in less than 8 years, especially with an obstructionist congress. So yeah, he didn't singlehandedly raise the standard of living for all Americans great and small, but there is no doubt the country is better off now than it was in 2008. But people want results faster, bigger, which is perhaps in part what drew so many to the bluster of Trump. "I can do it. I can fix it. Only I can solve it. America will be the best EVER." Vs. grown up Obama who told the truth re: the economy, and did the best he could, imo, especially if you factor in the ACA and what that did for millions of people with decades-long stagnant wages *and* struggles with health care.

But hey, that's all in the past, because what little progress we made, what few steps toward stability and problem-solving we made and Obama nurtured, re: health care, employment, national debt, all of that is going backwards or bye-bye. So yeah, if I were the guy, I'd be pretty bummed at Trump's reactionary repudiation of progress. Obama's a two-term president leaving the office with the dejected countenance of a single-termer.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, December 16, 2016 9:16 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Josh "the economy" doesn't feel "stable" if the last home you owned was foreclosed and you're working for minimum wage or on SSDI. I feel like that level of 10k feet liberal abstraction about "the economy" is part of what got us here.

well actually the electoral college is what got us here

I meant stable as in there is no sign of imminent collapse (unless Trump *is* the collapse). It's like a frozen pond. Is it liquid? No. Can it support your weight? Sure. But would you go jumping around on it?? Hell no. That's the economy. Stable but not *strong* which is a big distinction, imo. I don't think it's liberal abstraction to say the economy is stable when it clearly could be much, much worse for *everybody," especially the people whose last home was foreclosed, working for minimum wage or on SSDI. Because that could all still be the case *and* they could not have health care, could not have access to an OK public school, would have to worry if their drinking water is safe, and so on, all sorts of things simmering and festering below that frozen surface that are very real but were at least slightly being held in check by or being worked on through government policies on the brink of extinction.

That's the liberal abstraction of "economy" in effect, as far as I'm concerned, the inability to convey basics of civics or the fundamental methods of government operation to those who stand the benefit the most. The people on SSI/SS/SSDI who are anti-government handouts, or the people insured by the ACA who are anti-Obamacare, or the people struggling on minimum wage who are anti-wage-hikes, or the people who are constantly hit by regressive taxes who are pro-tax breaks (that will never reach them). Just a fundamental misunderstanding that the things that have made their lives even a tiny bit easier are things that were fought for, voted for, and which are currently on the chopping block. So I suppose the way forward for Democrats is to make that stuff less abstract and instead present it as specifics. Campaign in the places where people are hurting the worst and bring numbers, show them they know how they're hurting but also how they're being helped. Then explain to them in no uncertain terms what would happen if the government programs they rely on are cut. And then, if you're feeling cocky, throw in some truly abstract big picture stuff, like climate change or human/civil rights, or global initiatives, but I think that stuff won't sway elections.

Anyway, that's a ramble. I had a friend over for dinner who specializes in constitutional law and specifically just presented something to congress recently about state AGs and their powers (or lack there of), and boy is she not hopeful about anything. Like, really pessimistic to the extreme, as in she's noting a pervasive failure of our entire system, and predicting years and years of setbacks, fueled on the federal and state level, and an inability of anyone to counter it. I told her, hey, worst case scenario, in 4 or 8 years, Trump won't t be president, and she was doubtful that would even make a difference, the GOP has such a firm and pervasive hold on power. And she predicted that Ivanka could very well be president in 8 years.

But hey, good morning, everyone!

On the Media has good CIA/FBI stuff this week btw

Thanks Morbs, listening now. Sounds like it covers a lot of the same ground as the Times story, but I always like how the show is put together.

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
We should tell China that we don't want the drone they stole back.- let them keep it!

That'll show 'em!

my boss met with tim kaine and others last week in DC (he is a big Dem fundraiser). Takeaways were: Clinton campaign did not follow the same strategy that Obama did, staying in Detroit and other places, and as a result lost minority voters; white uneducated middle aged men are a shrinking demographic and probably do NOT need to be targeted by the party, as they turned out in fewer numbers for Trump than they did for McCain and Romney, the party absolutely needs to focus on minority out reach in those geographic areas; and, they are going for impeachment ASAP. Bombard congress with calls for investigations on Trump, which means not just sympathetic Dem congresspeople, but Rubio, McCain, people in the Republican establishment who are not going to stand for the extent of the corruption once is starts becoming more public after the inauguration.