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

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.

Sounds promising

smh

got any better ideas?

So what you're saying, akm, is the Dems still have not a clue. Mind boggling

What clue?

lol great takeaway. yeah, fuck trying to appeal to more people, what a dumb strategy.

I think they should stop looking at the US population as a series of focus groups and start crafting a message that appeals to everyone. We need to fight racism in the criminal justice system, for instance, because it is the right thing to do, not because it "appeals to blacks." It should appeal to everyone.

They are just playing into the hands of the Republicans who want to tell white people their interests are at odds with other groups. They're not. Their interests are at odds with the capitalists, not their fellow wage earners. It's a con.

I agree, but it's a long and deep con that's difficult to unseat from people's minds. I mean I favor the socialist, class-uniting approach as much as anyone but it may not be easy to convince people out of their resentments ("those people" don't work, while I do and pay for their social programs, etc.)

Would be nice if maybe, idk, the media did more to emphasize that black and hispanic people are "working class" too.

^^^

One of the most pernicious things about post-election commentary has been the ongoing discounting of minority voters (except for occasionally and unfairly blaming them for not doing enough to support Clinton).

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.

― akm, Sunday, December 18, 2016 12:03 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't think he's *totally* wrong, but you can't rely on just "demographics," you've got to figure out how to actually make sure those people can get registered and turn them out if your plan is to rely on them. I agree that focusing too hard on turning the least likely demographics to vote democrat can be a waste of resources, but there are also negative consequences from sending the message "we don't need you."

As far as impeachment, I mean I kind of don't see how you can avoid that tack with a Trump. I just hope they don't forget to also hammer the rest of the GOP, because impeached Trump probably = President Pence and we're going to have just as hard a fight as ever at the national, state and local levels if we do manage to get Trump out of there.

xps Not to mention there are plenty - millions - of whites in red states who understand social equality benefits all. Shouldn't give up on them too.
This idea that Dems should not have "leaned so hard" on this issue doesn't smell right to me at all, but what do I know, I'm just a clueless minority

got any better ideas?

― sleeve, Sunday, December 18, 2016 12:08 PM (one hour ago)

i guess "do everything exactly the same, except with a better candidate" isn't the WORST idea. (akm, is your boss donna brazile?)

the impeachment shit is a pipe dream. dems are in the minority

start crafting a message that appeals to everyone

lol like what

this whole idea that there's all these people who voted for Trump that the Dems can "win back" is hilarious

Democratic Party: Dear white midwestern people, did you know you get free stuff under our plan? You do!

GOP: they won't tell you this but the blacks and browns and gays get that free stuff TOO

Milwaukee suburbs: well fuck that noise! MAGA

as a mere observer I'm inclined to think they're fucked if they don't go for some variant of the Ellison/Sanders/Warren route, no more milquetoast "centrist" "bipartisan" nonsense

this whole idea that there's all these people who voted for Trump that the Dems can "win back" is hilarious

except it's not. many of those people voted for Obama. and Hillary was a unpopular candidate even in her own party.

pretending all Trump voters voted for the same convenient reason seems like a dead end. people don't solely vote based on this "free stuff" dogwhistles.

pretending that they are untouchables we can never win back is "deplorables" part two

Would be nice if maybe, idk, the media did more to emphasize that black and hispanic people are "working class" too.

The category is misleading, because as a few pieces have pointed out, "working class" means "middle class" now. Black and hispanic just remain "poor," I guess.

I still think Trump voters were largely incoherent, as a macro bloc and as micro blocs. I'm still not sure what specifically they even wanted beyond making American great, and as far as meaningless, amorphous generalities go, they felt Trump was more likely to deliver that. If anything, perhaps it means Democrats should offer even fewer specifics next time around and stick to emotion-targeting generalities, too. "A Better Future." "Giving You What You Deserve." "Something to Be Proud Of." "All You Can Eat Special." "A Buy One, Get One Free Economy."