Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 11, 2019

Jacob Bacharach | Barack Obama seems more concerned with cancel culture than reversing America's right-wing slide.

Former President Barack Obama was back in the news last week, finally breaking his polite post-Presidential silence on the great political crisis our nation finds itself facing at this moment of constitutional strange and social disunion: college kids, tweets, and hashtags.

Obama's comments about "woke" culture and hashtag activism -- "This idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly," the former President said -- earned him plaudits from the usual bipartisan rogues' gallery of middlebrow hacks and political jobbers,

although it lacked the apocalyptic tenor that's come to characterize the public discourse about wokeness's near-twin, "cancel culture,"

in which getting heckled on Twitter is the equivalent of being put in the stocks.



Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Maybe if Obama had prosecuted the crooks on Wall Street and bailed out homeowners who got stuck with underwater mortgages for the rest of their lives, along with a public option for the Republican Healthcare Plan called Romneycare that Obama and centrist and corporate Democrats implemented -- then maybe Hillary and not Trump would be president.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-11 11:16 AM | Reply

Prosecuted Wall Street Crooks?

Who was indicted?

"bailed out homeowners who got stuck with underwater mortgages"

Would that bailing out have extended to new borrows with low credit buying houses that they could't afford, or would it only apply to those who had previously made bade decisions.

I ask because I've had my eye on a huge Bavarian style in my village that I couldn't afford without a bailout.

#2 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-11 04:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1


Here you go ...

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions

How Obama's Failure To Prosecute Wall Street Set The Stage For Trump's Win

Obama's Big Sellout: The President has Packed His Economic Team with Wall Street Insiders

See what I mean?

#3 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-11 04:48 PM | Reply

So...did Obama have the legal authority to indict and fail to do so?

First, off, CommonDreams is almost always a progressive rag that documents any deviation from progressive dogma. This article was little more than an example of that.

The other two are more reputable, but still fail to point out what Obama did wrong. Per the Guardian, should the DOJ have pursued a course where lots of taxpayer money was spend to convict for trivial crimes? I mean, how much time do you do for the crime of excessive speculation? Or is it even a crime.

Furthermore, if you're going to go after the banks, don't you at the same time need to go after the uncreditworthy lenders who bailed on their loans when they realized that the value of their property was worth less than what they owed? Because that's not much different than forgiving investors who borrowed big in order to invest, only to see the value of their stocks tank.

Forgive them too?

#4 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-11 05:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Obama isn't saying much about Trump because the folks that still support trump will never listen to a black guy.

Obama did bring in reforms to the financial industry to reduce the risk of a repeat. The GoP undid those.

What actual crimes do people think the bankers could be convicted of? The big problem is that what they did was legal.

#5 | Posted by bored at 2019-11-11 05:09 PM | Reply

You need to check your reactionary bourgeois capitalist ass.

#6 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-11 05:13 PM | Reply


#7 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-12 09:10 AM | Reply

A little part of me is really enjoying watching progressives crap all over Obama now that they're woke.

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-12 09:35 AM | Reply | Funny: 1


Its really just a small, ideological extremist minority like Pinch that no one takes seriously anyways.

But, buy some popcorn. Have fun. You need something to do while the leader of the Republican Party (and the conservative movement) gets impeached. Because we all know that conservatives won't be watching the hearings, since they just don't want to know what the guy they put in charge of our country is doing.

#9 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-12 11:42 AM | Reply

I'm glad Obama is speaking out against this.

It's a bit ironic that his administration played a role in where we've gotten to today with cancel culture. Better late than never, I guess.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-12 11:52 AM | Reply

#9 You assume conservatives haven't heard? It's been the #1 story in the news since November 2016.

#11 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-12 12:40 PM | Reply

It's been the #1 story in the news since November 2016.


Exactly. Conservatives don't want to know the facts. Or anything that he has done between 2016 and now. I am sure you see the headlines. And you just ignore them because... you're a conservative. And conservatives don't care about their responsibilities to this country. They just want Trump to keep "triggering libs" and want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore anything else he does.

#12 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-12 12:46 PM | Reply

#12 I have some conservative views and some progressive views. I'm a libertarian. Voted Johnson/Weld. I also predicted that regardless whether Hillary or Trump was elected, impeachment was going to be discussed within months, and I was right.

I'm also right about this: if Trump is impeached and removed, Democrats will look back in 5 years and regret doing so, because the backlash is predictable but Democrats are ALWAYS blind to unintended consequences.

#13 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-12 01:07 PM | Reply


And yet, your deflections seem to indicate that you are OK with a President abusing his office by "targeting" a political opponent. And, not only that, encouraging (by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars of aid legally appropriated by Congress) a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT to open a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION into that opponent. I don't care what loser you voted for. The fact that you think this sort of corruption is OK marks you as a conservative.

And you ARE defending it. By saying that you predicted "impeachment was going to be discussed within months" you are implying that this impeachment is not based upon the merits, but is instead solely based upon partisanship.

Claim whatever you want as your "party" or "ideology" or whatever. What matters is that YOU are saying that this sort of corruption is acceptable, and that you don't mind if EVERY PRESIDENT IN THE FUTURE tries to use the power of their office (and willing foreign governments) to put their finger on the scale for the next election. You are advocating to SET PRECEDENT that this is acceptable behavior.

That marks you as a Trump sycophant... a conservative.

#14 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-12 02:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#14 Have you ever seen me defend it? And don't try the "if you ain't agin it, you're wid it" BS. Pardon me if the Dems have made me a bit gunshy when it comes to allegations of immense, treasonous conduct by Trump. Do I think he's the kind of idiot that would do what I'm sure he did? Yep, I do. If it were the first thing the Dems accused him of, it wouldn't feel so much like crying wolf, but it isn't. Worse, I am equally certain of wrongdoing by the Dems in pursuing the BS collusion charges, which casts doubt. Much like a defense attorney will impune the character of a witness, the Dems have impuned themselves.

I think he will be impeached, and rightfully so. But in 5 years, when a Repub majority starts impeachment proceedings for a quid pro quo involving Israel, or something similar, remember that the precedent was set in 2019.

#15 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-12 02:59 PM | Reply


Don't take the Dems word for it. "Read the Transcript". Or, more accurately, the transcripts.

I wouldn't want some political party talking points to make your decision for you. Figure it out yourself. Fulfill your responsibility as a citizen to hold your representatives to at least some sort of standard.

"Crying wolf"? Yeah... people talked about impeaching Trump. Conservatives talked about impeaching Obama. Liberals talked about impeaching "W". Conservatives talked about (and did) impeach Clinton. I don't know about Bush Sr. (too young) but I am guessing that people talked about impeaching him too.
Get over it. I don't know why you are getting your panties in a twist over it. You should be used to it by now. You can generally ignore it when it is just talk. But, when an impeachment inquiry was opened against Clinton you should have started paying attention. There is now an impeachment inquiry open against Trump. You should probably pay attention. It is a good indication that something serious is going on.

And bring on the precedent. I would much rather set the precedent that a President CAN'T abuse their office, than set one that they can. And I am not too worried about it. Conservatives tried to impeach Clinton over BS that was not related to him being president, and they got punished (politically) for it. I think the general public is smart enough to know when impeachment is warranted and when it is not.

#16 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-12 04:16 PM | Reply

Conservatives tried to impeach Clinton over BS that was not related to him being president

You're young, so I'll forgive you thinking it was about a BJ. It was about perjuring himself. SMDH.

#17 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-12 05:02 PM | Reply

"It was about perjuring himself."

Holler back when you think the President stealing millions from a veterans charity is worthy of impeachment!

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 05:06 PM | Reply

"It was about perjuring himself."

Back in the days when a President would testify under oath, and lying to the American people was a bad thing. Good times.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-12 05:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It was about perjuring himself."

Then this should be a slam dunk!

#20 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-11-12 07:12 PM | Reply

#20 It should, yes. Just get him under oath.

#21 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-12 09:55 PM | Reply

"#20 It should, yes. Just get him under oath.

We are talking about -------- that think Schiff was reading the transcript when he gave his skit and believe Maddow's summary of Trump's statements are somehow admissible in court. These people are beyond reason.

#22 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 01:49 AM | Reply

You're young, so I'll forgive you thinking it was about a BJ. It was about perjuring himself. SMDH.


About something that had nothing to do with his duties as president. It was from lying to a grand jury about something that happened before he was president.

What about that makes him a "bad president" (impeachment and removal is a political solution to a bad president)? Lying to the American people? Should we compare how many times Trump has "lied to the American people" compared to Clinton?

The only difference is that Clinton lied to a grand jury, which is a crime. But people don't care about "crimes" per se, they care about how this affects them (how it affects the job they elected him for).

You're young, so I'll forgive you thinking it was about a BJ.

Ok, Boomer. You can take your patronizing attitude and shove it right up your ass. I never mentioned a BJ, you just assumed that was what I was talking about because that was the real reason why you impeached Clinton in the first place. And you are still bitter because it was shown to be an absolutely idiotic mistake, yet you still, after all these years, STILL don't understand what the mistake was.

It is getting late. Go sit on the couch, drink some prune juice, and watch some Price is Right. You have screwed things up enough already. It is time to let the next generation come in and start fixing it.

#23 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-13 09:39 AM | Reply

Schiff was reading the transcript when he gave his skit and believe Maddow's summary of Trump's statements are somehow admissible in court.


Ohhhh... nice strawman.

Because NO ONE is stupid enough to think that summaries are admissible in court. Except for maybe conservatives. Considering that they seem to think that you aren't bribing someone unless you directly say to them "This is a bribe... I will give you X if you give me Y." And they for some reason think that people who are bribed will ALWAYS ADMIT that they were bribed. Otherwise, apparently in conservatives' small minds, it is not a bribe.

Don't try to project your level of intelligence on us. It is insulting. Just because YOU are fooled by something, does not mean others are.

#24 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-13 09:47 AM | Reply

#23 And I'll forgive you again for thinking I'm a Boomer. I'm Gen X, kiddo.

#25 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-13 03:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort