Will Trump Supporters Listen To The Warnings?

I was never a Hillary supporter, enlightened or otherwise. I thought she was the lesser of evils, and history seems to be bearing me out. No one is clairvoyant, but I, like others, orient myself toward the future in terms of lessons learned in the past and close attention to present circumstances to see if there is reason for concern. In the immortal words of George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

I think those who think chaos is what we need to usher in an era of justice for all are crackpots. No social revolution--not the French Revolutionaries, not the Bolsheviks, not the Nazis, not the Maoists, the VietKong, the Khmer Rouge, nor ISIS--has ever done that. I don't expect more from Bannon-Trump. They simply rearrange the pecking order. Most people value stability and predictablity in their lives, and Marx to the contrary, have lots more to lose than their chains.

 

Good post. It perfectly captures the dilemma I face with Trump in the White House!

 

i am no crackpot, i know that in 4 to 8 years we will be back to the same bullshit we have been in since i was born, however maybe just maybe someone will take notice that people are pissed and will lighten up on the bullshit we have had for way too long.

if you need an analogy the government is a dog and we are walking him. he continued being bad so we yanked the leash a bit. now we know its a bad dog but maybe it will be less bad when it knows we can yank him,
sure the dog can turn on us. that is another discussion.

 

Except in this case the mad dog holds the leash and we're on it!

 

well the people will stay in control with the constitution. everything will be fine as long as that stays as the basis of our government.

which yup....is the biggest problem with the last several administrations. the people let them rip it up and now they are paying. congrats on your two party system everyone

 

My point was that imo, Clinton was the lesser of two evils.....and there is no convincing me, otherwise.....and I know there is no convincing Trump voters and supporters otherwise, no matter what happens....so there is no eye to eye.

 

By appointing Sessions a white supremacist as attorney general, Pruitt a guy who doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming to head up the EPA , Perry a guy to lead the Department of Energy who couldn't even name it when wishing for it's abolition, Pudzer the Carl's Jr guy who doesn't believe in minimum wage and talks poorly about his employees to head the department of Labor.... I could go on....

His appointments to head all government agencies are people committed to the missions which they're sworn to carry out. These aren't appointments to fix Washington. They're appointments to pillage it.

The only good thing to come out of this is the opposition. Too bad people weren't that motivated in November.

 

I've asked before but never got an answer as to by what measure is he a "white supremacist"? So far everything that has been presented was either "alleged" or hearsay, unlike the actual proof presented about Robert Byrd and other "Dixiecrats" (who are all gone at long last). I suspect a few things win him this label regardless of actual truth. The first is his name, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. OMG, he has Beauregard in his name, he MUST be a racist. The other being that he's from Alabama, a place automatically assumed to be packed to the gills with KKK racists (only, it's not).

​I rarely hear anything about his actual record, just interpretations of things he's "alleged" to have said. And of course nobody wants to talk about how he handled an actual klansman, Henry Francis Hays. All I seem to hear is the old "he's a racist, because he's a racist" bullshit. It gets old.

On the issue of minimum wage, the problem all along has been its failure to keep pace with the economy. Both parties are guilty there. It's a class issue and we the serfs and underlings aren't privy to why neither side has done a God damned thing about it since the 70s beyond a nickel here and a quarter there. Minimum wage is probably on its death bed anyway since we're all soon to be automated out of work. Even higher positions that are not specifically manual are being squeezed out. A new economy will have to come or the governments of the planet will have to exterminate a LOT of people. Even war can't bring that about quickly enough.

But neither side seems to have a plan for that.

 

Opposed the voting rights act, and then used it as a weapon against civil rights leaders.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/magazine/the-voter-fraud-case-jeff-sessions-lost-and-cant-escape.html?_r=0

I can't completely disagree with you about minimum wage. Outsourcing of labor and automation of labor seems to be happening faster than good new jobs are there to replace them. It's should be a classic Luddite concern, but it's happening so rapidly now, it's something the market isn't correcting for quickly enough. Those are the dissatisfied middle class you heard so much about after the election. But the solution defiantly isn't abolishing the minimum wage.

 

Darwin was wrong because sex is never about survival of the fittest, but the most creative. Ironically, conservatives are now reaching out to liberals knowing there is a time for fighting and a time for making woo. The old joke asks the question, "How do porcupines mate?" and the answer is, of course, "Very carefully", while cats do it with a lot of biting, scratching, and barbed penises! The democratic party has come to resemble the republican party so much the two are either going to mate or destroy the country and I'm not sure I want to see what kind of offspring they'll produce.

 

How can it get much worse than Trump and his picks now? You like Pruitt in charge of EPA?...you don't care about the planet or environment at all?....and that is just about one of his many, ruining the world, as we know it picks.

The NRA adores him, of course.

 

Those are the same people who predicted a landslide for Hillary. Clearly they were right about that.

 

Still sounds like an opinion piece more than actual news for what all it omits. So many bills are brought to the floor barely resembling their original author's intent, so without more information who can really say why he opposed it? Consider why so many democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act, surely they had a good reason. The first one in 57 was filibustered by Thurgood Marshall who read the freakin phone book. It was a democrat, Howard Smith, who vehemently opposed the equal pay act in 63.

History can be a dangerous thing if only a few facts are considered. For example, Europeans "discovered" the Americas and the Native Americans lost their lands. Sure, it seems like a straight line, but it's not. It ignores all the times Europeans fought shoulder to shoulder with natives in the Americans to overthrow hideous blood cults and even slavery (which made a comeback centuries later). In more contemporary times consider the sentencing disparities between powder and crack cocaine. This has been decried as pure racism lately since "crack is a black thing and powder is a white thing" (purely racist speculation on both sides).

But it was black leaders and clergy who DEMANDED tougher sentencing for crack. It was destroying their communities and crack dealers were out of jail and back in business in a matter of months. Extending their sentences to years gave black American communities time to heal and rebuild from the nightmare.

The people today who interpret events from the past don't always get it right. I don't really give a crap about Sessions, but are we really getting the truth about him? Or are we getting a fat does of partisan speculation?

 

It remains to be seen what Trump will do in a constitutional showdown. His hero, Andy Jackson, told the Supreme Court: "(Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The Constitution is only as good as the courts that interpret it and the executive officials who enforce it. BTW, Hitler was always careful to act within the letter, though not the spirit, of the law. He'd commit assassinations and other crimes and have his loyal followers in the Reichstag retroactively legalize them. See Lon Fuller, The Morality of Law.

 

Yup. Even when the topic is constitution which Germany didn't have we still get the comparisons.

Ok this is the only time I think it is warranted. But it's like the boy who cries wolf. I heard it so many times.....

 

Yes, facts can be dangerous. We can ignore them or do the best we can to consider multiple sources and use our judgment. What's the alternative?

 

Simple, do as Pelosi suggests and just pass the law first, then read what's in it. I bet that happens a lot.

 

Are you talking about trump's edicts?