The wife and I passed by Trump Tower here in Waikiki today and saw one lonely protester holding a sign on the sidewalk out front. But I’ve heard something big is planned for tomorrow, although it’s just a rumor at this point.
Trump could be President for life without anyone’s help. People are taking odds on his having a massive heart attack before his term is up.
Our neighbor has told us she just went past Trump Tower herself and saw 20 protesters out there now as well as a lone pro-Trump counterprotester spewing hate through a megaphone. She’s also heard rumors of a major action tomorrow.
Oh, you mean the influence of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush II?
Nixon - 5 1/2 years
Ford - 2 1/2 years
Reagan - 8 years
George H. W. Bush - 4 years
George W. Bush - 8 years
So, out of the 47 years since the end of LBJ’s term, let’s call it 28 years for the conservatives and 19 for the libruls.
Are there no mirrors in the Universe you inhabit or are you a vampire?
CMC fnord!
No, I mean the sort of societal influences that have led to, among many other grievances, the sort of nonsense I outlined in post 26. In that context we can call it 0 years for the conservatives and 50 years for the libruls. These influences have brought us to where we are today, where success and achievement is looked down upon and helplessness and victimhood is celebrated and everyone is pissed off and at each other’s throats, and as the Sam Elliot picture I linked to upthread illustrates, we the people have finally had enough of that shit. And hopefully we at long last have somebody in the White House to serve as standard bearer for those of us both in and out of politics who feel that way to rally around in order to start getting things turned around.
<cough>BULLSHIT!</cough>
So the anti-trump protesters were spewing love and peace?
Before Jan 20: Send out angry tweets, followed by conciliatory tweets from his handlers to try to compensate.
After Jan 20: Send out the National Guard, followed by conciliatory tweets from his handlers to try to compensate.
Yes, Sam Elliott is a cutie; you’ve used that graphic twice. Those of us who appreciate masculine beauty would rather see his face rather than Trump’s. Or McConnell’s. Sam’s image has been used on anti-Trump graphics, too. But that “we the people” phrase is not the best one, given the result of the popular vote.
An inheritor of wealth is the poster child for “success & achievement”? How many bankruptcies?
I’ve always wondered about the phrase “law & order.” We know what laws are–instituted by the government, carried out by a different branch–and possibly changed if times change… That government is elected by us. (Except for those little Electoral College asterisks beside some Presidential names. Still, blame that on the idiots who didn’t bother to vote .)
So, that’s what “law” is. What is “order”? Extra-legal controls on behavior & ideas? Driven by fear?
Oh, and investigate how school curricula are set.
“Law and order” has always been a code phrase, as I suspect you well know, originating in the backlash to the civil rights movement. It has something to do with keeping those dark people, with a propensity for violence and reduced mental capabilities, under physical control, properly segregated, and otherwise in their places.
Protesting is always a double-edged sword. The opposition may indeed be galvanized by the direct action, but it also gives GOP politicians something to unite around. I suspect that many of the Main Street Republicans who had to hold their noses to vote for Trump are watching the effigies, the flag-burning, and the window-smashing and becoming more confident that they made the right choice.
Care to outline what “liberal indoctrination” you’re talking about? I went to school for most of my formative years in the USA, and the only things that even resembled anything anyone might call “liberal indoctrination” were things which are only considered as such by complete and utter tossers. You know, crazy things like “Climate change is real and a thing we should worry about” or “Evolution is true” or “Bullying is wrong” or “Discrimination is wrong” or “Respect people” or “Sharing is nice”.
So maybe you’d like to cue us in as to what “liberal indoctrination” is going on in our schools that you find so detestable. Is it just that we’re teaching kids not to be assholes like Donald Trump?
The vast majority of “political correctness”, the vast, vast, vast majority of it, comes in the form of, “Please don’t say that because it’s needlessly hurtful”. A few well-meaning spods drive the concept way too far, obviously, but this characterization of political correctness is just unreasonable.
Right, so stop doing something nobody outside of your imagination was doing. Got it. Any other things to hit?
No, seriously, what are you even talking about? This isn’t a thing. At best, you’ve completely misunderstood the mainstream arguments. Or maybe you’re just nutpicking. I have no idea where this comes from. It’s certainly not a line of mainstream commentary. Nobody is criticizing upwards mobility. What are you even talking about?!
“Low-life scuzzbugs like Jay-Z”? You mean a kid from the projects who became incredibly successful with his music (one of the few avenues truly available to impoverished black children living in the projects), and leveraged that success into incredible business success, becoming a multimillionaire with numerous investments? Wow! What a lowlife! Who’s attacking upward mobility and success again? And hey, while we’re judging the candidates on their famous supporters and endorsements, David Fucking Duke and the alt-right.
People who are felons should not permanently lose their right to vote. This is not the same thing as “courting the criminal vote”.
People should not require ID to vote, because a legitimate voter not having photo ID is infinitely more common than the only kind of voter fraud photo ID laws would prevent. This is not the same thing as “courting the illegal immigrant vote”.
Starting with LGBT rights, I assume, and working our way towards the civil rights movement.
Your post is such a bizarre mixture of straw men, baseless accusations, and utter nonsense that I’m left wondering in what world you live in. As if there has never been progress towards the conservative edge of the spectrum in the past 50 years. As though you didn’t live through the Reagan revolution, the anti-LGBT backlash of 2004, the anti-liberal blowback after 9/11 (do they still not play Dixie Chicks on the radio?), the rise of the moral majority and right-wing dominionism, the tea party, FOX News’s rise to power, Breitbart’s rise to power, the increasing influence of insane blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones, and more. But even disregarding all of that, most of your complaints are so vague as to be meaningless or specific, but also completely wrong. But hey, at least you get to stick it to those fucking fags who had the audacity to want to get married or use the bathroom matching their gender.
A recent development I hate: since the code-word status of the phrase “law and order” has become widely recognized, and people using it hate being scolded for it, they’ve switched to an alternative phrase that they’re using to mean the same thing (i.e., keeping the non-whites in line).
That’s a frequently-observed phenomenon–switching one code phrase out and a new one in. What I particularly deplore here is that the phrase they seem to have hit on is “rule of law.”
Rule of law is an astonishingly important concept, of which these people are demonstrating appalling ignorance, as in this gem from the inimitable Paul LePage:
A lot of Trump supporters have been using “rule of law” to mean ‘keep the ________s in their place.’ (I’m so disgusted by this practice that I considered making a thread about it, but refrained.)
On the protests front: the non-fatal shooting in Portland may have been a gang beef and not related to the protests. Interestingly:
Portland Mayor Calls For End To Anti-Trump Protests; Shooting Suspects Charged - OPB
Besides that, there has been some window-breaking and other hooliganism, but the peaceful protesters seem to be doing a good job of keeping it peaceful.
25,000 people and 11 arrests (in NY); not exactly the ‘rioting’ some on the right are trying to characterize it as. 100% peaceful and respectful of property would be the ideal. Don’t give up the high ground!
But that does bring to mind another tactic Trump might decide to try if he can’t tolerate the night-after-night demonstrations: sending in violent, window-breaking ringers. If there’s one thing we know about Trump, it’s that if he talks about an opponent being or doing something, it’s nearly always because he is or does that thing himself. (“Lyin’”, “crooked,” etc.; funny business with foundations (hi, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi!); health issues; and so on.)
If he were to try it, the people hired might talk. So that would be another dangerous way for him to try to deal with his discomfort over the protests, should he do so.
Funny, I always thought “law and order” was a backlash against the huge increase in crime that immediately occurred in the aftermath of the counterculture revolution and concomitant efforts by the left to battle for bad guy rights, to hamper the police in every way possible, and to get as many criminals sprung either through technicality, early parole or reduced sentencing. I know for a fact that three strikes laws were written in a last ditch effort to try to thwart liberals and keep multiple offenders in jail.
Could you please show the stats that show exactly when and where this huge increase in crime was?
And also, a cite for your fact as to why the three strikes rules were put in.
(Cite)
I love the way people on this board try to demand data they know perfectly well doesn’t exist. It’s really unfair. So unfair.
Ahem, I hold the above truth to be self-evident. If you can think of another reason for three strikes laws that aren’t an attempt to keep multiple offenders in jail, and can point to conservative rather than liberal activism as the reason such a problem exists in the first place, I’d be happy to listen.
What is the standard of evidence necessary to support the claim that “X,” is a code word meaning “Y?”
But if I don’t hold it self-evident, then I can simply deny it; a gratuitous assertion may always be denied equally gratuitously.
Language isn’t mathematics (as you know very well).
But I’d cite the LePage quote I put into my first post on the topic as being evidence that would convince most fair-minded observers.
Here it is again:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politi...itarian-power/
If you happen to use “rule of law” the same way that LePage does, then of course you won’t like the theory that “rule of law” is the new “law and order,” which in its day was the new “keep the ________s in line.”