I’m guessing that you think about him a lot more than he thinks about you.
Remember that what we’re talking about, here – the potential form of government that may lie ahead for the US – isn’t a binary choice.
For those who don’t know about it, aren’t familiar with it, or haven’t looked into it much (includes a link to the whole essay – worthwhile reading, IMHO)
Add me to the list of those who, while occasionally exasperated, like DT overall. He’s more right than wrong and he is a conscientious and considerate poster. You don’t have to agree with everything he says for him to be a net positive for this board.
Edit to add: these days I have much less patience with those telling us everything is fine and it will all work out, no problem. The hell it will.
In a way he is, revolutions aren’t necessarily good.
Aside from the last line of verse three of John Lennon’s “Revolution”,
Donald is not a revolutionary. He is very good at changing his mind, though, sometimes several times in a day.
Without trying to make the thread about @Leaper, IMO he spends waaay too many anxiety-filled hours rattling around in his own head second guessing his every thought & feeling.
Not really a happy or healthy habit to have.
Being so small and low-mass, it’s almost like Brownian motion.
That got a low level laugh-out-loud, thank you.
I was, though, directly addressing Mr.Dibble’s and others’ position that if it’s for the purpose of what is right and good then yes it is right to step over procedural legal limitations and go for the results. That is valid if we recognize that it means the system has failed, and then why preserve the forms?
… yeah, let’s not fall into that only if it’s for a cause WE consider righteous and just we’ll call it a revolution, as if the word by itself were a term of praise.
…
Again, Der ‘s doom-ism may be a defense mechanism: better feel relieved if by 2029 you’re still out and around, if massively inconvenienced, than be surprised by getting rounded up in 2027.
I have mentioned in other threads: even in dire tyrannies in our history people lived their lives, fell in love, raised children, went on holiday, enjoyed looking at a sunset. And if they dared, did what they could to undermine the system. It’s not an absolute binary.
And a lot of those people insisted “it’s not that bad” and “someone will stop him.” They also stayed friends with fascists and called people trying to sound the alarm crazy.
I have to point out that it was never really that kind of republic. The reason half the country thinks the Constitution was designed to bind one part and protect the other is that was literally the original purpose of the Constitution.
The Constitution is always taught as a glowing triumph of sober and civic-minded compromise that forged the formation of a nation of one from many. Oh, the wonderful glorious deliberative compromise of giving slave owners a free extra 3/5 portion of representation for every slave they could buy or breed, how incredibly fucking noble and principled.
And what was the compromise about? Slavery. What was the “state’s right” central to the compromise? The right not only to preserve slavery but to expand it. Don’t forget that the Civil War was a breakdown of a gentleman’s agreement to admit one slave state for every free state so that slavers would always have equal power in the government. Their immediate fear was not about their right to preserve slavery, they were reacting to a threat to their right to expand slavery, which they wanted to extend not only across North America but every shore of the Caribbean.
So the people who think the Constitution gives them the right to enslave a huge part of the population have a very good reason to think that. They have a very sound argument that this was the pretext under which they joined the Union and it’s been violated. There was never some principled noble Republic that’s now being lost, we’re just being reminded of what the Constitution always was. The only good thing about it is that it provided a way for future generations to deal with the mess while the present generation kicked the can down the road.
In deep red Arkansas if you don’t ever associate with fascist-adjacent folks your next choice is talking to the sky.
If(big if) you know someone’s real political stance you can avoid.
I will not be personally asking or guessing someones views.
If they are a flagrant, MAGA hat wearing asshole. Yep, easy to avoid.
Certainly not gonna engage.
I did get a good giggle when this past week Sarah ‘Huckleberry’ Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant for making employees and guests feel “uncomfortable”.
This has happened to her before when he was working for Trump’s first term.
Girl, pah-leese, quit dragging your butt, your security team and your whomever to restaurants. They don’t want your trashy presence.
I applaud the restaurateur for standing up for his team.
Little things like this is what creates a partisan mind set.
The flaw in your argument is that the Constitution includes the 14th amendment and the US had a second founding after the Civil War.
I’ll agree the US government was sorta-kinda refounded as you say.
But the citizenry of the states did not thereby change their minds about what the believed in. And they’ve still been teaching that separateness to their kids by word and deed and culture for >150 years now.
No. The Reconstruction Amendments were coerced through military occupation and the threat of permanent exclusion from congressional representation. Southern states went along with it to regain access to power, they have never once bought into it, and they’re still making noises about nullifying the 14th Amendment.
There was no second founding. It’s pure fantasy. Your cite is a Wikipedia link to some guy’s book. I’m sure his opinions are well supported and well articulated, but that’s just one point of view.
Eric Foner is probably the country’s leading Reconstruction expert. Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 from 1988 is a pretty seminal text on modern thought on the matter (I used it as a textbook in college when it was brand new 
). As the title suggests he doesn’t think Reconstruction fully succeeded in what it was supposed to do. Instead it was compromised out of existence for reasons of political expediency. I haven’t read his latest cited above, but his argument seems to be a hopeful philosophical one about the textual changes and their tangible impact on things like the Civil Rights Era.
But I suspect your views and his on that period are a lot closer than you might expect. I don’t think he would disagree with your comment on Reconstruction at all.
I guess what I’d dispute is the previous poster’s characterization of “second founding.” Their view seems to imply that there was sort of a reboot that corrected the errors of the first founding, merely by virtue of creating new amendments. Whereas I’d suggest that the “second founding” was only superficially different form the first, and left most of the structural problems in place. This is obviously and manifestly true, because if there were any kind of meaningful correction of past errors, the post-reconstruction “nadir” period of race relations wouldn’t have been possible.
And of course I don’t mean to downplay the importance of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. There should’ve probably been a dozen more amendments forced on the south at gunpoint. But it didn’t happen, so the “second founding” failed more or less as broadly as the first.
Point being, we’re losing some important institutions that may never return, but the underlying structure of America never was a real democratic republic. You can’t lose what you never had.
The tan suit didn’t push the envelope far enough for you?
Obviously. What would he care about one of billions of random casualties? That’s actually part of my issue.
And I actually don’t think that I think about him that much; this thread is about him. But he is a good exemplar of something that bothers me generally. Which, I’ll grant, may bother me too much. I actually realized that part of it is like how liberal and minority Southerners probably react to angry proposals to cut off or nuke the South. Hm.
It’s not your only issue.