De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public?

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-21-2016, 12:42 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 07:27 AM)Anthony Wrote:

(07-19-2016, 02:03 AM)MillsT_98 Wrote:

(07-18-2016, 06:57 PM)Anthony Wrote: Try to imagine 9/11-magnitude terrorist attacks every week or even more often somewhere in the United States.  It is very easy for me to do so - especially if Trump does win the election.

I would hate for that to happen. That would destroy the country, and would send the world into chaos.

No one wants to see that happen - but the destigmatization of treason that the Boom Awakening played host to makes it exponentially more likely to happen.

Yeah but an attack of that magnitude every single week? That's just too traumatizing. It would be a very hard 4T if that were to happen. We would probably not see the country triumph after that.

Right now the active spiral of violence involves the police and black people.  Economics hasn't tied into violence yet.

That could change with a Trump presidency.  During the campaign to date, when he has been crossed by political rivals or the press, he attacks, provokes and sometimes seeks revenge.  He hasn't been a conciliator.  He's loth to admit a mistake and eager to confront those pointing out his mistakes.  If he uses the power of the government to punish those who disagree with him, I could see a spiral getting out of hand easily enough.

Hillary has her faults, but I don't see her crating a spiral of violence that way.

[Odin]

(07-21-2016, 03:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Miami shooting: Man says cops shot him while he was lying down with hands up

Ok.  Another police shooting of a black man, laying on his back, no threat to anyone.  First report has the victim asking the police officer why he was shot, and the officer responding 'I don't know.'

I have some sympathy for the police, but if they want to ease a spiral of violence they are at the mercy of the worst trained, most racist and least comment among them.  

I just hope they don't turn this into a 'clean shoot,' a supposedly justified act.

Apparently the guy was begging the cop not to shoot him and the cop shot him anyways. That's attempted murder.

[Anthony '58]

Quote:Yeah but an attack of that magnitude every single week? That's just too traumatizing. It would be a very hard 4T if that were to happen. We would probably not see the country triumph after that.

Obviously 3,000 people won't be killed in every attack. But weekly petrol-bombings of police stations - and perhaps a redux of the Zebra shootings of San Francisco from the '70s, in multiple cities concomitantly?

Quite plausible.

[MillsT_98]

(07-28-2016, 04:22 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 12:42 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 07:27 AM)Anthony Wrote:

(07-19-2016, 02:03 AM)MillsT_98 Wrote:

(07-18-2016, 06:57 PM)Anthony Wrote: Try to imagine 9/11-magnitude terrorist attacks every week or even more often somewhere in the United States.  It is very easy for me to do so - especially if Trump does win the election.

I would hate for that to happen. That would destroy the country, and would send the world into chaos.

No one wants to see that happen - but the destigmatization of treason that the Boom Awakening played host to makes it exponentially more likely to happen.

Yeah but an attack of that magnitude every single week? That's just too traumatizing. It would be a very hard 4T if that were to happen. We would probably not see the country triumph after that.

Obviously 3,000 people won't be killed in every attack.  But weekly petrol-bombings of police stations - and perhaps a redux of the Zebra shootings of San Francisco from the '70s, in multiple cities concomitantly?

Quite plausible.

What I was talking about is the large-scale destruction of buildings and its detrimental attack on the economy as well as the loss of lives.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-29-2016, 10:27 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote:

(07-28-2016, 04:22 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 12:42 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 07:27 AM)Anthony Wrote:

(07-19-2016, 02:03 AM)MillsT_98 Wrote: I would hate for that to happen. That would destroy the country, and would send the world into chaos.

No one wants to see that happen - but the destigmatization of treason that the Boom Awakening played host to makes it exponentially more likely to happen.

Yeah but an attack of that magnitude every single week? That's just too traumatizing. It would be a very hard 4T if that were to happen. We would probably not see the country triumph after that.

Obviously 3,000 people won't be killed in every attack.  But weekly petrol-bombings of police stations - and perhaps a redux of the Zebra shootings of San Francisco from the '70s, in multiple cities concomitantly?

Quite plausible.

What I was talking about is the large-scale destruction of buildings and its detrimental attack on the economy as well as the loss of lives.

I am sensing a bump in a spiral of violence tied to inequality in the justice system.  I'm not sure if it is a short term bump or a sustainable escalation.  I'm guessing short term bump, a 'long hot summer'.  

There is a tie between the spirals of rhetoric and associated spirals of violence.  If the feeling on both sides is 'they got one of ours, we've got to go out and get two of theirs' you get escalation.  If that was the message being pushed on talk radio, the internet or even the political conventions, I'd expect shooters on both sides of the spiral to pick up on the message, the mood of the country, or at least the mood of the vocal extremes of the country, and enact it.

Instead, I'm still hearing far more 'this is horrible and has got to stop'.  Granted, I couldn't stomach Trump, so I watched more of the Democrats than the Republicans, but I'm hearing far more push to fix acknowledge problems underlying the violence than a desire to escalate.

[Eric the Green]

(07-21-2016, 07:27 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote: No one wants to see that happen - but the destigmatization of treason that the Boom Awakening played host to makes it exponentially more likely to happen.

I admit, you do have a point there. Rhetoric of revolution escalated during the 2T. Fanaticism on the right followed suit during the 3T. Nowadays there is less respect for our American laws and institutions.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-30-2016, 02:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 07:27 AM)Anthony Wrote: No one wants to see that happen - but the destigmatization of treason that the Boom Awakening played host to makes it exponentially more likely to happen.

I admit, you do have a point there. Rhetoric of revolution escalated during the 2T. Fanaticism on the right followed suit during the 3T. Nowadays there is less respect for our American laws and institutions.

The intensity of the spirals of rhetoric and violence is high, but not building to a violent internal 4T high, at least not yet.  The Revolutionary and Civil War spirals went all the way, over the top, into all out military violence.  While people don't like to take the threat of a 1930s era American Communist Revolution seriously, Senator McCarthy in the 1950s found an awful lot of intelligent well intended folks that thought democracy and capitalism had failed America in the 1930s.  That spiral fell short, however, quashed by the perceived success of the New Deal.

Yes, there were riots in the recent 2T and incidents like Waco and OKC in the 3T.  We've got Black Lives Matter and the police with their traditional abuse of the justice system glaring each other down today.  Still, the 2T and 3T spirals are long dormant, not escalating, and the racial justice confrontation is drawing far more 'this has got to stop' rhetoric than 'they got one of ours, let's take out two of theirs.'  While spirals of rhetoric and violence should always be watched, read your history and try for some objectivity when judging just how far a spiral has advanced.

[Eric the Green]

(07-30-2016, 02:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 02:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 07:27 AM)Anthony Wrote: No one wants to see that happen - but the destigmatization of treason that the Boom Awakening played host to makes it exponentially more likely to happen.

I admit, you do have a point there. Rhetoric of revolution escalated during the 2T. Fanaticism on the right followed suit during the 3T. Nowadays there is less respect for our American laws and institutions.

The intensity of the spirals of rhetoric and violence is high, but not building to a violent internal 4T high, at least not yet.  The Revolutionary and Civil War spirals went all the way, over the top, into all out military violence.  While people don't like to take the threat of a 1930s era American Communist Revolution seriously, Senator McCarthy in the 1950s found an awful lot of intelligent well intended folks that thought democracy and capitalism had failed America in the 1930s.  That spiral fell short, however, quashed by the perceived success of the New Deal.

Yes, there were riots in the recent 2T and incidents like Waco and OKC in the 3T.  We've got Black Lives Matter and the police with their traditional abuse of the justice system glaring each other down today.  Still, the 2T and 3T spirals are long dormant, not escalating, and the racial justice confrontation is drawing far more 'this has got to stop' rhetoric than 'they got one of ours, let's take out two of theirs.'  While spirals of rhetoric and violence should always be watched, read your history and try for some objectivity when judging just how far a spiral has advanced.

It's quite possible we will muddle through, and there's enough sense so that enough good decisions are made that we'll pull through the crisis era. Sometimes, I must admit, I am over-the-top in proclaiming the demise of civilization and American society if Republicans aren't defeated soon, etc. There will always be some people around who hold up what I consider progress.

No doubt that today's Republicans are beyond the pale in that regard. But life moves on, and we can't permanently wipe out conservatives. I do hold that progress exists, and has been made; that the arc of history bends toward justice. But ways of war and violence, while they may be necessary at times, do not bring us permanent peace. It does take, I think, broader views of ourselves and what we are capable of, that go beyond conventional viewpoints; that we need to raise our consciousness in all senses of the term. As humanity does this, peace and progress will get easier.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-31-2016, 08:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 02:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 02:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 07:27 AM)Anthony Wrote: No one wants to see that happen - but the destigmatization of treason that the Boom Awakening played host to makes it exponentially more likely to happen.

I admit, you do have a point there. Rhetoric of revolution escalated during the 2T. Fanaticism on the right followed suit during the 3T. Nowadays there is less respect for our American laws and institutions.

The intensity of the spirals of rhetoric and violence is high, but not building to a violent internal 4T high, at least not yet.  The Revolutionary and Civil War spirals went all the way, over the top, into all out military violence.  While people don't like to take the threat of a 1930s era American Communist Revolution seriously, Senator McCarthy in the 1950s found an awful lot of intelligent well intended folks that thought democracy and capitalism had failed America in the 1930s.  That spiral fell short, however, quashed by the perceived success of the New Deal.

Yes, there were riots in the recent 2T and incidents like Waco and OKC in the 3T.  We've got Black Lives Matter and the police with their traditional abuse of the justice system glaring each other down today.  Still, the 2T and 3T spirals are long dormant, not escalating, and the racial justice confrontation is drawing far more 'this has got to stop' rhetoric than 'they got one of ours, let's take out two of theirs.'  While spirals of rhetoric and violence should always be watched, read your history and try for some objectivity when judging just how far a spiral has advanced.

It's quite possible we will muddle through, and there's enough sense so that enough good decisions are made that we'll pull through the crisis era. Sometimes, I must admit, I am over-the-top in proclaiming the demise of civilization and American society if Republicans aren't defeated soon, etc. There will always be some people around who hold up what I consider progress.

No doubt that today's Republicans are beyond the pale in that regard. But life moves on, and we can't permanently wipe out conservatives. I do hold that progress exists, and has been made; that the arc of history bends toward justice. But ways of war and violence, while they may be necessary at times, do not bring us permanent peace. It does take, I think, broader views of ourselves and what we are capable of, that go beyond conventional viewpoints; that we need to raise our consciousness in all senses of the term. As humanity does this, peace and progress will get easier.

I guess there are some questions that I'd like to see answered somewhat objectively.  How much are the progressives willing to fight to change society?  How hard will the conservatives wish to cling to established culture? 

We can begin to answer as individuals.  Individuals will have quite different answers.  The people we tend to draw here seem to have more extreme answers than most.  On many an issue you'll be pushing for an obvious need for big time change while Classic Xer will be pushing just as hard the other way.  You're both passionate from different perspectives.  Yet, an exchange of ideas and emotion between the two of you seems inadequate to measure the state of the nation.  A lot of folk, to say the least, aren't as intense and extreme as some of the folk we have around here.  The extremes alone do not begin to represent the whole.

There have been a bunch of crisis era issues that got pretty darn intense, and I'll throw in the Civil Rights confrontation of the 1950s and 1960s as an out of 4T issue with a similar intensity.  The Revolution, Civil War, and World War II went full military.  There aren't that many who will say they shouldn't have gone full military.  The issues being fought over -- taxation without representation, slavery and fascism -- had to be resolved in favor of human rights, equality and democracy.  (It says so right in the history books written by the victors.)  The former two crises had internal spirals of rhetoric and violence that included violent catalysts that might today be called terrorist.  

Today we have several conflicts that might be deemed very very important, but are they important enough to kill for, to die for?  Do both the conservatives and progressives think the problem is serious enough that violence is preferable to yielding?  If one looses at the ballot box, is it worth picking up a gun?  I'll throw up three issues, and be open to others:  economic inequality, a racist justice system and global warming.

Ideally, a charismatic president with firm control of Congress could resolve all three without full scale violence.  Naturally, I'd prefer it be a progressive president with a progressive Congress.  The firm control of Congress has been elusive and might remain elusive so long as the current filibuster rules continue to be abused to a far greater extent than they were in prior crises.  Ideally, the conservatives don't get so gung ho to resist change that they would go full military to prevent change in those three areas.

But those are my hopes.  I try to distinguish between hopes that my personal values might be implemented and where the nation really is politically.  Of the three issues, only racial inequality has the start of a spiral of violence underway.  As I judge it, even that spiral has more 'this is horrible and must stop' feeling associated with it than 'they got one of ours, let's get two of theirs'.  Thus, I'm not seeing any of my three current issues spiraling up...  as of this moment.

This doesn't mean that I can't see how people strongly effected by said issues could see them as vital enough to be worthy of violence.  Currently not spiraling up does not mean unworthy of spiraling up or can't ever spiral up.  For example, if the effects global warming become yet more obvious but big corporations backing continued fossil fuel use maintain firm control over the political system, well, things could get violent.  Is it out of hand yet?  Obviously not.  Might it become so someday?  That depends on how stubborn and committed both sides get.  If an issue can be solved at the ballot box, there is no need to reach for the gun.

And looking at past crises, winning progress has required strident propagandists and terrorists proclaiming new values with full out partisan fervor.  I'll throw up as examples Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, William Lloyd Garrison, John Brown and Martin Luther King.  Thus there is something to be said for proclaiming, living and dying for new values early and often, not that I'm advocating that last just yet.

Flipping through the net, I stumbled into a Sam Adams quote.  "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

Anyway, perhaps a few brushfires are called for.  I'd just strive not confuse the ideals and reality.  

There is also that idea from the novel Shogun.  There is only one thing that justifies rising up against one's overlord, one's government....   

You have to win.

[Anthony '58]

Watch very closely what happens with the rape/sodomy/murder of Karina Vetrano while jogging in a park wedged between the heavily Italian-American Howard Beach section of Queens (where she lived) and the heavily African-American East New York section of Brooklyn last Monday.

When they catch the suspect and if he turns out to be black, there's your "Fort Sumter": It would be the "Rubicon-crosser" because it would involve a white victim who was not a police officer for the first time.

[Eric the Green]

We have a problem with police arresting African Americans for crimes they didn't commit. Racism and bias exist, just as Kaine said and Pence denied. Click on the video to see it.

[Eric the Green]

The officer who choked Eric Garner got a raise and the only person in jail is the man who filmed the encounter.
Is this what justice looks like?

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-05-2016, 03:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: This bolsters a point I've made repeatedly.

State and local law enforcement and to an extent even federal agencies have been targeted for infiltration by, and have actually been infiltrated by, Nazi and other totalitarian oriented groups. Meanwhile, said groups have been infiltrated by Russian agents. The Russians long ago gave up on fomenting revolution and chaos by infiltrating the Western Left. They realized that although the Western Left are in a sense anti-Establishment, other than certain fringe elements, the Western Left are not especially fond of totalitarianism. The Western Left could not be used to try to tear down the Western pillars of governance. Therefore, the Russians changed course and started to infiltrate the faux "Right." The faux "Right" are the real revolutionary force who could credibly threaten governance.

I'm with you.  Agreed.  A few nitpicks.

The violent faux right seem to me more reactionary than revolutionary.  This might just be a difference in how we use words.  Yes, a potentially violent threat, though I don't see the spirals of rhetoric and violence as particularly advanced. Me, I use John Brown's Bleeding Kansas and Harper's Ferry incidents to be the standard for an advanced spiral of violence. Clearly, not there yet.

I also find "The Western Left are not especially fond of totalitarianism" to be a big league understatement.

[Warren Dew]

Considering Clinton's totalitarian tendencies, the idea that the western left is less fond of totalitarianism than the western right seems absurd.

[Eric the Green]

How is Hillary Clinton "totalitarian?" Don't you think that's a rather absurd exaggeration?

[Warren Dew]

(10-06-2016, 10:24 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(10-06-2016, 09:06 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Considering Clinton's totalitarian tendencies, the idea that the western left is less fond of totalitarianism than the western right seems absurd.

You are engaging in a vile stereotype. It is true the Western Leftists are Statists. But what they are not are Statists who want the state to be completely lawless and brutal, operating completely beyond any sort of Constitutional norms.

It's the left that wants to strip the second amendment of any meaning by reversing Heller and McDonald.  It's the left that wants to strip corporate newspapers of first amendment protection by reversing Citizen's United.  The right cares much more about constitutional protections for citizens than the left does.

Quote: In general, Western leftists are not oriented toward violence and many are unarmed. Meanwhile, the Revolutionary Right, are not only heavily armed but are also prone to application of such arms toward violent means. Does all of this escape you?

"Violence" and "totalitarianism" are not the same things.  Right wing militias are armed for protection against the state, not in order to enforce state power.

But even with respect to violence, let's not forget that it's the left wing that's actually got snipers assassinating people, as in Dallas.

[Eric the Green]

(10-06-2016, 11:29 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(10-06-2016, 10:24 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(10-06-2016, 09:06 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Considering Clinton's totalitarian tendencies, the idea that the western left is less fond of totalitarianism than the western right seems absurd.

You are engaging in a vile stereotype. It is true the Western Leftists are Statists. But what they are not are Statists who want the state to be completely lawless and brutal, operating completely beyond any sort of Constitutional norms.

It's the left that wants to strip the second amendment of any meaning by reversing Heller and McDonald.  It's the left that wants to strip corporate newspapers of first amendment protection by reversing Citizen's United.  The right cares much more about constitutional protections for citizens than the left does.

I might have known. Gun fanaticism. I'll take restrictions on guns anytime over the right-wing's support for money and oligarchy instead of democracy (Citizen's United), denial of climate change, facilitation of greed, facilitation of poverty through discrimination and trickle-down economics, restrictions on voting rights, censorship, brown-shirt type fomentation of violence, racial profiling and dog-whistle racism, excuses and facilitation of police shootings and civilian police armies, thousands killed in unnecessary wars, drug wars, and more good stuff that you guys like. Sorry, but bringing up guns as the basis for calling the left "totalitarian" riles me up. Thanks for your opinion though. To me though there's nothing more totalitarian IMO than allowing people to have lots of guns to impose their will on others at the point of a barrel.

Quote:

Quote: In general, Western leftists are not oriented toward violence and many are unarmed. Meanwhile, the Revolutionary Right, are not only heavily armed but are also prone to application of such arms toward violent means. Does all of this escape you?

"Violence" and "totalitarianism" are not the same things.  Right wing militias are armed for protection against the state, not in order to enforce state power.

But even with respect to violence, let's not forget that it's the left wing that's actually got snipers assassinating people, as in Dallas.

There was no such left wing assassination; sorry. You have to really reach to grab that debunked liberal conspiracy theory! I suppose you want to identify Lee Harvey Oswald as representative of the left wing? Gimme a break.

Right wing armed militias protect the rights of corporate bosses, racist mobs, polluting land-squatters, gun fanatics, and other vehicles of the real "state," as opposed to the peoples' state. The right wing enforces the rights of the strong and wealthy against the rest of us, by any means necessary. Respect the law, and respect justice for all. Then we won't need any kind of militias.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-06-2016, 09:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: How is Hillary Clinton "totalitarian?" Don't you think that's a rather absurd exaggeration?

I'd second this.  During the Bush 43 years, if you believed what you read on political forums like this one, all Democrats were communist totalitarians while all Republicans were Fascist totalitarians.  I find both notions to be equally vile stereotypes.  "Absurd exaggerations" would also be descriptive.

I'm also seeing long memories of quite dead spirals of violence being raised.  Yes, there was the beginning of a spiral of violence during the awakening years around 1968.  The left lost MLK, and the two Kennedys.  On the flip side there were a lot of demonstrations and riots.  The Blue Awakening was quite dead by the Fall of Saigon, Watergate and Tapestry.  The awakening spirals are but a memory.

Similarly, Waco, Ruby Ridge and OKC reflected a right wing v government spiral.  Clinton 42 changed the rules of engagement, reducing the level of force to be used by the FBI, BATF and similar federal law enforcement agencies.  OKC turned everybody off on the use of force for political gains.  The picture of the fireman carrying the baby's corpse is of note.  That spiral too is way dormant.  Rural 'militias' are still armed.  They still talk the talk.  The rhetoric is still there.  Still, the actual violence is just about nil. You might count the ranchers that took over the wild life preserve, but law enforcement continued to use Clinton 42's slow non violent approach to containing potential violence.  They didn't use tanks or burn children.

The hot spiral of violence is racist cops against black people.  That's there and the media is all over it, but Clinton isn't pushing the violence.  Trump's racist and law and order approach might be likened to typical totalitarian racial scapegoating and glorification of the power or the state.  Even so, labeling him 'totalitarian' seems an exaggeration to me.  Some truth, but at least as much exaggeration.

I've been not quite expecting but waiting for Trump supporters wearing brown shirt style pseudo military uniforms marching near Trump rallies.  Trump knows better, I think.  He has an unusual style, but hasn't gone that far.  So far, we're seeing 'Make America Great Again' baseball caps rather than military uniforms.

[Eric the Green]

Warren Dew, to think that arming citizens is the way to protect the people from the state and its police is foolish nonsense. You shoot the police, they shoot back. They arm themselves and shoot and ask questions later. A state that requires citizens to be armed to oppose it, is a state on the way to civil war. To fight a civil war or revolution is a last-ditch remedy, and usually destined to fail, unless the state or dictator is so weak that armed forces won't support it either. To win a civil war or revolution against a strong, armed state will require that you form a state of your own, with vast armies, police and very-likely foreign assistance. The result is usually a state that is just as oppressive as the one you overthrew. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. That's history; them's the facts.

[Eric the Green]

(10-06-2016, 12:56 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-06-2016, 09:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: How is Hillary Clinton "totalitarian?" Don't you think that's a rather absurd exaggeration?

I'd second this.  During the Bush 43 years, if you believed what you read on political forums like this one, all Democrats were communist totalitarians while all Republicans were Fascist totalitarians.  I find both notions to be equally vile stereotypes.  "Absurd exaggerations" would also be descriptive.

I'm also seeing long memories of quite dead spirals of violence being raised.  Yes, there was the beginning of a spiral of violence during the awakening years around 1968.  The left lost MLK, and the two Kennedys.  On the flip side there were a lot of demonstrations and riots.  The Blue Awakening was quite dead by the Fall of Saigon, Watergate and Tapestry.  The awakening spirals are but a memory.

Similarly, Waco, Ruby Ridge and OKC reflected a right wing v government spiral.  Clinton 42 changed the rules of engagement, reducing the level of force to be used by the FBI, BATF and similar federal law enforcement agencies.  OKC turned everybody off on the use of force for political gains.  The picture of the fireman carrying the baby's corpse is of note.  That spiral too is way dormant.  Rural 'militias' are still armed.  They still talk the talk.  The rhetoric is still there.  Still, the actual violence is just about nil. You might count the ranchers that took over the wild life preserve, but law enforcement continued to use Clinton 42's slow non violent approach to containing potential violence.  They didn't use tanks or burn children.

The hot spiral of violence is racist cops against black people.  That's there and the media is all over it, but Clinton isn't pushing the violence.  Trump's racist and law and order approach might be likened to typical totalitarian racial scapegoating and glorification of the power or the state.  Even so, labeling him 'totalitarian' seems an exaggeration to me.  Some truth, but at least as much exaggeration.

I've been not quite expecting but waiting for Trump supporters wearing brown shirt style pseudo military uniforms marching near Trump rallies.  Trump knows better, I think.  He has an unusual style, but hasn't gone that far.  So far, we're seeing 'Make America Great Again' baseball caps rather than military uniforms.

I agree, and let's hope Trump doesn't get in so we can see just how "far" he wants to take his "style."