Neil Howe: 'Civil War Is More Likely Than People Think'

[pbrower2a]

(11-13-2016, 03:08 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(11-08-2016, 01:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Some basic themes:

1. Donald Trump has no chance.

2. US Senate -- it is a near-toss-up. Democrats have nothing to lose, but Republicans aren't losing enough to make the Senate a slam dunk.

3. Gridlock likely for now. Obstruction has become the norm.

4. Civil war -- possible. Many cannot accept that they can lose. 45% of the public will believe that the election was stolen.

Subtext: impeachment a high likelihood strictly for political purposes. Hillary Clinton could be crippled as President.

5. Economic vulnerability: likely a slowing economy, an economic downturn will not elicit buyouts. Some people would like an economic meltdown to make their agenda possible. More monetary stimulus is unlikely.

6. Foreign policy: Russia can exploit any division in the West.

7. Populism has become a theme in both Parties. Corporations can be called on the carpet for misconduct.

8. Realignment -- we are overdue. Parties must redefine themselves, but they have become increasingly rigid. But the rigidity means that they cannot meet6 a real emergency.

Wells Fargo has been called out, and the CEO was either fired or forced to resign. But this has been the exception rather than the rule in recent years.

Oh, was I wrong! Liberalism may have become irrelevant in America. The Republicans may be in a position to ensure that we never have an election that the Republicans aren't willing to lose.

We will now have political lockstep because a totalitarian party can make life Hell for anyone not already rich so that the rich and powerful can live like sultans. Nobody gets away with challenging the Master Class and its Party.

We may have had the sort of realignment that Czechoslovakia had in 1948, except that this one is to the benefit of the plutocratic elite.

Every day that I will be in Donald Trump's America I will be a suicide risk. I would rather have terminal cancer than Donald Trump as President.

[naf140230]

(11-13-2016, 03:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-13-2016, 03:08 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(11-08-2016, 01:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Some basic themes:

1. Donald Trump has no chance.

2. US Senate -- it is a near-toss-up. Democrats have nothing to lose, but Republicans aren't losing enough to make the Senate a slam dunk.

3. Gridlock likely for now. Obstruction has become the norm.

4. Civil war -- possible. Many cannot accept that they can lose. 45% of the public will believe that the election was stolen.

Subtext: impeachment a high likelihood strictly for political purposes. Hillary Clinton could be crippled as President.

5. Economic vulnerability: likely a slowing economy, an economic downturn will not elicit buyouts. Some people would like an economic meltdown to make their agenda possible. More monetary stimulus is unlikely.

6. Foreign policy: Russia can exploit any division in the West.

7. Populism has become a theme in both Parties. Corporations can be called on the carpet for misconduct.

8. Realignment -- we are overdue. Parties must redefine themselves, but they have become increasingly rigid. But the rigidity means that they cannot meet6 a real emergency.

Wells Fargo has been called out, and the CEO was either fired or forced to resign. But this has been the exception rather than the rule in recent years.

Oh, was I wrong! Liberalism may have become irrelevant in America. The Republicans may be in a position to ensure that we never have an election that the Republicans aren't willing to lose.

We will now have political lockstep because a totalitarian party can make life Hell for anyone not already rich so that the rich and powerful can live like sultans. Nobody gets away with challenging the Master Class and its Party.

We may have had the sort of realignment that Czechoslovakia had in 1948, except that this one is to the benefit of the plutocratic elite.

Every day that I will be in Donald Trump's America I will be a suicide risk. I would rather have terminal cancer than Donald Trump as President.

The Democrats are planning to do the same thing the Republicans did under Obama.

[Eric the Green]

(11-14-2016, 05:35 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 11:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hear about American deaths in Afghanistan today, and I find I am losing interest in these battles and want them to come home. I feel the need to focus on our emerging civil war here, and don't care what happens in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, France, etc. Maybe I will change my mind but for now, what to do in a nation under tyranny and headed for self-imposed destruction is where my mind is. Anyone feel the same?

No I don't feel the same. You have fallen into their trap. They have you right where they want you. They want you to disengage and fight other Americans.

But.... that's the fight that's on our hands.

[Eric the Green]

(11-14-2016, 05:30 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 05:25 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We will see much civil strife. The President and the GOP now show no capacity for conciliation with the other side, which it treats as political vermin. Its economic policies are likely to hurt even those working people who thought that if they promised to take a hufe economic hit that they would get their cultural values (as on abortion, same-sex marriage, school prayer, and creationism) enshrined -- they will only get the economic hit.

As the Republicans gut Great Society and New Deal programs in a headlong rush to the Gilded Age, they will get the natural response -- mass hatred. Redress of grievances? "Get'em outta here!".

I expect law enforcement to get a green light for brutality against peaceful protesters. I can imagine Donald Trump going after protesters... "Couldn't they be doing some work instead?"

We have a cruel President and very cruel elected officials who will do very bad things to multitudes and wonder why people don't simply accept such as blessings. Why should they?

As the republicans relegate the saner expressions of liberalism to oblivion, the more extreme types on the Left will emerge. Such implies even more rancor and potential for violence.

Leadership that abuses people does not promote civic peace. Now add an unjust war that is obviously such from the start, and you have another cause.

It's still a bit early but I foresee a faction known as "Not-Alt-Right" that will also become well armed. Classic examples on here would be me and Odin. There must be others out there. Sure, at present, we don't equal the amorphous mass of "Alt-Right" + "White Power" + megalomaniac cops / government agents who have Alt-Right proclivities + off-track "Sage Brush Rebellion" adherents. But still, there exists a silent plurality who are not afraid of guns, who are opposed to this cabal who have seized power. We know how to shoot. Some of us are even decent builders and gun smiths. History never repeats but it rhymes.

How are you going to fight back with guns? Realistically, how will being armed help you fight the cabal?

You mentioned that CA might not be able to defend against WMD. How would you?

[Eric the Green]

(11-12-2016, 05:25 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We will see much civil strife. The President and the GOP now show no capacity for conciliation with the other side, which it treats as political vermin. Its economic policies are likely to hurt even those working people who thought that if they promised to take a huge economic hit that they would get their cultural values (as on abortion, same-sex marriage, school prayer, and creationism) enshrined -- they will only get the economic hit.

As the Republicans gut Great Society and New Deal programs in a headlong rush to the Gilded Age, they will get the natural response -- mass hatred. Redress of grievances? "Get'em outta here!".

I expect law enforcement to get a green light for brutality against peaceful protesters. I can imagine Donald Trump going after protesters... "Couldn't they be doing some work instead?"

https://youtu.be/-jw4gnoVSBM?t=10m5s

Quote:We have a cruel President and very cruel elected officials who will do very bad things to multitudes and wonder why people don't simply accept such as blessings. Why should they?

As the republicans relegate the saner expressions of liberalism to oblivion, the more extreme types on the Left will emerge. Such implies even more rancor and potential for violence.

That's right; we are on the way to civil war.

Quote:Leadership that abuses people does not promote civic peace. Now add an unjust war that is obviously such from the start, and you have another cause.

Who knows what Trump might do. He's unstable.

[pbrower2a]

"I like to be unpredictable" -- Donald Trump.

Contrast Barack Obama, who may have been able to make unlikely deals because he is trustworthy -- one hallmark of predictability. If he says that he will do something, then he will do it. Maybe he can make a hard bargain because he knows what he can give and what he can;t. He does not make a deal just to make a deal.

But that's over. The world becomes a much more dangerous place on January 21, 2017 as the United States will have a mercurial, dictatorial leader.

[Eric the Green]

(11-14-2016, 06:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 05:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 05:30 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 05:25 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We will see much civil strife. The President and the GOP now show no capacity for conciliation with the other side, which it treats as political vermin. Its economic policies are likely to hurt even those working people who thought that if they promised to take a hufe economic hit that they would get their cultural values (as on abortion, same-sex marriage, school prayer, and creationism) enshrined -- they will only get the economic hit.

As the Republicans gut Great Society and New Deal programs in a headlong rush to the Gilded Age, they will get the natural response -- mass hatred. Redress of grievances? "Get'em outta here!".

I expect law enforcement to get a green light for brutality against peaceful protesters. I can imagine Donald Trump going after protesters... "Couldn't they be doing some work instead?"

We have a cruel President and very cruel elected officials who will do very bad things to multitudes and wonder why people don't simply accept such as blessings. Why should they?

As the republicans relegate the saner expressions of liberalism to oblivion, the more extreme types on the Left will emerge. Such implies even more rancor and potential for violence.

Leadership that abuses people does not promote civic peace. Now add an unjust war that is obviously such from the start, and you have another cause.

It's still a bit early but I foresee a faction known as "Not-Alt-Right" that will also become well armed. Classic examples on here would be me and Odin. There must be others out there. Sure, at present, we don't equal the amorphous mass of "Alt-Right" + "White Power" + megalomaniac cops / government agents who have Alt-Right proclivities + off-track "Sage Brush Rebellion" adherents. But still, there exists a silent plurality who are not afraid of guns, who are opposed to this cabal who have seized power. We know how to shoot. Some of us are even decent builders and gun smiths. History never repeats but it rhymes.

How are you going to fight back with guns? Realistically, how will being armed help you fight the cabal?

You mentioned that CA might not be able to defend against WMD. How would you?

How have resistance movements throughout history fought against totalitarians?

Regarding WMD, you might have misread what I've written. We (CA, or more broadly, Blue States) have WMD. So too do Red States. WMD and the means to produce them are in multiple locations around the US.

My question remains. If the totalitarian uses WMD on you, what good are your guns?

Resistance movements win when they are organized (usually into a government; itself often dictatorial) and get foreign help. I've said that before too. Violent revolution by militant, armed individuals does not succeed.

How are you going to fight back with guns? Realistically, how will being armed help you fight the cabal?

As I've been saying though, I'm not optimistic anymore. I doubt that political organizing can win either. The people are stuck in Reaganism, and it may never end. No matter how many times it fails, the people will vote for it again and again. The pendulum swings, but the net result is backward.

I am not sanguine about the future of the United States of America. I think something else is going to replace it, perhaps by the end of this 4T. So what's the use of getting upset if other countries threaten us? It makes no difference now. As you say, Russian agents rule us already.

[radind]

(11-14-2016, 07:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 06:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 05:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 05:30 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 05:25 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We will see much civil strife. The President and the GOP now show no capacity for conciliation with the other side, which it treats as political vermin. Its economic policies are likely to hurt even those working people who thought that if they promised to take a hufe economic hit that they would get their cultural values (as on abortion, same-sex marriage, school prayer, and creationism) enshrined -- they will only get the economic hit.

As the Republicans gut Great Society and New Deal programs in a headlong rush to the Gilded Age, they will get the natural response -- mass hatred. Redress of grievances? "Get'em outta here!".

I expect law enforcement to get a green light for brutality against peaceful protesters. I can imagine Donald Trump going after protesters... "Couldn't they be doing some work instead?"

We have a cruel President and very cruel elected officials who will do very bad things to multitudes and wonder why people don't simply accept such as blessings. Why should they?

As the republicans relegate the saner expressions of liberalism to oblivion, the more extreme types on the Left will emerge. Such implies even more rancor and potential for violence.

Leadership that abuses people does not promote civic peace. Now add an unjust war that is obviously such from the start, and you have another cause.

It's still a bit early but I foresee a faction known as "Not-Alt-Right" that will also become well armed. Classic examples on here would be me and Odin. There must be others out there. Sure, at present, we don't equal the amorphous mass of "Alt-Right" + "White Power" + megalomaniac cops / government agents who have Alt-Right proclivities + off-track "Sage Brush Rebellion" adherents. But still, there exists a silent plurality who are not afraid of guns, who are opposed to this cabal who have seized power. We know how to shoot. Some of us are even decent builders and gun smiths. History never repeats but it rhymes.

How are you going to fight back with guns? Realistically, how will being armed help you fight the cabal?

You mentioned that CA might not be able to defend against WMD. How would you?

How have resistance movements throughout history fought against totalitarians?

Regarding WMD, you might have misread what I've written. We (CA, or more broadly, Blue States) have WMD. So too do Red States. WMD and the means to produce them are in multiple locations around the US.

My question remains. If the totalitarian uses WMD on you, what good are your guns?

Resistance movements win when they are organized (usually into a government; itself often dictatorial) and get foreign help. I've said that before too. Violent revolution by militant, armed individuals does not succeed.

How are you going to fight back with guns? Realistically, how will being armed help you fight the cabal?

As I've been saying though, I'm not optimistic anymore. I doubt that political organizing can win either. The people are stuck in Reaganism, and it may never end. No matter how many times it fails, the people will vote for it again and again. The pendulum swings, but the net result is backward.

I am not sanguine about the future of the United States of America. I think something else is going to replace it, perhaps by the end of this 4T. So what's the use of getting upset if other countries threaten us? It makes no difference now. As you say, Russian agents rule us already.

I don't agree with your dire assessment. We can compare notes  next year to see what actually unfolds.

[Eric the Green]

I'll give you this much, Radind or anyone else. Life is still basically good. It is challenging, but we wouldn't want it too easy. We'd be bored.





Life and being human is a miracle. Even when I'm angry, I'm in wonder. And without my enemies, even Galen ( ), I wouldn't know who I am. I couldn't be a lilly-livered librul if there weren't some conservaturds around. So, life goes on. It's going to be harder in this world now. Climate change can't be stopped. Racism continues. The poor get poorer and the rich richer. But, life has always been hard for most people on Earth. We'll muddle through. There will be resistance. Who knows what may happen before this 4T ends. My original prediction might still come true after 2022.

[Eric the Green]

(11-14-2016, 09:13 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 07:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 06:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 05:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 05:30 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: It's still a bit early but I foresee a faction known as "Not-Alt-Right" that will also become well armed. Classic examples on here would be me and Odin. There must be others out there. Sure, at present, we don't equal the amorphous mass of "Alt-Right" + "White Power" + megalomaniac cops / government agents who have Alt-Right proclivities + off-track "Sage Brush Rebellion" adherents. But still, there exists a silent plurality who are not afraid of guns, who are opposed to this cabal who have seized power. We know how to shoot. Some of us are even decent builders and gun smiths. History never repeats but it rhymes.

How are you going to fight back with guns? Realistically, how will being armed help you fight the cabal?

You mentioned that CA might not be able to defend against WMD. How would you?

How have resistance movements throughout history fought against totalitarians?

Regarding WMD, you might have misread what I've written. We (CA, or more broadly, Blue States) have WMD. So too do Red States. WMD and the means to produce them are in multiple locations around the US.

My question remains. If the totalitarian uses WMD on you, what good are your guns?

Resistance movements win when they are organized (usually into a government; itself often dictatorial) and get foreign help. I've said that before too. Violent revolution by militant, armed individuals does not succeed.

How are you going to fight back with guns? Realistically, how will being armed help you fight the cabal?

As I've been saying though, I'm not optimistic anymore. I doubt that political organizing can win either. The people are stuck in Reaganism, and it may never end. No matter how many times it fails, the people will vote for it again and again. The pendulum swings, but the net result is backward.

I am not sanguine about the future of the United States of America. I think something else is going to replace it, perhaps by the end of this 4T. So what's the use of getting upset if other countries threaten us? It makes no difference now. As you say, Russian agents rule us already.

Let's say Texas attacks or threatens to attack The West Coast with WMD. The West Coast has its own WMD for countervalue and / or counterforce strikes. It's no different than a great power rivalry where both great powers have WMD. I think you've read Ecotopia, correct?

In any case, what I'm pointing out is, firstly, the Left need to get over the fear many of them have about guns and being armed, and secondly, the Left needs to get real about making some allies on the Right. That simple process would do a lot to deter civil war.

The other thing the Left needs to do, like the mythical Ecotopians did, is become proficient in military and defense matters. Stop reflexively reacting against the so called "military industrial complex."

Defend California!

Maybe, but you have not shown me that getting armed will prevent Trump from blowing you away with machine guns, tanks, drones and WMD.

We may need a MIC, but individuals bearing arms? Not unless part of a "militia being necessary to the defense of a free state." An alternative state.

[Eric the Green]

(11-14-2016, 10:57 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 09:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 09:13 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 07:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 06:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: How have resistance movements throughout history fought against totalitarians?

Regarding WMD, you might have misread what I've written. We (CA, or more broadly, Blue States) have WMD. So too do Red States. WMD and the means to produce them are in multiple locations around the US.

My question remains. If the totalitarian uses WMD on you, what good are your guns?

Resistance movements win when they are organized (usually into a government; itself often dictatorial) and get foreign help. I've said that before too. Violent revolution by militant, armed individuals does not succeed.

How are you going to fight back with guns? Realistically, how will being armed help you fight the cabal?

As I've been saying though, I'm not optimistic anymore. I doubt that political organizing can win either. The people are stuck in Reaganism, and it may never end. No matter how many times it fails, the people will vote for it again and again. The pendulum swings, but the net result is backward.

I am not sanguine about the future of the United States of America. I think something else is going to replace it, perhaps by the end of this 4T. So what's the use of getting upset if other countries threaten us? It makes no difference now. As you say, Russian agents rule us already.

Let's say Texas attacks or threatens to attack The West Coast with WMD. The West Coast has its own WMD for countervalue and / or counterforce strikes. It's no different than a great power rivalry where both great powers have WMD. I think you've read Ecotopia, correct?

In any case, what I'm pointing out is, firstly, the Left need to get over the fear many of them have about guns and being armed, and secondly, the Left needs to get real about making some allies on the Right. That simple process would do a lot to deter civil war.

The other thing the Left needs to do, like the mythical Ecotopians did, is become proficient in military and defense matters. Stop reflexively reacting against the so called "military industrial complex."

Defend California!

Maybe, but you have not shown me that getting armed will prevent Trump from blowing you away with machine guns, tanks, drones and WMD.

We may need a MIC, but individuals bearing arms? Not unless part of a "militia being necessary to the defense of a free state." An alternative state.

Have you read Hart's "Restoration of the Republic?"

I'm recommending it now more than ever. If we can build on its ideas, there is hope.

Gary Hart?

If so, yes he's insightful.

[Warren Dew]

(11-14-2016, 09:13 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In any case, what I'm pointing out is, firstly, the Left need to get over the fear many of them have about guns and being armed, and secondly, the Left needs to get real about making some allies on the Right. That simple process would do a lot to deter civil war.

I'm curious how far you'd be willing to go to make allies on the Right.  Pretty much everyone on the Right is willing to give Trump a chance, even former never Trumpies.  Are you?

Also, how does armed opposition deter civil war? It seems to me like it's more likely to foment civil war.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure CA does not have nuclear weapons.  There are nuclear weapons in Washington state, though.

[Warren Dew]

(11-15-2016, 11:35 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 09:38 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 09:13 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In any case, what I'm pointing out is, firstly, the Left need to get over the fear many of them have about guns and being armed, and secondly, the Left needs to get real about making some allies on the Right. That simple process would do a lot to deter civil war.

I'm curious how far you'd be willing to go to make allies on the Right.  Pretty much everyone on the Right is willing to give Trump a chance, even former never Trumpies.  Are you?

Also, how does armed opposition deter civil war?  It seems to me like it's more likely to foment civil war.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure CA does not have nuclear weapons.  There are nuclear weapons in Washington state, though.

RE: Your first question. You are asking the wrong person. I am an independent conservative. I am one of the potential allies on the Right. Ask your question to Eric or other Lefties here. I must however challenge your statement about "pretty much everyone on the right." Maybe that is true in whatever circles you run in. That's all I will say.

RE: Your second question. I am making a broad allusion to the actual mechanics of the 2nd Amendment and a number of other Amendments regarding devolution of power to the states. I am doing that for the purposes of engaging Eric and by extension other Lefties here who say the US is doomed. Just trying to play out various models. One of the great truths is how the 2nd Amendment and all that it implies serves as a counterweight to schism and break away. How is such a paradox possible? Simply put, by maintaining a decentralized at least partially armed, unorganized "militia," at all times, it structurally prevents what is seen in many other countries, which is a completely centralized armed force. In those other countries, all significant arms not held by the centralized force are illegal. In such a setting, once one goes the illegal route, one is far more likely to take the next step into terrorism or revolutionary insurrection. Our setting is a wonderful way to allow the common citizen to openly be part of the unorganized militia and thereby not become fodder for terrorist and splitist schemes.

RE: Your third paragraph. While it is true that CA does not currently have deployed nukes (a consequence of base closures and realignments during the 90s and 00s), we do have manufacturing facilities that are currently producing ICBMs and planes (e.g. current and potential delivery systems), as well as warhead pits. We control, at least partially, the means of production.

To avoid having to jump through hoops to separate the quotes, let me respond to these in reverse order.

Agreed that CA could produce nukes given sufficient time.  I'm just pointing out that an armed far left movement doesn't have a chance of seizing nukes on a moment's notice in CA, should Eric think that's what's being advocated.  CA would need to have enough time to itself to produce nukes that it controlled.

On the second point, I agree entirely.  An armed citizenry helps prevent egregious government overreach in all respects.  I know people on the left who have felt that way since the Bush administration.  I doubt you're going to get Eric to understand the dynamic you're talking about, but you're welcome to try.

On your first point, until your discussion of an armed populace in this post, I had not seen you espouse any conservative opinions, perhaps because I'm a relatively new poster.  Please excuse me if I was skeptical regarding your claims to being a conservative.  I went through six long years, from 2010 to 2016, when calling oneself "conservative" was a lonely thing, limited mostly to the libertarian leaning Tea Party movement and the Religious Right.  Most of us supported Cruz in the primary.  Then after Cruz lost the primary, suddenly all the never Trumpists trying to hand the election to Clinton started calling themselves conservatives.  And you still have "never Trump" in your signature.

The fact is that 90% of Republicans voted for Trump.  The fact is that a plurality of independents also voted for Trump, so that must include most independent conservatives, because it sure doesn't include any leftists.  Speaker Ryan is enthusiastic about working with Trump, and Jim Jordan is not making waves.  McConnell is never enthusiastic about anything, but he's maneuvering to get what pass for conservative Senators some of the things they've been deprived of for the last 8 years.  I count 90% as "pretty much everyone", but if you want to substitute "the vast majority", that works for me too.

So I repeat my question to you:  are you willing to give Trump a chance?  Are you willing to work to help point his administration in a more conservative direction, as opposed to a progressive one?  Because if you aren't, there's no chance of Eric being willing to.

If you insist on opposition, I think you should be talking about how you can work with the likes of Eric and doing things their way, rather than them working with you, because they outnumber you by a rather large factor.

[Warren Dew]

(11-15-2016, 02:22 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 01:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: So I repeat my question to you:  are you willing to give Trump a chance?  Are you willing to work to help point his administration in a more conservative direction, as opposed to a progressive one?  Because if you aren't, there's no chance of Eric being willing to.

If you insist on opposition, I think you should be talking about how you can work with the likes of Eric and doing things their way, rather than them working with you, because they outnumber you by a rather large factor.

Too early for me to say whether or not I would give Trump a chance. Here would be some of my conditions:
- Disown the Alt-Right et al.
- See the light that Russia (and more generally the SCO) is an enemy.
- Apologize for all the terrible rhetoric of the dog whistle, misogynist, etc variety. That sort of goes with my first point.

Good luck on all this. He's not likely to change.

Trump has said he wants to be a President for all Americans.  "Disowning" any specific group, including the alt right, would go back on that pledge.  That's the politics of division of the progressive left, and not conservatism of any sort.

What would be much better would be for Trump to use his position - and the bully pulpit - to make it clear that his victory is not an excuse for his supporters to espouse racism.  He is doing that, and better yet, the press is no longer successfully hiding it:

Quote:Trump to supporters harassing minorities: 'Stop it'

Donald Trump on Sunday told his supporters to stop harassing minorities, in his first televised sit-down interview since becoming President-elect.

"I am so saddened to hear that," Trump told CBS' Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes" when she said Latinos and Muslims are facing harassment. "And I say, 'Stop it.' If it -- if it helps, I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: 'Stop it.'"

Trump directed his comments to his own supporters whom Stahl said have written racist slogans or chanted degrading messages -- particularly in schools. It was a powerful appeal to a nation ripped apart by the divisive 2016 campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/d...index.html


And while there's no sign Trump is considering Russia an active enemy, there are definite signs that he doesn't consider them an ally.

He hasn't used any racist or misogynistic rhetoric, so he doesn't have anything to apologize for there.  Granted the mainstream press, in their rush to try to push Clinton into the White House, portrayed things that way, but if you look carefully you'll see their reports have always been short on direct quotes.  And as pointed out above, he's reining in supporters who do use such rhetoric.

[Eric the Green]

That's incredible statements, Warren. The media did nothing but quote him and record and show what he said. He used racist rhetoric throughout his campaign. The media created Trump by giving him far more exposure than anyone else. Conservatism and progressivism are divisive, in the sense that they appeal to one side of the electorate or the other. That's called politics.

I saw the 60 Minutes interview. That's one interview, after his election. To draw conclusions from that about what he will say for 4 years, is premature to say the least. And hiring Bannon as an advisor is the worst possible sign. It's like his White House has been turned over to the Munsters. Have you seen that guy? We know all about what he's said and done.

[Warren Dew]

Okay. So you guys are going to stick with your prejudices no matter what he does. Thanks for the info.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2016, 05:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Okay.  So you guys are going to stick with your prejudices no matter what he does.  Thanks for the info.

I didn't have to be "prejudiced" to hear what he actually said, and read about what he actually did. It's a matter of probabilities. He has said and done the wrong things. He is already doing the wrong things after the election. So what am I to conclude from this? That everything's hunky dorry? Give him a fresh start? Give him a chance? No, I say with Seth, bye bye chance!

[pbrower2a]

(11-16-2016, 05:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Okay.  So you guys are going to stick with your prejudices no matter what he does.  Thanks for the info.

I have cause to distrust any leader, commercial or political, who shows signs of sociopathy. If such is bias, then I accept such.

[Kinser79]

(11-16-2016, 05:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Okay. So you guys are going to stick with your prejudices no matter what he does. Thanks for the info.

Warren, Alphabet Soup, Eric and the like are completely values locked.

(11-17-2016, 04:13 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 05:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Okay.  So you guys are going to stick with your prejudices no matter what he does.  Thanks for the info.

I have cause to distrust any leader, commercial or political, who shows signs of sociopathy. If such is bias, then I accept such.

So you distrust the Clintons then? Bill and Hillary have been around DC for over 20 years and given me no reason to not think that both are sociopaths. HRC simply lacks Bill's charisma. If not then you are not applying this bias universally and as such must be a form of anti-conservative bigotry.

[Marypoza]

(11-18-2016, 08:37 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 05:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Okay.  So you guys are going to stick with your prejudices no matter what he does.  Thanks for the info.

Warren, Alphabet Soup, Eric and the like are completely values locked.

(11-17-2016, 04:13 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 05:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Okay.  So you guys are going to stick with your prejudices no matter what he does.  Thanks for the info.

I have cause to distrust any leader, commercial or political, who shows signs of sociopathy. If such is bias, then I accept such.

So you distrust the Clintons then? Bill and Hillary have been around DC for over 20 years and given me no reason to not think that both are sociopaths.  HRC simply lacks Bill's charisma. If not then you are not applying this bias universally and as such must be a form of anti-conservative bigotry.

-- who in their right mind wants to pick a fight with Russia? And is stoopid enough to broadcast it before an election? l thought it was just lame ignorance  but yeah, it could be socialpathy.