AG Jeff Sessions, ranked the fifth-most conservative U.S. Senator & a supporter of the "nuclear option, voted against the prohibition of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners.
CIA director Mike Pompeo, opposes closing Guantánamo Bay, said Muslim leaders who fail to denounce acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam are "potentially complicit" in the attacks. He believes that abortion should be illegal in cases of rape and incest.
National security adviser, General Michael T. Flynn who was reportedly effectively forced out of the DIA after clashing with superiors over his allegedly chaotic management style and vision for the agency in 2014. He has a barrel full of honors and medals.
So now, the reign of terror begins. The era of Trumps and his STrumpets will commence and challenge the very meaning of civility and decency. These next four years will definitely be under a dark cloud. When so many conservatives say, 'oh, it won't be so bad". With its vote, the Rightwinger now owns the outcome and will be blamed each and every time something goes awry.
So, don't blame me, I voted for Bernie!!!
More on Jeff Sessions:
"In 1986, in a rare move, his nomination by Ronald Reagan to be a federal judge was rejected by Congress after several attorneys testified that he had made racist comments."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … net-picks-
More on Michael Flynn:
"Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, the likely pick for national security advisor in president-elect Donald Trump's administration, reportedly received classified national security briefings while he was running a private consulting firm offering "all source intelligence support” to foreign clients. His consulting firm, the Flynn Intel Group, registered to lobby for a Dutch company over the summer that is owned by a wealthy businessman with close ties to Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erodgan".
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 … ce=copyurl
I think Trump needs to understand the far right didn't get him elected. The middle, between both parties, did. Unless he pleases them by setting far right politics to the curb he'll see no decent approval ratings.
I would not hold my breath to expect him to come to that conclusion. As a political neophyte, the worse of the right wing GOP apparatchics are going to lead him around like a horse to water.
He comes out of the starting gate giving me little confidence in him and yet he says that he wants to bring us all together....
More on Michael T. Flynn.
He is a Democrat that was appointed Dir. DIA by Barack (calamity jane) Obama.
He also seems to be as fond of Russia as Trump is, a situation that needs to be watched closely:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e … EC2Q6G3JRH
http://www.vox.com/2016/11/17/13673280/ … ton-turkey
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mic … fa80da28ca
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ … tin-213833
I would want to ask him "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Bernie Sanders Party of the United States?
The ruskies might already be here.
Michael Flynn worked as an analyst for the RT (Russia Today) network, which is financed by the Russian state.
Here's a picture of Flynn sitting at the right hand of Vladimir Putin at a gala thrown in Putin's honor by the network): https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image … wW0nKHiWtQ
The idea that a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and newly appointed national security adviser had a financial relationship with a company owned by an adversarial foreign state is cause for concern.
"I’m a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment" - Stephen Bannon, 2014 (appointed Chief Strategist to Donald Trump, 2016)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … inist.html
This and his other less-than-savory views, makes Bannon an extremely poor choice.
Remember, getting elected was only the beginning. Now Trump needs to start proving that his supporters were right and he can do the job. That starts now, not Jan 20. So far I'm not impressed with Trump's choice of staff, and neither should you be.
No doubt it is concerning that Trump is selecting people from the dark forces, I mean democrat side.
But regarding the Russians, specifically. Whats the worst thing that could happen? The Russians Nuking us? Oh wait, I guess there is something worse than even that. Russia could nuke us with our own uranium, thanks to the leadership of Calamity Barack and Hillary Clinton
This is not a Democrats vs. Republicans situation. No one knows whether Trump is going to make good on his promises. The only thing people know for sure is that every choice he makes right now has the potential to deepen divisions and inflame tensions, or repair divisions and ease tension. If he deepens divisions it will negatively affect everyone. So Republicans, Democrats, and Independents should all be holding him to account for the choices he is making right now, regardless of who they voted for in the election. If he chooses to alarm the people who didn't vote for him (the majority of voters) that's not going to bring the country together, and it's not going to help the country overcome the challenges it faces in the future.
You are right that this is not a Democrats vs Republican thing. It is hardheaded people fighting for only their opinion and control. We have become a one way society that see's everything through their own filters. What a shame as I have never met anyone who knows everything about everything. There are those who believe they do but I find these types rather foolish and dull.
With Trump in charge, it can be seen that there are far worse outcomes than just the continuation of the status quo.
In the real world of politics, there is no such thing as being 'ideologically neutral".
Status quo would not have been good, but far preferable to "progressing" further down the road of socialism and extending govt. control even further. If nothing else perhaps he will slow or stop that journey.
For you that is a good, for me and others, not so much. So the contention will continue...
We shall see what comes of this Presidency. I fear that once again the DC machine will grind everything to a halt as the greedy details are worked out to have any positive affect. What many fear of creeping socialism will slowly begin to take hold as the greedy refuse to relinquish their power hold on the government. The disillusioned will turn towards protection from the greedy through government legislation drawing us closer to the reality of all out socialism. We are headed down the same path as so many failed empires.
We all fear that (except for the socialists). Let's hope we haven't already crossed the point of no return - that Donny can turn it around some.
The problem is that not only does government like the idea - it buys votes big time - but too many of the people want it too. As long as it doesn't impact them of course, but it always does.
"If he chooses to alarm the people who didn't vote for him (the majority of voters) that's not going to bring the country together, and it's not going to help the country overcome the challenges it faces in the future."
Much like the rioters, right? Or those that spread fear and hate at every opportunity - that can't wait to fault him for every move, good, bad or indifferent. Reminds me of the doomsayers that predicted with a certainty that there would be an immediate crash of wall street...while it hit new record highs the day after the election.
So to those screaming racism, or declaring that Trump will immediately jail all illegals and Muslims - crawl back into your hole and wait until it happens. Then tell the world how scared you are! So far there hasn't been a hint of any of it, just like the wall street collapse that didn't happen.
I worry that the rioters/ protesters/ unlicensed molotov cocktail manufacturers and distributors are even making a living wage protesting, considering who they work for.
When those rioters have influence over as many people's lives as the president's chief strategist, the attorney general, the national security advisor and the director of the CIA, then I'll prioritize them over my concerns about Trump. Until then, I'll continue saying that if Trump's choices for the next administration stand, they are going to cause the country pain further down the line.
Appointing an attorney general who was rejected for the role of federal judge for being too racist, a chief strategist widely known to be a white nationalist, and a CIA chief who has shown contempt for the Geneva convention, is not going to bring the country together. It's going to cause trouble. He should be making choices that are not going to deepen division and inflame tension.
Wait and see is not an option here. The decisions being made now have potential consequences for millions of people's lives. Waiting until the damage is done before saying anything would be foolish. You said he could do the job now. You said he was ready for the job now. Don't be surprised that people are expecting him to do the job properly now. Currently he isn't, and you should be just as concerned about that as others are.
Do you have a declassified document for any of those opinions? Just one. If you do, then I will personally research every point you are allegedly trying to make people believe without proof. A Wikileaks' leaked email would do, even their white papers will do.
A link to Trump assigning Sessions as AG would do...although that "widely" known as racist would be better for a nice poll as well.
Not sure why you need a "declassified document". Everything I've said is a matter of public record.
It's a fact that Trump has named Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo, Michael Flynn and Stephen Bannon as attorney general, head of CIA, national security advisor and chief strategist respectively.
It's a fact that Jeff Sessions was rejected for the role of federal judge in the 80s because he was deemed racist. Again, that's a matter of public record.
It's a fact that Mike Pompeo is in favor of going "tougher than waterboarding” which is a torture technique that simulates drowning and contravenes the Geneva convention, which the US is signed up to. His own comments on the subject are a matter of public record also.
It's a fact that Michael Flynn, was employed by RT (Russia Today) a "news" network financed by the Russian state. He sat at the right hand of Putin at a gala thrown in Putin's honor by the network (the event was broadcast on live TV) It's also a fact that in the summer, the Flynn Intel Group, was paid by a client working on behalf of the Turkish government for "analysis of world affairs". Then on election day Flynn published an article urging the U.S. to support the Turkish president. The status of RT and Flynn's employment with them are both matters of public record (it's in his own biography). The lobbyist work is also a matter of public record (federal law requires lobbyists to register with Congress).
It's a fact that Stephen Bannon is the head of Breitbart News, and it's a fact that he wrote an article, published on his own site, saying the site is "the platform for the alt-right", which is a white nationalist movement. The term alt-right was coined by Richard Spencer who's site is called Alternate Right. Here is an excerpt from that site about black people (warning: extremely offensive):
"Negros are an obsolete race. They can serve no purpose. While they were, like all low IQ people, at one time useful as dumb labor, technology has long since made them non-economical. The world in general would be better off if they went extinct".
This is the movement Stephen Bannon admits his website is a platform for. Again, all of the above is a matter of public record (I will not link to any of the sites in question but you can look them up).
I welcome you to check these facts yourself, because it's not about Republicans vs Democrats. It's about people making sure Trump doesn't make decisions now that can deepen divisions and inflame tensions even further. The decisions he is currently making are doing exactly that for obvious reasons.
Just to be clear, the rest of this post is my opinion only.
Being president (or a supporter of the winning party) doesn't mean you get to ride roughshod over everyone else. The president has to be president to everyone, even the people who didn't vote for him (in this case the majority of people who voted). Naming the above people sends a signal that Trump intends to govern for the benefit of a select few, which is a recipe for discord. Many Trump supporters didn't sign up for that.
So these choices will determine whether Trump's time in the future is spent fighting against the establishment (with many people's backing) or against the people (including disillusioned Trump supporters). If he chooses to pick a fight with the people, he will lose. Even so, that fight is in no one's interest. It can only make things worse for ordinary people whether they be Republicans, Democrats or Independents. And unless you are one of the super-wealthy who can insulate yourself from the things that affect ordinary people, that includes you too. That's why it's important that everyone scrutinizes these choices.
I dare say that the media has as much influence as the President. And that without the gleeful reporting that people hate and fear Trump it wouldn't touch nearly as many lives and wouldn't build to nearly the same level. So yes, rioters all over the country have an awful lot of power, it just isn't quite as obvious as a Presidential decree.
Please do try and keep your facts straight - Trump has not appointed an attorney general.
Of course wait and see isn't an option - the liberal disdain for anything not to their liking is already being seen and everything Trump has done, is doing and will do is evil, racist and bigoted. I get that but, always the optimist, continue to hope for better from people.
(Bear in mind that "doing the job properly does not mean doing it the liberal way. He's President because the people have denied the wisdom of that path, at least until the socialists learn that there are actually people out there, not mindless voting automatons.)
No one knows what Trump is going to do. What people do know is that there is a lot of potential for him to cause problems that affect everyone. So it's in everyone's interest to scrutinize what's happening, whoever they voted for.
The attorney general, for example, is responsible for upholding the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans. Naming someone with a history of expressing racist, inflammatory views for that role, sends a signal that Trump is interested in governing for the benefit of a few, not all Americans. It doesn't take a genius to understand that if you send a signal like that to people who are already wary of Trump (remember the majority of voters did not choose him as their president) it will only inflame tensions, as you are already seeing.
And wanting an attorney general who doesn't have racist views is not doing things the "liberal way". There are conservatives who don't want that, and I'm sure many Trump supporters didn't sign up for it either. There is a clear distinction between a good and bad choice here, which has nothing to do with where you are on the political spectrum. By every useful measure, putting someone with those views, in that role, is a poor choice. If Trump doesn't listen, then he will find himself on a collision course not only with the establishment, but also the people (including some of his own supporters), and that would be in no one's interest.
Yes, there is a clear distinction between a good and bad choice. And the good choice is to wait and see what happens - who is appointed and what they do vs assuming that evil will happen and spreading fear and hate before anything happens.
I really don't think Trump could make a choice for any position that won't result in that spreading of fear and hate. After all, we already see riots and outright lies about what he's doing or going to do - no choice he could make will change that.
So do you think that the conservatives would have sat quietly by in the case of Clinton victory? This Trump victory is still full of contention not only because Clinton actually had 1.3 million more popular votes to date.Yes, the heat is on Trump and Pense. The right is never popular among the masses once they see what it is really all about. I hear Pense was roundly booed by the audience, not the actors and staff, at his attending the theatre showing of "Hamilton", recently. Not, particularly polite, but this just the beginning. It will start with just the little things.....
"So do you think that the conservatives would have sat quietly by in the case of Clinton victory?"
Is that supposed to be an excuse for fear mongering? For rioting? Because the liberal claim is that it would have happened either way? No, I don't think it would have.
"The right is never popular among the masses once they see what it is really all about."
Uh...What you really mean is that it is never popular amongst the socialist crowed, don't you? The masses living outside the steel and concrete jungles have said what they think.
"I hear Pense was roundly booed by the audience,"
Unsurprising. The left wingers provided violence at the rallies, and when that didn't work they began to riot and destroy. What's a little booing?
In the simplest terms I can think of, here's where I stand on this:
racist views = bad
attorney general + racist views = very bad
president's chief strategist + attorney general + racist views = very very bad
Sure Trump could never have pleased everyone with his choices, but was choosing people who don't have racist views really that hard? There are lots of sensible conservatives more than qualified to do these jobs. Instead he's chosen to send the message that he wants an AG and a chief strategist with racist views, and that message has been received by people loud and clear.
It was a divisive election, most people who voted chose someone else, and his presidency is unpopular before it even begins. Now what's the best way to ease the tension, get more people on board, and bring the country together? I can tell you that naming a man with racist views as your AG, and a white nationalist as your chief strategist, is not it. If you're not sure why, see above formula.
No, I don't think it's those evil racist views (blown completely out of proportion by media and Trump haters). I think it's that you demand Trump pick a liberal. Just the statement that Trump wants anyone with racist views (another total fabrication and exaggeration) kind of says it all.
" Now what's the best way to ease the tension, get more people on board, and bring the country together?"
Hint: it is not to spread fear and loathing before anything even happens. Maybe touting the strengths of the (proposed) AG, coupled with an aside that he has been reported in the past to make a couple of racist statements and you hope it doesn't continue, might be in order. Do you think that would ease tension more that shouting that "HE IS A RACIST" over and over?
While I do understand that gross exaggeration ("He wants all Hispanics deported! He hates all Muslims and will deport them all so he's a racist"!) has been the mainstay of the liberal left this election (and the right, for that matter), it's time to put away the black paintbrush and work with honesty and truth to better the nation, not frighten people so bad they need clean underwear.
There is no legitimate reason for wanting someone with racist views to be attorney general. It's that simple.
It's not just a "liberal" thing either (you don't have to be racist to be a conservative). Liberals and conservatives are criticizing this choice (read the news).
The senate judiciary committee rejected his appointment as federal judge because he was deemed to be too racist (only the second time in 48 years the committee has done that). And if you think it's only about him calling someone boy, then you need to widen your sources of information.
Wanting someone with racist views in charge of upholding people's civil rights is morally indefensible. In case you hadn't noticed, it's not 1955 any more. If you think making America great again means dragging the country back to the pre-civil rights era, then you (and Trump) have made a grave miscalculation. The country has moved on. People won't allow it to be dragged backwards.
Trump and his selections are spreading the fear and hate already and there is nothing to wait for..... Yes, under the circumstances unrest and agitation will have to continue.
Except that Trump hasn't spread the fear. That task is left to the "progressive" fear mongers that will scream at anything of a non-socialist nature. That will decry any and every move he makes, regardless of impact. The same people that drip vitriol at the very notion of a self sufficient populace, that demands the nanny state for everyone and turns hateful to anyone that doesn't agree.
The biases you display are so stark and obvious that you would find an excuse to justify Hitler and his methods were you in another place and time. Do you read what is being said about Trump and his appointments as being provacative and divisive or areyou hopelessly enamored by the right wing propaganda machine?
So, let the coming marches and protests educate the masses as to the limits of rightwing autocracy.
So far all I've heard is cries that he has appointed a racist as AG (he hasn't appointed anyone yet) and all I could find there was a reference to some time back when he called someone "boy". Hardly a reason to stay out of government, but that is what we're hearing - "A chance word ten years ago was bad, so we require a true liberal to work with the new (conservative) President and turn him to the dark side!"
And yes, I expect the liberals to continue rioting - with jobs they have lots of time on their hands and it's a fun thing to do whether it actually accomplishes anything or not. Not even "educating" the masses to anything but the rioters own stupidity.
" If you think making America great again means dragging the country back to the pre-civil rights era, then you (and Trump) have made a grave miscalculation. The country has moved on. People won't allow it to be dragged backwards"
This is the message those hard right conservatives need to get and understand. The direction Trump is going with these provocative appointments, when there are plenty of qualified conservatives without that bigoted edge that he could select, will not be accepted with our just sitting down.
So why does he have to create enemies that he can ill afford at this juncture, right out the starting gate?Is this going to bring AMERICA together? The media, negative public opinion will rip him to shreds before he starts. So why create the controversy? And, yes, I don't like him, but more moderate choices on his part may allow others to refocus their angst and concern.
He is neither a prudent nor tactful man and that will be his undoing, as a fool and his money are soon parted.
But there is a difference (that you don't seem to understand) between changing the direction the country is going and going back 100 years. The objective is not to remove civil rights, it is to change the mindset that politicians are Gods, duty bound to control the populace and play Robin Hood. A directional change you won't accept, but a loss of civil rights to no one (no, you do not have an innate right to charity).
Is it going to bring America together to exaggerate and vilify everything about the man? I don't think so, even though thoughtful people see through the crap without any trouble.
You aren't interested in moderate choices, but only in liberal ones. Anything else is unacceptable.
I know what it is the conservatives want, you can still have that as a goal without making the grand wizard of the KU-kux-klan a member of your most trusted circle. Some of these people that he wants in his cabinet are not far from it. Conservatism, in principle, need not embrace such a level of bigotry. So, is it in the defence of conservatism moderation is not a virtue? It is going to a have a negative connotation that may not be warranted, in reality. Trump could take control of this perception as he is not the choice of the majority of voters. He is not Ronald Reagan and taking the attitude of having a mandate will be to his disadvantage.
And you can have it as a goal while making a grand wizard of the KKK a member of your most trusted circle. The difference is that I'm (nor many Trump voters) much interested in being PC or in placating the ridiculous sensitivity of Trump haters that will find fault with anything he does. They're going to complain anyway, so why pay any attention to any of it?
If moderation is a virtue, you definitely need to work at it. You've bragged in these forums that your are a liberal and not interested in any conservative philosophy.
But Trump can't "take control of this perception", for it would mean becoming a far left liberal. How about if those far left liberals take control of their own perceptions and look at what is rather than deciding before any actions are taken that they will be "wrong"?
If I were not interested in conservative philosophy I would not be talking with you nor any number of others in this forum, now would I?
GM Williams is an economic conservative, ask her what she thinks of Trump and his appointments.
Keeping renown racists out of your cabinet is not just PC. Since you and Trump supporters are ready to go to the extreme, the forces of moderation on the center, left, and othewise must go to the extremes as well. There will be so much contention surrounding the man and his appointments, with endless demonstrations, that the ability for Trump to govern itself will be in question. And just like the moral crusades of Dr. King, those against the Vietnam War and Watergate, we learn that those that are on high can be brought down, relatively quickly. And, what you also find out is that Trump cannot completely muzzle the press nor put everybody in jail........ So much for bringing AMERICA together....
This is the warning, just remember, that you have heard it here first.
Wilderness, you seem to have a problem with extremes. If Trump is not free to put the KKK grand wizard in a cabinet post, people will mistake him for a far left liberal? With conservatives like yourself, it is always either fire or ice, with no room for temperate, inbetween.
We have had the same problem with you in the gun discussions. If we dare to question why a 10 year old should be allowed to buy a pistol at the corner WAL-mart, then it follows that we have to be determined to confiscate every gun, everywhere.
Is there room for a middle ground both in this case and in regards to Trump and his appointments?
The 'all or nothing' attitude is the greatest assurance that nothing gets accomplished at all.
That is why Trump and those that adhere to his approach and tactics, at the moment, will fail.
So where is YOUR in between? If you can't get what you want you'll scream that he is a bigoted racist. Because, after all, the person he chose for advice used to be far fringe right. While you might consider Bernie to be "middle", the only middle he could ever be considered as is middle left. Certainly not middle of everything.
That's because it's getting pretty ridiculous when you insinuate that a 10 year old can buy a gun anywhere at all (except the streets). It's called living in the real world.
Yes, there is room for a middle ground. When Trump deviates from somewhere near middle, then begin screaming. Don't just assume that he will because you dislike his advisor.
I agree. It's that "all or nothing", the "choose only people I would choose", the "only liberal advisers are to be acceptable" will absolutely assure that nothing gets done.
I expect him to fail. I also expected him to fail at being elected... Perhaps liberals would be better advised to assume he will actually accomplish something at work at making it something they can accept with a little cooperation instead of trying to convince themselves that he will fail at everything.
I'd love, for instance, to see something beyond a fence - something that addresses 10 million illegals in the country beyond a futile effort to deport all 10 million (not that he has suggested that, but I'd still like to see the problem of existing illegals taken care of, and not with simple amnesty). So far all I've seen is "IT WON'T WORK", with nothing else to offer.
You still aren't getting it are there qualified conservatives to fill the higher offices without appointing DAVID Duke?
You say that by liberal standards, Trump will never be accepted. But that is all relative and not absolute. Can he just appoint a conservative and not a world renown bigot? One does not have to imply the other.
So, whether he likes it or not he is going to need some support from the otherside to be able to successfully govern. You are always the one talking about the good of the country. Poor judgement on Trump's part will make things more difficult, did you not hear what Don said? So, if a scortched earth strategy is your vision, we are never going to come together and you can anticipate the worse
If you don't want the scream, avoid appointing people that as Don and many others try to get through to your attention, are bigoted racists.
Do you think that a KKK appointee is going to start with Kumbaya, why should we wait? Trump certainly did not wait....
Wanting someone with racist views to be attorney general is morally indefensible, but only if you start from the position that harboring racist views is bad. I assumed that's the position we were both starting from. Now I'm not sure, and sadly I feel the need to ask: do you think that having racist views is bad?
Herein lies the problem. Even on this forum, no longer are we just seeing healthy disagreement between people with different political views. We're now seeing deep-rooted division and tension. Much more than I ever remember there being. That seems to be happening at societal level also, and Trump isn't helping.
He doesn't seem to realize yet the significance of the role he has taken on. He doesn't get that his every word and action now has ramifications. That is the nature of the job. Sure, as a CEO of a wholly owned private company, he could give jobs out like lollipops as rewards for good behaviour. Can't do that as president. As a CEO he served himself. As president he serves the people.
Because of the quirks of the EC system he was able to win the election, but we know most people who voted did not vote for him, and by a wide margin. So his task now in forming a new administration, is to prove he isn't everything the people who didn't vote for him are expecting him to be. Unfortunately with the people he is naming for top posts in the White House, he is proving to be exactly what people expected him to be. At best, divisive and tone-deaf with a poor sense of political judgement, at worst actively inflaming tensions and emboldening people with a racist agenda. He needs to become more astute at reading the mood of those who don't fawn over him, or even like him. That's what being a president to all means.
"Can't do that as president." <Give out jobs as rewards>
And yet...that has been done for decades. There is absolutely nothing new in his doing it...you just don't like his choices, demanding one of your own political persuasion.
"So his task now in forming a new administration, is to prove he isn't everything the people who didn't vote for him are expecting him to be."
And there it is. An absolutely impossible task, for nothing he can do will please the liberals that are crying in their beer. Just like the statement that he is "inflaming tensions": if you don't want your tensions inflamed then calm down, sit back and quit nit picking at every move he makes. Accept that they will not be your choices, that his philosophy is not liberal, and live with the other side having some control for a few years. Maybe even work hard at finding some good things to shout out and stop inflaming by your words!
Don't you mean crying in their Sauvignon blanc? (just trying to bring some levity into this. - Sorry everybody in HP land)
You're right, it has been done for years, and it's been criticized for years too. And now despite Trump claiming all through his campaign that he's not like all the other politicians, he's doing the same thing, but worse.
It's worse because in any other public workplace, if someone expressed racist views, they'd be fired. Yet on week one Trump names someone who has expressed racist views as the attorney general, a role intended to uphold civil rights.
That's just a middle finger to all the people who didn't vote for him. What Trump doesn't get, is that he still needs those people. Obama's presidency showed that even if half the country are willing and able to go one way, without the other half, it's not going to happen. Trump simply cannot take the country in a direction that more than half the electorate doesn't want to go. And if he tries to drag the country in that direction against its will, people will start kicking and screaming.
So there are two options for Trump here: modify his policies so they win over more people. Or (figuratively) wage war against the half of the electorate that doesn't want his vision of the future. Naming Sessions, Bannon, and Flynn indicates that Trump (and therefore the federal government) is preparing to wage war against those who don't want to follow them. That's being taken so seriously that states like California, New York and municipalities like LA, NYC are making statements to the effect that they will not cooperate with federal agencies or enforce federal mandates they deem harmful to their people. That shows the strength of feeling and the depth of the divisions Trump is creating.
The solution is simple. Trump needs to stop trying to hire people who harbor racist views, and people support white nationalist movements. That will immediately ease some tension. Then in the mid term, modify his policies so the majority of voters (those who didn't vote for him) can get on board. That will undoubtedly upset some of his original supporters, but it's worth it if it means avoiding a political, legal and civic slugfest between states, cities, people and the government. That will not be good for anyone. This is the only way to get the country to go forward together in some kind of constructive, positive way.
In other words Wilderness, the country will never completely be what you and other Trump supporters would like it to be. Just like it will never completely be what I and other liberals would like it to be. Unfortunately I don't think you, other Trump supporters, and even many liberals, will believe that. People still think they can force half the country to see the benefit of their worldview or political ideology. I don't believe that anymore. I believe letting of some things and compromising is the best that can be achieved without some form of coercion. If I'm right, then sadly the fight that Trump is setting the country up for is inevitable. The silver lining is that after it's over, more poeople might be willing to compromise.
It's fine, don't worry about it. No one is a racist here. Don't you know that saying racist things doesn't make anyone a racist? You have to like, I don't know, put them in a camp or something to be considered racist. And no one is in a camp yet so it's all totally fine!
Don't worry about anyone's words or opinions until they manifest into action. Not even those with immense power. Everyone knows that actions just come out of nowhere, literally plucked out of thin air. No one ever acts in accordance with their beliefs, that's just silly.
Nope, just leave it alone. The best way to make sure nothing gets out of hand is to shut up until it's too late. Common sense, don't you think?
https://ms.clicks.actions.aclu.org/t/gc … g=n&s=
President-elect Donald Trump just announced he's nominating Senator Jeff Sessions to be the country's attorney general. We're quite familiar with Senator Sessions -- he once called the ACLU "un-American and communist" for "trying to force civil rights down the throats of people."
The attorney general is charged with protecting the rights of ALL Americans. Yet the President-elect's nominee is a man who failed Senate confirmation for a judgeship under President Ronald Reagan because of Sessions' stated positions on race.
That's why a confirmation process should examine his policy record and all of his statements in order to determine if he is the one to enforce our laws and protect our Constitution.
Add your name to demand that Senator Sessions' confirmation process include a comprehensive review of his voting record and history of statements.
President-elect Trump wants Senator Sessions to run the Justice Department and its civil rights division. This is the unit that has investigated police forces over abuse allegations, sued states over voting restrictions that target low-income and minority voters, and opposed discriminatory laws like North Carolina's HB 2.
Will you speak up now for full confirmation hearings to ensure this country gets an attorney general who will protect everyone's constitutional rights?
https://ms.clicks.actions.aclu.org/t/gc … g=n&s=
Those who just voted against Hillary now own this cast of deplorables. That word is going to describe a great deal in the next four years. If you didn't get its meaning with HIllary used it, you will come to know its meaning soon enough. You asked for this.
General reply to no one in particular:
I don't like the way any time there is a conversation that concerns all Americans equally that a lot of times - it dissolves into a verbal Pissing contest by coordinated troll attacks. Double - faced contemptuous names like 'snowflakes' or libtard, as if 5th graders who don't have the capacity or the motivation to actually find a way to get things done - together.
Sure, we all have disagreements and it's messy, but if just trolling without helping ... we don't need you. We who are trying to move forward in progress are being held back by the heavy lead weights of pompous ignoramuses -es -es -es -es (speech impediment)
and now: I must image troll (it's an uncontrollable urge that I have not yet sought professional help for)
I will never understand the liberal mind , when they lose a fair fight they always resort to the six or so name calling terms that they ALWAYS have , racist , gender-phobia , misogynist , islama-phobia , bigot , ........................If it weren't for name calling I don't suppose a liberal could ever really win a debate !
Barack Obama is as much of a racist as David Duke , Why ? Because he has done nothing but first , incite racism again in America in his first months of presidency AND two, not speak out effectively against the continual self destruction of his own people IN THIER OWN neighborhoods, He has been a colossal failure as to drive by shootings of thugs against children , cop killings , and the violent dismantling of inner city America .
He should be extremely ashamed of the whitewashing that the left will allow his legacy to acquire !
Somehow you remain in a constant state of delusion? My warnings as to the outcome of Trump and his attitude at the starting gate still stands.
There will be so many marchers, protesting extreme social, economic and political reactionaries, there won't be enough lemonade stands around to quench their thirsts.
by ptosis6 months ago
http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu … o-congress18 minutes from now. For those who are interested.FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency head Adm. Michael Rogers on Monday will...
by Jack Lee30 hours ago
This is a shocking relvelation, if true, undermines our whole democratic process...Why is this not headline news?
by Mike Russo7 months ago
Michael Flynn is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General who has just resigned for lying to VP Mike Pence about his conversations with Putin concerning lifting sanctions. He is also the one who at the GOP...
by Jack Lee4 months ago
Can anyone tell me what was his crime that lead to this drama even months after his firing as National Security Advisor? It is now involved with the firing of FBI director Comey. Whatever happen to our justice system of...
by Don W7 months ago
Do you remember when these statements were made?"Good morning ladies and gentlemen. The president has asked me, as his spokesperson, to tell you he was aware of the burglary at DNC headquarters in the Watergate...
by Don W5 months ago
Is this just "good lawyering"? Or does it mean Flynn has something incriminating to say about himself and his former boss?(1)Apparently Flynn's request has been rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.