Democrats' Response To President Trump
#1
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellencarmich...77ed2419b4

Democrats' Response To President Trump Proves No Lessons Learned


Ellen Carmichael , CONTRIBUTOR


Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

LOS ANGELES, CA - JANUARY 21: Participants seen during the Women's March on January 21, 2017 in Los Angeles, California. Tens of thousands of people took to the streets of Downtown Los Angeles for the Women's March in protest after the inauguration of President Donald Trump. Women's Marches are being held in cities around the world. (Photo by Chelsea Guglielmino/Getty Images)

For the past few days, I've been practically held hostage in my own home. I live in some proximity to the U.S. Capitol, and my apartment complex has been the backdrop of many aggressive protests, night-long sirens sounding and constant chaos.

The mania is no reflection of the individuals who came to the nation's capital to celebrate the inauguration of President Trump, but instead, of those hoping to discredit it. They started fires on the streets of downtown D.C., smoke towers billowing above the tops of buildings. They shut down pedestrian access to public transportation and the National Mall. They screamed hate-filled chants at law enforcement, labeling them "pigs" in between yelling in unison they controlled the streets, planned to destroy everything around them and that they did not accept Donald Trump as president. They left piles upon piles of garbage on the side of the road, content for some working class public employee to clean their filth.

Democrats, naturally, are not held to account for their most passionate advocates. While they might not actually be the ones throwing feces at cops, they exalt the most unhinged in their activist class, legitimizing their most abhorrent behavior as warranted because they're angry, afraid or helpless. It is in the opinion of the Left that they're entitled to say and do whatever they want because however they feel is justified, and thus, they are not responsible for the actions taken as a result of those feelings. Their leadership's refusal to demand better -- or even just kindergarten-level maturity that rejects threatening the safety of others or destroying private property -- suggests their inner revolutionary empathizes with such behavior.

But, on a political level, their behavior reflects just how few lessons they've learned from the past election. I've always maintained that the presidential election wasn't about Donald Trump. Indeed, Senate Republican candidates in states Trump also won outperformed him on average 5.3 points, so this might be the unusual instance of the middle of the ticket propelling the top.

And certainly, Hillary Clinton, like many of the down ballot Democrats this cycle, was an extraordinarily flawed candidate who could not shake a reputation of sinister self-interest and detachment from the lives of ordinary people. Across the board, Democrats failed to connect with voters, and many Republicans grudgingly cast their ballots for Trump when in the voting booth trying to keep a GOP majority in the Senate to check Clinton's presumed power as president.

Even despite all those factors, Trump's rise was, in large part, not due to any conservatism or political philosophy. It was the product of a bunch of ordinary Americans who are tired of the professional Left ascribing xenophobia, homophobia, racism and classism to them on a regular basis. Go to church? You're a troglodyte. Have concerns about people breaking the law by illegally entering the United States? You hate brown people. Don't like the fact that Obamacare caused your premiums to triple? You just don't want poor people to have health care.

Their overreach saw historic electoral losses at every level of government since President Obama took office. Consider this, from Politico Magazine:

"...they are stuck in the minority in Congress with no end in sight, have only 16 governors left and face 32 state legislatures fully under GOP control. Their top leaders in the House are all over 70. Their top leaders in the Senate are all over 60. Under Obama, Democrats have lost 1,034 seats at the state and federal level—there’s no bench, no bench for a bench, virtually no one able to speak for the party as a whole."

A rational actor would assess the catastrophic political losses of the last eight years, and if brave enough, would tell the truth about the situation in which the Democrats find themselves. The far Left wing of their party, represented by shrill ideologues like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), has cemented the Democrats' status as a minority party for many years to come. They no longer represent the interests of the average American and are instead consumed with placating their delicately-arranged coalition of the perpetually aggrieved, at least until the next election cycle. If they want to reassume power, they'll need to address the issues that make life harder for average Americans -- cost of living, barriers to economic mobility, inequality in education and so on -- instead of the causes that delight the progressive intelligentsia.

But, there's no indication they have learned such lessons as they reaffirm their commitment to a far Left ideology totally unpalatable to a normal person more interested in living a good life than she is with committing that life to anyone's political agenda. A simple survey of recent events within the Democratic Party and progressive movement prove just how few lessons they gleaned from their most recent electoral landslide loss.

First, the frontrunner for the chairman of the Democratic Party is Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.). Apparently, Democrats believe nothing says "We understand what American voters want!" like making a man who went on a Muslim Brotherhood-sponsored pilgrimage to Mecca their party leader. Even Democratic donors have publicly expressed dismay over what they see as his anti-Semitic and anti-Israel views.

Next, The Democratic Coalition's senior adviser Scott Dworkin bragged on Twitter Monday that his organization would organize a boycott of Washington-area restaurants who served paying customers who happened to be Republicans who opposed Obamacare.

"For fun we are working with DC restaurants & bars to ban Members of Congress who plan on repealing Obamacare #trumpleaks #theresistance," he tweeted.

"Restaurants who don't ban Members will be boycotted by DC residents & close down. We've done it before-It worked #trumpleaks #theresistance," he continued.

Setting aside the extraordinary hubris and bullying of local businesses engaging in free enterprise, the tone-deafness of the strategy speaks volumes about how Democrats view politics -- as a bludgeoning tool to hurt others with whom they disagree "for fun." If they think this will play well among those they seek to convince of the value of Obamacare, they really are delusional.

Then, there's the matter of dozens of Democratic lawmakers refusing to attend the inauguration of then-President-elect Trump. It followed the weeks of scheming to develop ways to prevent the installation of Trump as president, including spamming the inboxes and mailboxes of hundreds of electors nationwide with threatening letters should they cast their ballots in favor of Trump, who was elected by the popular vote in the state. It also came after weeks of complaining from liberals about the illegitimacy of the Electoral College, an institution established in the 1780s, in picking the president.

The showboating meltdown might have appealed to their preferred interest groups, but Americans who are downright exhausted from the 2016 election cycle probably had little patience for the melodramatics. Sore loser syndrome is hardly inspiring to the average person who is ready to go back to living her life, regardless of her choice for president.

Such public displays of contempt from Democratic lawmakers offered reassurance to their activist class who took to -- and over -- the streets of the nation's capital this week that their behavior was warranted because their feelings were justified. Since there was no call for civility or unity from Democratic leadership, it is no wonder that their most rabid supporters felt empowered to act however they wished.

In fact, the Women's March in D.C., with all of its vagina hats and vulgar signs, also featured former Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), among other prominent Democratic lawmakers and liberal public figures. Any credible political adviser on the Left would have cautioned against attempting to normalize this approach to politics, citing the likelihood it would alienate swing voters in places Democrats keep losing. Apparently, they don't quite understand that in order to achieve their desired policies, they have to actually persuade people to support their candidates and causes.

But, for people who blur the lines of the political and the personal, Democratic decisions in the Trump era befuddle those of us who have spent any time in this industry. They continue to engage in behavior that further alienates them from the American mainstream, a signal of their ongoing miscalculation of the political environment and the needs of the people they'd like to represent.

A party whose power lust once necessitated pragmatism now maintains an illogical, slavish devotion to an ideology rejected by voters time and time again. If they don't change their ways, more Democrats will be sent packing in 2018, too. Maybe then they'll learn their lesson.



ps. Sorry Bolty :-)

pps. I originally considered not citing a source at first and seeing how ppl here would have reacted to this, thinking that I was the writer. However, there was always a chance that the source would have been found before I fessed up, thereby giving certain individuals a reason to call plagiarism and all sorts of other niceties. Naturally, I'd have not been believed if I explained myself afterwards.
Reply
#2
Wait, I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant to all? Pro-immigrant? It's the conservatives that are intolerant and hate immigrants!

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/201...uages.html

Yeah it's Fox. So what. It happened. Look it up.
Reply
#3
Oh and this beauty:

https://news.grabien.com/story-dnc-chair...arged-foru

This is my personal favorite:

Democrats must provide “training” that focuses in part on teaching Americans “how to be sensitive and how to shut their mouths if they are white,” urged the executive director of Idaho’s Democratic Party, Sally Boynton Brown, who is white.
Reply
#4
(01-23-2017, 10:24 PM)Ashock Wrote: ps. Sorry Bolty :-)

pps. I originally considered not citing a source at first and seeing how ppl here would have reacted to this, thinking that I was the writer. However, there was always a chance that the source would have been found before I fessed up, thereby giving certain individuals a reason to call plagiarism and all sorts of other niceties. Naturally, I'd have not been believed if I explained myself afterwards.

You fail to see the problem here don't you?
It is clear that democracy like we just to know and enjoy it doesn't exist anymore. Yes people in the US are allowed to vote but the rich political class is so smart that they can let people think they have a choice where actually they don't.


I am a socialist (at least) but I must say I don't have too much respect for the ''normal'' people. I am not afraid to call most people to stupid to vote (this is a general thing though, not just in the US).
Yes, going to church makes you ignorant and racisim is abundant.

Of course having concerns about imigration doesnt make you racist.....but people like you (at least if we see what you write on the lounge) are and you are not helping in finding a solution.
Yesterday I saw a documentary made by a dutch journalist about black self defence groups....teh white versions of course also exist for a long time already.

So you can (like you) rant on in a racist way blaming one of the two colours, or you can wonder how it is possible that these kind of groups at all exist in your country......and worse....most people still think the US is the greatest country in the world......I mean are you wearing a blindfold? Or do you think it is normal?

I know from your immigration background your political views are to be expected but that shows that the US fails.

I don't know what is worse about Trump....that there are so many people actually voting for him, that making your own facts is now fully mainstream (climate change doesnt exist......well our president says so so it is probably true.....scientist and people with an education in general are suspect).
What Trump did in his first days in office looks really bad......althiugh I am not sure if he will be able to damage the planet in a way GW Bush did but still.

The political wind that is blowing in the westeren world the last few years scares me. You know what it resembles the most? You know what I am scared of? That we will get Red Khmer like governments in charge. There is no respect for knowledge anymore, facts don't matter, the internet is always right.......I hope I am wrong but if I would wear glasses I would quickly get contact lenzes instead.
Reply
#5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELD2AwFN9Nc
Reply
#6
(01-25-2017, 07:48 AM)eppie Wrote:
(01-23-2017, 10:24 PM)Ashock Wrote: ps. Sorry Bolty :-)

pps. I originally considered not citing a source at first and seeing how ppl here would have reacted to this, thinking that I was the writer. However, there was always a chance that the source would have been found before I fessed up, thereby giving certain individuals a reason to call plagiarism and all sorts of other niceties. Naturally, I'd have not been believed if I explained myself afterwards.


I am a socialist (at least) but I must say I don't have too much respect for the ''normal'' people. I am not afraid to call most people to stupid to vote (this is a general thing though, not just in the US).
Yes, going to church makes you ignorant and racisim is abundant.


You think you're going to get a response from me after posting that? Well, aside from this one, heh.

Have yourself a nice day. Or don't. I don't care.
Reply
#7
(01-25-2017, 05:10 PM)Ashock Wrote: You think you're going to get a response from me after posting that? Well, aside from this one, heh.

Have yourself a nice day. Or don't. I don't care.

This is exactly the problem with modern day politics and society. Something which may be started when internet forums came to light.

You can say, and keep saying that grass is blue and we will not be able to convince you otherwise.
If your president makes up facts why can't normal people also do so.

Well basically it is not so new...the majority of the worlds population also believes some guy in the sky commands everything we do....despite they have never seen this guy and any other evidence he might actually exist.
Reply
#8
(01-26-2017, 06:00 PM)eppie Wrote: Well basically it is not so new...the majority of the worlds population also believes some guy in the sky commands everything we do....despite they have never seen this guy and any other evidence he might actually exist.
So long as gun toting radicalized Muslims don't go shooting 50 people in a gay night club, shouldn't people be allowed to believe whatever they like?

But, if everyone thought the same as you, your debates would be short, and solutions exactly what you wanted. Unfortunately the world has a diversity of thought. It results in debate, compromise, and imperfect solutions.
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

[Image: yVR5oE.png][Image: VKQ0KLG.png]

Reply
#9
(01-26-2017, 06:00 PM)eppie Wrote:
(01-25-2017, 05:10 PM)Ashock Wrote: You think you're going to get a response from me after posting that? Well, aside from this one, heh.

Have yourself a nice day. Or don't. I don't care.

This is exactly the problem with modern day politics and society. Something which may be started when internet forums came to light.

You can say, and keep saying that grass is blue and we will not be able to convince you otherwise.
If your president makes up facts why can't normal people also do so.

Well basically it is not so new...the majority of the worlds population also believes some guy in the sky commands everything we do....despite they have never seen this guy and any other evidence he might actually exist.

When I was a young ignoramus, coming from the school of atheistic indoctrination after spending a large chunk of my childhood in the old country, I used to think that you have to be an ignorant backward naive and superstitious moron to believe in God.
As the years went by and I've had time to reflect, I've realized that while a real "biblical" god is unlikely, at least in my opinion, the possibility of "something" is just that... a possibility. I just don't know.

And neither do you. You just think you do.
Reply
#10
No one "knows" 100%, but it is theists who have the burden of proving God's existence. Atheists do not have to prove God doesn't exist, because a negative cannot be proven and therefore does not have the burden of proof. The position which has the claim of a positive, in this case theism, has the burden of proof.

[Image: a2693075c1af63e64339cdb55061bf648060ffca...6d6f2f.jpg]
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon


"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
Reply
#11
(01-26-2017, 07:11 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: No one "knows" 100%, but it is theists who have the burden of proving God's existence. Atheists do not have to prove God doesn't exist, because a negative cannot be proven and therefore does not have the burden of proof. The position which has the claim of a positive, in this case theism, has the burden of proof.

[Image: a2693075c1af63e64339cdb55061bf648060ffca...6d6f2f.jpg]

This is not a corrosive post, so I will not give you a response which you've deserved in the past. It is however, a simplistic one, and there's no point in responding to it in any way at all.
Reply
#12
You know, sometimes things aren't all that complex. I think this is one such instance.

Almost all natural and social phenomena has come to be scientifically understood and materially observed in some way. There are solid facts, observations, analysis, and data which support the conclusions. Theists of almost any stripe commonly make the claim that all or nearly all the worlds workings are influenced by some, invisible higher being. But where is the evidence to support this metaphysical rationale? Scientists can and must (and have!) produce facts and observations to support their conclusions. Theists should be held to the same standard, yes? If so, they thus far have been unable to produce any evidence to support their conclusions. If they shouldn't be held to the same standard as scientists (the use of facts, reasoning, logic, and material observation), then what is sufficient and necessary for them (theists) to prove their hypothesis as being true? There is a reason that belief in a higher power is called "faith".

It's why I am baffled that adults who would believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy would be looked at as being 'borderline' insane by other rational adults; but adults who believe in some invisible sky wizard that watches our every action get a free pass, and in fact, those who DON'T believe in said sky wizard, based on a lack of evidence, are viewed as being everything from insane to amoral/immoral.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon


"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
Reply
#13
(01-26-2017, 08:23 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: You know, sometimes things aren't all that complex. I think this is one such instance.

Almost all natural and social phenomena has come to be scientifically understood and materially observed in some way. There are solid facts, observations, analysis, and data which support the conclusions. Theists of almost any stripe commonly make the claim that all or nearly all the worlds workings are influenced by some, invisible higher being. But where is the evidence to support this metaphysical rationale? Scientists can and must (and have!) produce facts and observations to support their conclusions. Theists should be held to the same standard, yes? If so, they thus far have been unable to produce any evidence to support their conclusions. If they shouldn't be held to the same standard as scientists (the use of facts, reasoning, logic, and material observation), then what is sufficient and necessary for them (theists) to prove their hypothesis as being true? There is a reason that belief in a higher power is called "faith".

It's why I am baffled that adults who would believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy would be looked at as being 'borderline' insane by other rational adults; but adults who believe in some invisible sky wizard that watches our every action get a free pass, and in fact, those who DON'T believe in said sky wizard, based on a lack of evidence, are viewed as being everything from insane to amoral/immoral.

If we were omniscient, you'd be correct.

We're not even close.
Reply
#14
So let me get this straight. Science is useless and meaningless. We have absolutely no ontological way of understanding or conceptualizing the world we live in, or how it works - be it socially or environmentally or otherwise - for the simple fact we do not understand every little detail of the universe down to the last letter? Is this what you are trying to tell me? If so, you are just wrong, and your view of the world is hopelessly myopic. If that isn't what you are saying, then what is it?
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon


"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
Reply
#15
(01-26-2017, 11:57 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: So let me get this straight. Science is useless and meaningless. We have absolutely no ontological way of understanding or conceptualizing the world we live in, or how it works - be it socially or environmentally or otherwise - for the simple fact we do not understand every little detail of the universe down to the last letter? Is this what you are trying to tell me? If so, you are just wrong, and your view of the world is hopelessly myopic. If that isn't what you are saying, then what is it?

Just like a typical progressive, you purposly misstate and take my comments out of context to suit your needs, I understand. Disinformation, after all, is one of the most powerful tools of a communist or progressive.

Just because I think that science is not even close to being able to decipher the most complicated matters in the universe we live in, does not mean that I think it is useless for the much simpler issues.

But you already knew what I meant, didn't you. It just didn't suit your purpose. I told you before, I understand how you think. I've seen more of your kind and read more literature written by your kind than any normal human being should in five lifetimes.

Next lie, please.
Reply
#16
(01-27-2017, 04:33 PM)Ashock Wrote: Just because I think that science is not even close to being able to decipher the most complicated matters in the universe we live in, does not mean that I think it is useless for the much simpler issues.

Except, you're wrong. Science HAS in fact been able to "decipher" many of the most complex matters of both the planet and universe we live on/in. I didn't misconstrue anything you said for an agenda, I was pointing out that your myopic view of the world was leading you to an incorrect observation. Much in the same way as you did in the climate change thread, which ironically enough, is one of these complicated matters that science has allowed us to understand and make sense of.

This is exactly why I, as a Materialist, find Idealism and its proponents so frustrating. For Idealists, arriving at a specific conclusion that matches their worldview is of the upmost importance, and therefore they will use faulty methods, rigid thinking, and reject contradicting evidence so that their conclusion is the inevitable result.

Quote:But you already knew what I meant, didn't you. It just didn't suit your purpose. I told you before, I understand how you think. I've seen more of your kind and read more literature written by your kind than any normal human being should in five lifetimes.

Indeed, I knew what you meant. I also knew/know that you are wrong, and I pointed that fact out.

My purpose is to better understand the world we live in - whether that concerns itself in the hard sciences or the social sciences - and I rely on the scientific method usings facts, material observation and/or data to arrive at my conclusions.

You reject overwhelming evidence if the conclusions do not support your ideological world view, as most idealists do.

And for all the reading you did that was written by "my kind", you obviously didn't learn a damn thing. Because for you and "your kind", ideology trumps (pun intended) science and fact - except of course, your own made-up "alternative" facts.

But I think I'll stop here, since Eppie is right: You will keep saying grass is blue no matter how much contradicting evidence and facts you are presented with.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon


"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
Reply
#17
(01-27-2017, 07:12 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: And for all the reading you did that was written by "my kind", you obviously didn't learn a damn thing. Because for you and "your kind", ideology trumps (pun intended) science and fact - except of course, your own made-up "alternative" facts.

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

-Ronald Reagan
Reply
#18
(01-25-2017, 07:48 AM)eppie Wrote: I know from your immigration background your political views are to be expected but that shows that the US fails.
I guess you missed the previous post by Ashock, wherein the Democrat from Idaho suggested white people shut up. You had a great chance to follow that advice, and didn't.

Trump is chaotic neutral, I think. His "build a wall" is already getting a reaction in Texas, much of it negative, as in against. I think it's been one of the worst ideas floated in the past ten years -- yes, that wall thing is about a ten year old idea so it's not even original with Trump.

You actually don't know much about America, so maybe that Democrat's advice is some you ought to take to heart.

By the time Trump's four years are up (no way he gets a second round) we'll all be able to sing, with the Greatful Dead: What a long, strange trip it's been.

None of you can predict the future, and I sure can't. Unlike you, my only attempt will be to predict that in four years he'll lose interest in the work that job takes, and everyone will have had quite their fill.

Check back in four years and cite this post.

For my money, Trump's "let's start a tariff war" is also a poorly advised policy. I hope a few people can get him to see reason on that. I'd have thought he'd understand what a win - win deal is ... what with his book "The Art of the Deal" and all that. Maybe not.

Most presidents get that "100 days thing" and I suggest to the rest of you that you afford this latest example of the American experiment in self government the same courtesy ... unless you are just rude by nature.

In that case, if you can't afford that courtesy, you're just like Trump: rude ... and I congratulate you on your hypocrisy.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
Reply
#19
(01-29-2017, 11:13 PM)Occhidiangela Wrote:
(01-25-2017, 07:48 AM)eppie Wrote: I know from your immigration background your political views are to be expected but that shows that the US fails.
I guess you missed the previous post by Ashock, wherein the Democrat from Idaho suggested white people shut up. You had a great chance to follow that advice, and didn't.

Trump is chaotic neutral, I think. His "build a wall" is already getting a reaction in Texas, much of it negative, as in against. I think it's been one of the worst ideas floated in the past ten years -- yes, that wall thing is about a ten year old idea so it's not even original with Trump.

You actually don't know much about America, so maybe that Democrat's advice is some you ought to take to heart.

By the time Trump's four years are up (no way he gets a second round) we'll all be able to sing, with the Greatful Dead: What a long, strange trip it's been.

None of you can predict the future, and I sure can't. Unlike you, my only attempt will be to predict that in four years he'll lose interest in the work that job takes, and everyone will have had quite their fill.

Check back in four years and cite this post.

For my money, Trump's "let's start a tariff war" is also a poorly advised policy. I hope a few people can get him to see reason on that. I'd have thought he'd understand what a win - win deal is ... what with his book "The Art of the Deal" and all that. Maybe not.

Most presidents get that "100 days thing" and I suggest to the rest of you that you afford this latest example of the American experiment in self government the same courtesy ... unless you are just rude by nature.

In that case, if you can't afford that courtesy, you're just like Trump: rude ... and I congratulate you on your hypocrisy.
Trump might be the first president to unite us in decades.... Against him.
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

[Image: yVR5oE.png][Image: VKQ0KLG.png]

Reply
#20
We can definitely agree on that. I don't think there has ever been a more unpopular US president in history.

And Occhi is absolutely wrong about giving Trump a chance. We do NOT need to give him 100 days. He doesn't deserve a single day. This is a demagogue (correct use of the word here) who campaigned on far-right populism and scapegoated people using some of the most reactionary and repressive elements of society - including racism, xenophobia, homophobia, chauvinism, anti-poor and anti-working class provisions, ableism and sexism (including bragging about grabbing women's genitals). If the charges against me are being a rude person based upon my rejection of these things, I hereby stand guilty, and I make no fucking apologies about it. No, Trump does not deserve a chance. He deserves all the protest and resistance his administration is receiving, and then some. The rejection of Trump isn't just for the sake of rejecting Trump himself - it's also the rejection of a fascist America and despotism.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon


"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)