Question for people 50+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today.

"Hey, Hey, Ho, HO, LBJ has got to go."
Not as offensive as the first one--but very popular chant at the time, as well.

I remember sitting in my dorm with friends when he announced he would not run for reelection. Loud cheers.

[Anonymous]

I'm 49 so not quite the demographic you were addressing. I've never seen anything like this. And I marched against GWB. I'd take him back in a heart beat now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 31. I have never seen sustained political resistance and opposition like this towards a president before in my life that I can remember.

Is there a comparison in modern history?

Your question really should have gone to people over 60. It was like this in the 1960s, with a divided country and a lot of anger on both sides. There was more violence back then, but we are still just at the beginning. Things could get a lot worse.

I agree. I'm 63 and even I was too young then to directly witness the worst of the Vietnam protests. The protests were intense and violent because virtually every family was impacted by the Vietnam War as a result of the draft. People lived in fear of being called up. Unlike now, we saw ground combat every night on TV, along with the body count for the day. People knew the war was pointless, which made it much worse.

I don't think there are any parallels in the recent history of our country to the situation that we are facing today. I've never been so afraid. This truly reminds me of Germany in the 1930s. The speed with which Trump and Bannon are attempting to take over and destroy our country is astounding. Even more astounding is that the corrupt Republican Congress is allowing this to happen. I don't think that the people who voted Trump into office had the faintest idea what they were unleashing. They still don't.

I don't know what the answer is, but it will take sustained vigilance and protests all across the country to even hope to change this situation. I'd like to be able to rely on an independant press, but that has been directly threatened by the administration and weakened by the profit motive. Young people, especially, have to be willing to inform themselves much more than before, and they have to be active participants in their own destiny. This has to be done NOW, before it's too late.

I believe that most people who voted for Trump thought he was going to lose and thought they were just registering a protest vote. The whole country thought he was going to lose. He thought he was going to lose. No one looked more shocked than him on Wednesday morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There hasn't been and you have to thank the Dems for this disaster.

OP, I'm a dem and participating and proud of it. I think you have your leader to thank for it for making no effort to unify and every effort to divide.

Just trying to put all this in some type of historical perspective

History will record the culpability of he Democratic in bringing us Trump.

History will record the culpability of those who voted for Trump in bringing us Trump

How about the Democrats going along with Hillary and her crew ramrodding the nomination through. Biden could have beaten Trump. Kasich could have beaten Hillary. But HRC vs DJT, horrible choice.

What history will show is the parties failed the voters in 2016.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There hasn't been and you have to thank the Dems for this disaster.

OP, I'm a dem and participating and proud of it. I think you have your leader to thank for it for making no effort to unify and every effort to divide.

Just trying to put all this in some type of historical perspective

History will record the culpability of he Democratic in bringing us Trump.

History will record the culpability of those who voted for Trump in bringing us Trump

How about the Democrats going along with Hillary and her crew ramrodding the nomination through. Biden could have beaten Trump. Kasich could have beaten Hillary. But HRC vs DJT, horrible choice.

What history will show is the parties failed the voters in 2016.

She garnered millions more votes than Sanders. That's not ramrodding, genius. And Biden chose not to run because his son was dying. You have lost your damn mind.

[Anonymous]

Hi OP -- I'm 61 and my older brothers marched vs. the Vietname War. That's when there was a draft and young men got a number in the lottery based on their birthdays. My brothers were all lucky to get high numbers and thus were not drafted. I remember all of the moms and grandmas praying the rosary so that their sons/grandsons would not have to go to war.

The marches were huge. And, that was OH. They were big all over the country. These current marches remind me of them and honestly, I'm happy to see young people engaged again.

I'm sad I was too young to march in the Vietnam War protests. Those young people who marched defined their generation. I hope these young people today define theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 31. I have never seen sustained political resistance and opposition like this towards a president before in my life that I can remember.

Is there a comparison in modern history?

The only good answer is NO.

The people making Kent State or LBJ or Nixon or Reagan or whoever out to be as big or bigger are clueless.

This is a deeper and potentially much more serious rift in the society. You have to go back to at least the 1930s of perhaps the 1860s to get as serious a fissure, one that basically involves the most entrenched in society coming under (potentially fatal for their position) attack.

One bit of intuition: the 2008 financial crisis happened, in no small measure, because basically everyone who remembered the period from the 1929 stock/property market collapse and the Great Depression, was dead by the 2003-2008 period. This current fissure is happening because no one who remembers the elite under threat in this country, which last happened in the 1930s, is alive. For better or for worse, the Trump administration represents a challenge to many of the elite sectors in society and that is what drives the most intense opposition.

Ignorance is shown by that assertion. Seriously, only ignorance can be the reason that you are ignoring the racial divide in the 60's along with the assassinations and the deep division over the Vietnam war spinning into Watergate.

As to 2008. A big part of that was the housing and finance debacle. Ya want to know who was at the foundation of both? Bill Clinton.

FYI, I don't belong to a party and voted 3rd party in November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There hasn't been and you have to thank the Dems for this disaster.

OP, I'm a dem and participating and proud of it. I think you have your leader to thank for it for making no effort to unify and every effort to divide.

Just trying to put all this in some type of historical perspective

History will record the culpability of he Democratic in bringing us Trump.

History will record the culpability of those who voted for Trump in bringing us Trump

How about the Democrats going along with Hillary and her crew ramrodding the nomination through. Biden could have beaten Trump. Kasich could have beaten Hillary. But HRC vs DJT, horrible choice.

What history will show is the parties failed the voters in 2016.

She garnered millions more votes than Sanders. That's not ramrodding, genius. And Biden chose not to run because his son was dying. You have lost your damn mind.

No, you're picking apart the message to suit your partisanship. She was a defacto nominee from the gitgo with little to no opposition. Bernie Sanders got a HELL OF A LOT of votes because he wasn't HRC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 50 with clear recollection of Nixon's resignation and the month leading up to it. Since then, I don't think I've seen a president who is as disliked as Trump seems to be.

I'm 62 and I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/from-nixon-to-trump-the-parallels-between-1968-and-2016/Content?oid=5086105

I am almost 50, and so only barely remember the political divisions regarding the Vietnam War and then Richard Nixon. My MIL, who accompanied me to the Mall on Saturday, said that she participated in the 1968 Chicago protests. The article cited above theorizes that just as the civil rights, women's movement, and endless foreign wars created a traditionalists vs. progressives split that gave rise to Nixon, similar conditions existed in this election cycle.

My fear is that unlike the Nixon era, which had Nixon vs. a Democrat-controlled Congress---Trump is completely unfettered, as the GOP has shown that it is willing to overlook anything in order to keep power (and from alienating Trump's populist supporters).

This^^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 50 with clear recollection of Nixon's resignation and the month leading up to it. Since then, I don't think I've seen a president who is as disliked as Trump seems to be.

I'm 62 and I agree.

I agree as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There hasn't been and you have to thank the Dems for this disaster.

OP, I'm a dem and participating and proud of it. I think you have your leader to thank for it for making no effort to unify and every effort to divide.

Just trying to put all this in some type of historical perspective

History will record the culpability of he Democratic in bringing us Trump.

History will record the culpability of those who voted for Trump in bringing us Trump

How about the Democrats going along with Hillary and her crew ramrodding the nomination through. Biden could have beaten Trump. Kasich could have beaten Hillary. But HRC vs DJT, horrible choice.

What history will show is the parties failed the voters in 2016.

She garnered millions more votes than Sanders. That's not ramrodding, genius. And Biden chose not to run because his son was dying. You have lost your damn mind.

Delusional.

Hillary had the party machinery (hence, early 2015 DNC docs assuming her candidacy) and the media on her side and she still came very close to loosing. Don't forget no GOTV from the DNC (no pesky young voters!) and a registration barrier in NYS and the superdelegates to boot. And remember, Sanders went gentle on her and he still nearly beat her.

Hilariously, this would have been a case where the superdelegates might have saved the DNC from itself. HRC primary wins were in solidly D-states and in states where Ds had no chance, e.g. Mississippi, Sanders won in most of the states (all except PA I believe) were Trump had a thin margin (or were in the upper Midwest) that propelled him to national victory. Sanders favorability trended higher as time went by and HRC's trended lower.

Senior Democrats and their media enablers should be exposed as responsible for Trump. It's really not that hard to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There hasn't been and you have to thank the Dems for this disaster.

OP, I'm a dem and participating and proud of it. I think you have your leader to thank for it for making no effort to unify and every effort to divide.

Just trying to put all this in some type of historical perspective

History will record the culpability of he Democratic in bringing us Trump.

History will record the culpability of those who voted for Trump in bringing us Trump

How about the Democrats going along with Hillary and her crew ramrodding the nomination through. Biden could have beaten Trump. Kasich could have beaten Hillary. But HRC vs DJT, horrible choice.

What history will show is the parties failed the voters in 2016.

She garnered millions more votes than Sanders. That's not ramrodding, genius. And Biden chose not to run because his son was dying. You have lost your damn mind.

No, you're picking apart the message to suit your partisanship. She was a defacto nominee from the gitgo with little to no opposition. Bernie Sanders got a HELL OF A LOT of votes because he wasn't HRC.

Listen buddy, first of all, HRC didn't win so I don't know why we're talking about her. It is NOT her fault that the country elected the closest thing to a tyrant that has ever held the office. And secondly, lets not act like you should all be feeling really effing guilty about your protest votes. I think we can all agree that if HRC was in office the entire world would not be protesting and we wouldn't have 15 executive orders piling up doing subsequently more horrible things and we wouldn't have egocentric speeches or the WH press secretary telling blatant falsehoods to the press core.

This is a result of the false equivocation of their badness that perpetuated the campaign season. You won so there's no reason to keep up the facade, now we can all admit it because the writing is on the wall, he was actually a MUCH worse and MUCH more dangerous candidate and that was VERY clear from day 1.

Just as I wouldn't be afraid of nuclear war if Pence was President, I wouldn't be afraid of it if HRC was President. And that is the ACTUAL bar we have to be thinking about today because our current President is an unpredictable impulsive authoritarian child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 31. I have never seen sustained political resistance and opposition like this towards a president before in my life that I can remember.

Is there a comparison in modern history?

The only good answer is NO.

The people making Kent State or LBJ or Nixon or Reagan or whoever out to be as big or bigger are clueless.

This is a deeper and potentially much more serious rift in the society. You have to go back to at least the 1930s of perhaps the 1860s to get as serious a fissure, one that basically involves the most entrenched in society coming under (potentially fatal for their position) attack.

One bit of intuition: the 2008 financial crisis happened, in no small measure, because basically everyone who remembered the period from the 1929 stock/property market collapse and the Great Depression, was dead by the 2003-2008 period. This current fissure is happening because no one who remembers the elite under threat in this country, which last happened in the 1930s, is alive. For better or for worse, the Trump administration represents a challenge to many of the elite sectors in society and that is what drives the most intense opposition.

Do you really think the country wasn't completely splintered during the Civil Rights era? Maybe it was suppressed more than it is today. But that was a really violent time for people of color and their white supporters.

Completely splintered? I'm not sure. I that get certain sections were strained. But the existential fight between elite factions now looks massively worse in comparison.

How did George Wallace's relatively more insider Presidential Campaigns do by comparison with Trump's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There hasn't been and you have to thank the Dems for this disaster.

OP, I'm a dem and participating and proud of it. I think you have your leader to thank for it for making no effort to unify and every effort to divide.

Just trying to put all this in some type of historical perspective

History will record the culpability of he Democratic in bringing us Trump.

History will record the culpability of those who voted for Trump in bringing us Trump

How about the Democrats going along with Hillary and her crew ramrodding the nomination through. Biden could have beaten Trump. Kasich could have beaten Hillary. But HRC vs DJT, horrible choice.

What history will show is the parties failed the voters in 2016.

She garnered millions more votes than Sanders. That's not ramrodding, genius. And Biden chose not to run because his son was dying. You have lost your damn mind.

No, you're picking apart the message to suit your partisanship. She was a defacto nominee from the gitgo with little to no opposition. Bernie Sanders got a HELL OF A LOT of votes because he wasn't HRC.

Listen buddy, first of all, HRC didn't win so I don't know why we're talking about her. It is NOT her fault that the country elected the closest thing to a tyrant that has ever held the office. And secondly, lets not act like you should all be feeling really effing guilty about your protest votes. I think we can all agree that if HRC was in office the entire world would not be protesting and we wouldn't have 15 executive orders piling up doing subsequently more horrible things and we wouldn't have egocentric speeches or the WH press secretary telling blatant falsehoods to the press core.

This is a result of the false equivocation of their badness that perpetuated the campaign season. You won so there's no reason to keep up the facade, now we can all admit it because the writing is on the wall, he was actually a MUCH worse and MUCH more dangerous candidate and that was VERY clear from day 1.

Just as I wouldn't be afraid of nuclear war if Pence was President, I wouldn't be afraid of it if HRC was President. And that is the ACTUAL bar we have to be thinking about today because our current President is an unpredictable impulsive authoritarian child.

New poster.

We're talking about her because she was the candidate of the Democratic Party faction that planted the seeds of President Trump. If you want to fight him successfully, grasp that that faction bears inordinate responsibility.