Anonymous
01/27/2017 11:51
Subject: Question for people 50+
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Great response pp!! Thanks!
I disagree.
The seeds were planted by Obama, and many voters opposed Hillary because they didn't want an Obama third term
It's all pretty obvious when you pay attention to a simple fact: 65% Americans said we were on the wrong track under Obama.
I used "faction" for a reason: Hillary and Obama are from the same faction. The faction starts with the Democratic Leadership Council and becomes the lead faction in the Democractic Party with Bill Clinton. Basically, this faction, headed by Harvard and Yale types, traded blue collar voters for professional ones, especially those on Wall Street. This has meant that the Democrats have won metropolitan areas, especially the highest income areas, with increasingly commanding margins, but coincidentally have seen loses in places like Appalachia and the Upper Midwest. This election saw their strategy clearly fail. Something new is desperately needed.
Obama is not part of the DLC camp.
No, but he is part of Harvard & Yale degree holders who kiss Wall Street's a$$ camp.
Anonymous
01/27/2017 10:58
Subject: Re:Question for people 50+
Anonymous wrote:Seven days in and gov't agencies are under gag orders
Gag orders? Because they asked them to quit posting on social media......seriously? I agree the crowd number thing is stupid. But, please remember, that the Park Service tweeted out a picture during the Inauguration of a comparison of crowds. Why? You don't think that was a slam? You don't have problems with that? Lots of people do.
You don't think social media under Obama reflected the views of his administration?
Badlands was not tweeting out information about Badlands. Tweets were going out about global warming. Why? I'm not arguing with the facts, but that is not the purpose of their account.
These are broad gag orders on federal agencies, who have a mandate to disseminate FACTS to the public. The public being the tax payers who fund the agencies. This has nothing to do with pushing out the views of one administration or another. This is an unprecedented and frightening move. Feel free to Google more sources.
Trump Administration Puts Gag Order on Several Government Agencies
Mathew Ingram
Jan 24, 2017
Employees at several federal agencies including the Department of Agriculture have been barred by the Trump administration from making any statements, or providing any documents to the public or journalists, according to published reports.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services are also impacted by the orders, which were reportedly handed down this week, and include a prohibition against some of the agencies posting on social media.
http://fortune.com/2017/01/24/trump-gag-order/
Anonymous
01/27/2017 10:25
Subject: Re:Question for people 50+
Seven days in and gov't agencies are under gag orders
Gag orders? Because they asked them to quit posting on social media......seriously? I agree the crowd number thing is stupid. But, please remember, that the Park Service tweeted out a picture during the Inauguration of a comparison of crowds. Why? You don't think that was a slam? You don't have problems with that? Lots of people do.
You don't think social media under Obama reflected the views of his administration?
Badlands was not tweeting out information about Badlands. Tweets were going out about global warming. Why? I'm not arguing with the facts, but that is not the purpose of their account.
Anonymous
01/27/2017 10:22
Subject: Question for people 50+
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Great response pp!! Thanks!
I disagree.
The seeds were planted by Obama, and many voters opposed Hillary because they didn't want an Obama third term
It's all pretty obvious when you pay attention to a simple fact: 65% Americans said we were on the wrong track under Obama.
I used "faction" for a reason: Hillary and Obama are from the same faction. The faction starts with the Democratic Leadership Council and becomes the lead faction in the Democractic Party with Bill Clinton. Basically, this faction, headed by Harvard and Yale types, traded blue collar voters for professional ones, especially those on Wall Street. This has meant that the Democrats have won metropolitan areas, especially the highest income areas, with increasingly commanding margins, but coincidentally have seen loses in places like Appalachia and the Upper Midwest. This election saw their strategy clearly fail. Something new is desperately needed.
Obama is not part of the DLC camp.
Anonymous
01/27/2017 10:19
Subject: Re:Question for people 50+
I'm 52, and 3rd gen DC. I've heard my parent's talk about how scary things were after JFK, RFK and MLK assignations, followed by Nixon. I remember the '72 election and feeling very anti-Nixon (2nd grade, whatever). And to have the National Guard posted in cities and aggressively trying to quell anti-war protests and the civil rights movement was pure ugliness.
So is this worse? It feels worse to me. But I'm an adult, and a parent. And we live in a different world where isolationism is no longer an option. And xenophobia and stoking the fires of fear and hatred of the "other" has even more dire ramifications than it did in the 1930's. I know that my 80 year old mom thinks it's worse. She was young during WWII, but remembers it and remembers the hardships and the fear. And the cold war that followed. She went to the MLK rally. And JFK's funeral procession. And she tells me about taking us kids to the playground in DC while the National Guard was on the street corners.
But this? Seven days in and gov't agencies are under gag orders, the media is declared the enemy, there is a propaganda machine being put in place, an isolationist policy being set up, talk of torture reinstated, and talk of feds going into a major city (Chicago) to clean it up? What does that even mean?
I'm scared.
So is this worse? It feels worse to me. But I'm an adult, and a parent. And we live in a different world where isolationism is no longer an option. And xenophobia and stoking the fires of fear and hatred of the "other" has even more dire ramifications than it did in the 1930's. I know that my 80 year old mom thinks it's worse. She was young during WWII, but remembers it and remembers the hardships and the fear. And the cold war that followed. She went to the MLK rally. And JFK's funeral procession. And she tells me about taking us kids to the playground in DC while the National Guard was on the street corners.
But this? Seven days in and gov't agencies are under gag orders, the media is declared the enemy, there is a propaganda machine being put in place, an isolationist policy being set up, talk of torture reinstated, and talk of feds going into a major city (Chicago) to clean it up? What does that even mean?
I'm scared.
Anonymous
01/27/2017 09:53
Subject: Question for people 50+
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There hasn't been and you have to thank the Dems for this disaster.
When Reagan was elected the media went crazy also.
Not like this. Nothing in my life has been this bad, especially in the first week of a new administration. The Kent state crowds did mot equal the womwn's march. This is truly un presidented in my lifetime.
Anonymous
01/27/2017 09:47
Subject: Question for people 50+
Anonymous wrote:OP (and anyone under 50):
Notice how all the Boomers are talking about how intense they think their youth was, not about how the Presidents were received. First thing to understand about Boomers: we (almost all of us, I should say) love to think everything is about us. They mention unpleasant stuff from the 1950s-1970s (hillariously assuming my ignorance!) what they don't mention are events where deep questions about the legitimacy of the President by rival elite factions are at the forefront.
What characterizes the present are things like an outgoing CIA Chief taking shots at the President and the newly inaugurated President engaging in a staged event at Langley. Also, members of the press and the rival party accusing the President of collusion with a foreign power against U.S. interests, and doing so in the absence of evidence, instead employing conjecture. This sort of fighting amongst powerful actors is absent from their discussion of the 50s-70s and that seems to be what you were asking about.
I mentioned the 1930s and 1860s as times when Presidents acted boldly and incurred the uniquely intense wrath of many elite factions. I'd class those with the current frame and the period from 1776-1780s and note there are nearly identical intervals between these periods. Societies fray regularly and with a nasty dynamic of powerful factions duking it out. This recalls the Kikyu proverb: When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
You're FOS and if you are a boomer likely born in the mid 60's. One thing that I haven't seen mentioned about growing up and living through those two decades, the specter of nuclear war. Sure did have fun during those daily drills while the Cuban missile crisis was happening. But that doesn't address the OP's query which I will get to later.
Let's address why are you FOS first. For one, what Lincoln did benefited reunifying our nation but let us not ignore that some things were considered unconstitutional and outside the powers of the president. LBJ knew that in order to serve all citizens he would have to divide. How is that not a laudable example of bold politics?
So, what was it the OP asked? "I have never seen sustained political resistance and opposition like this towards a president before in my life that I can remember. " And examples of LBJ and Nixon have been put forth. As early? No. But when the OP asked for the experience of those older than the OP we should do what? Opine about things that happened 100 to 150 years ago or relate the personal experiences we have lived through?
Well, a year ago I called Trump an idiot. My opinion hasn't changed but he is now our president. I for one am going to give him some time. Just as I have with others that I didn't agree with. Just as I would have if Hillary would have been sworn in as POTUS.
Anonymous
01/27/2017 08:06
Subject: Question for people 50+
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?
No.
Anonymous
01/27/2017 07:59
Subject: Question for people 50+
OP (and anyone under 50):
Notice how all the Boomers are talking about how intense they think their youth was, not about how the Presidents were received. First thing to understand about Boomers: we (almost all of us, I should say) love to think everything is about us. They mention unpleasant stuff from the 1950s-1970s (hillariously assuming my ignorance!) what they don't mention are events where deep questions about the legitimacy of the President by rival elite factions are at the forefront.
What characterizes the present are things like an outgoing CIA Chief taking shots at the President and the newly inaugurated President engaging in a staged event at Langley. Also, members of the press and the rival party accusing the President of collusion with a foreign power against U.S. interests, and doing so in the absence of evidence, instead employing conjecture. This sort of fighting amongst powerful actors is absent from their discussion of the 50s-70s and that seems to be what you were asking about.
I mentioned the 1930s and 1860s as times when Presidents acted boldly and incurred the uniquely intense wrath of many elite factions. I'd class those with the current frame and the period from 1776-1780s and note there are nearly identical intervals between these periods. Societies fray regularly and with a nasty dynamic of powerful factions duking it out. This recalls the Kikyu proverb: When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
Notice how all the Boomers are talking about how intense they think their youth was, not about how the Presidents were received. First thing to understand about Boomers: we (almost all of us, I should say) love to think everything is about us. They mention unpleasant stuff from the 1950s-1970s (hillariously assuming my ignorance!) what they don't mention are events where deep questions about the legitimacy of the President by rival elite factions are at the forefront.
What characterizes the present are things like an outgoing CIA Chief taking shots at the President and the newly inaugurated President engaging in a staged event at Langley. Also, members of the press and the rival party accusing the President of collusion with a foreign power against U.S. interests, and doing so in the absence of evidence, instead employing conjecture. This sort of fighting amongst powerful actors is absent from their discussion of the 50s-70s and that seems to be what you were asking about.
I mentioned the 1930s and 1860s as times when Presidents acted boldly and incurred the uniquely intense wrath of many elite factions. I'd class those with the current frame and the period from 1776-1780s and note there are nearly identical intervals between these periods. Societies fray regularly and with a nasty dynamic of powerful factions duking it out. This recalls the Kikyu proverb: When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
Anonymous
01/27/2017 07:44
Subject: Question for people 50+
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Great response pp!! Thanks!
I disagree.
The seeds were planted by Obama, and many voters opposed Hillary because they didn't want an Obama third term
It's all pretty obvious when you pay attention to a simple fact: 65% Americans said we were on the wrong track under Obama.
I used "faction" for a reason: Hillary and Obama are from the same faction. The faction starts with the Democratic Leadership Council and becomes the lead faction in the Democractic Party with Bill Clinton. Basically, this faction, headed by Harvard and Yale types, traded blue collar voters for professional ones, especially those on Wall Street. This has meant that the Democrats have won metropolitan areas, especially the highest income areas, with increasingly commanding margins, but coincidentally have seen loses in places like Appalachia and the Upper Midwest. This election saw their strategy clearly fail. Something new is desperately needed.
Anonymous
01/26/2017 22:29
Subject: Question for people 50+
John Dean was in the Nixon Administration....this is an important read
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21715068-history-lessons-richard-nixons-presidential-library-remembering-accomplished?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/rememberinganaccomplishedbutfatallyflawedpresident
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21715068-history-lessons-richard-nixons-presidential-library-remembering-accomplished?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/rememberinganaccomplishedbutfatallyflawedpresident