America isn't immune to disaster

[Moiraine]

Just thinking out loud here.

 

I think because Americans have had it so good for so long, when we look back in history at other countries who've had coups and fascist leaders, we think of it as something that happens in other places in the world, and a long time ago, and it doesn't even register as being possible in the U.S.

 

But it is possible. Congress has been weak and ineffectual for years now. The only thing most members of congress care about is their wallets and getting re-elected. I can easily imagine them letting this happen to the U.S. and then realizing their mistake too late. Any bill that might strengthen the executive branch's power could just have some sop included in it that pleases the correct party enough to pass it. People who think it can't happen here just aren't very imaginitive. It wouldn't be that hard in the current political climate.

 

One thing I look at that makes me think how possible it is, is how people react when Trump bashes the press and says he wants to go after them. People in general are so blind and malleable that how they view this issue depends on their political affiliation. How can anyone be for this? Are they so stupid they don't see the rammifications? This isn't something that will only effect Republican presidents. 20 years from now we could have an idiotic/evil Democrat president who, because of any laws that make the press less able to give the true story, is able to do things more terrible than anything we're thinking of right now.

 

It's like people can't think past their own noses. Trump wants to pass laws based on his hurt feelings, but some of these laws will still remain when he's gone and negatively impact the people who are blindly cheering them on because they come from their "team."

 

Then there's the science stuff. Not even going to talk about that because it pisses me off so much. We're getting to the point with all the vitriol spouted against scientists that we might as well do what countries in the past have done and start an anti-intellectual campaign and round all of them up. It's haopened before and it's what the talk lately reminds me of. Again, I don't get why people are so stupid that they don't realize why this is bad.

 

It's just mind-boggling how stupid people get when someone on their "team" says something vs when someone on the other "team" says the same thing. Why are we so dumb?

 

My only comfort is that terrible things have happened to countries and people in the past and the world at large moved on fine. I just hope the U.S. doesn't end up becoming a lesson for other countries in the future.

[Danny Bateman]

Tell us how you really feel

 

Good rant. I take it you recently stumbled upon the news that the new administration is trying to get a list of EPA employees who worked on climate science? That kind of stuff is a bit chilling to hear. I read though that taking action against anyone on that basis would actually be against the law, so I guess that's reassuring?

The fake news things is disconcerting. It's creepy how quick most Trump supporters just reflexively claim "Fake News!" whenever they hear anything they don't like. Just blatant tribalism, but it's an easy way for them to avoid dealing with a reality with which they're not comfortable. Creating a safe space, if you will.

 

Unfortunately, this is what happens when you try to gut education systems to save cash. People become less educated on how the government works, on how to evaluate media, and intelligence in general just takes a hit. Trump's stance that everything is rigged against him and everyone opposing him is corrupt and the media is not an honest player goes down a lot smoother among uneducated ranks more often than not.

 

Everyone who cares about a better future should try to uphold legitimate news sources. They're going to be assaulted by Trump and his following as illegitimate because they don't bow down to King Don. We as a people cannot let this happen. Especially if he does largely subvert traditional media, as some are suggesting, in favor of his own direct access form of media over Facebook or Twitter or self-released videos or what have you. We've officially crossed over into propaganda territory if he tries to delegtimize real media and rely entirely on his own media and sources that will never challenge him (Fox News).

 

We need to support and uphold the sanctity of the Fourth Estate.

 

Lastly, his cabinet selections for those who care about the environment have been an F-. Absolutely atrocious. Now they're saying we may get the Exxon Mobil CEO as Sec of State.

Destroying the environment is probably the most long lasting damage his administration will do. It will be less noticeable for most folks than if he plunges us into recession or actively tries to target the media, however.

[zoogs]

DEFINITELY think there's a danger in taking things for granted. It happens all the time; we get used to hard-fought gains and think that is the default way of things. It's not just Trump, but reactionary illiberal sentiment in general. What some of us benefit from, others want to ed.

[JJ Husker]

It can happen here but I don't think there is any chance our system would/could let it get too bad before corrective measures were taken.

 

I understand many are really concerned with a guy like Trump but many were also concerned when Obama took office. A person's political leanings only changes how bad they view the possible eventuality. We have had executive orders and overly partisan politics for quite some time. Half plus of the country complained when Obamacare was rammer through. And I'm sure about half the people will complain about things Trump tries to implement. That doesn't mean we're headed towards some epic poster child for failure or the world.

[BigRedBuster]

It can happen here but I don't think there is any chance our system would/could let it get too bad before corrective measures were taken.

 

I understand many are really concerned with a guy like Trump but many were also concerned when Obama took office. A person's political leanings only changes how bad they view the possible eventuality. We have had executive orders and overly partisan politics for quite some time. Half plus of the country complained when Obamacare was rammer through. And I'm sure about half the people will complain about things Trump tries to implement. That doesn't mean we're headed towards some epic poster child for failure or the world.

Here's the difference JJ.

 

When people were concerned about Obama, it was mostly concern about his policies. We knew he understood our political system and what it means to work within the system.

 

Trump doesn't have a clue and doesn't seem to have a desire to work within that system.

 

He doesn't seem to understand or care about the basic expectations and constraints of what the office holds.

[JJ Husker]

 

It can happen here but I don't think there is any chance our system would/could let it get too bad before corrective measures were taken.

I understand many are really concerned with a guy like Trump but many were also concerned when Obama took office. A person's political leanings only changes how bad they view the possible eventuality. We have had executive orders and overly partisan politics for quite some time. Half plus of the country complained when Obamacare was rammer through. And I'm sure about half the people will complain about things Trump tries to implement. That doesn't mean we're headed towards some epic poster child for failure or the world.

Here's the difference JJ.

When people were concerned about Obama, it was mostly concern about his policies. We knew he understood our political system and what it means to work within the system.

Trump doesn't have a clue and doesn't seem to have a desire to work within that system.

He doesn't seem to understand or care about the basic expectations and constraints of what the office holds.

I get that and I see the differences. I still don't believe our people or our system would allow things to spin wildly out of control. Sure there may be some things that cross the line a bit and that might take a bit longer to remedy, but what can we do about it now, before it actually happens? Discussing it and imagining it and preparing for eventualities makes sense. But what I see is a lot of people panicking prematurely and basically wanting to correct now what they fear Trump will do later. Our free system elected him. He deserves every chance in the world to F it up and prove how those who elected him were wrong. Far too many actually believe we are already at that point.

 

Maybe I'm a bit naive and tend to let things play out, believing they won't be as bad as feared. I mean really, that is how most things go that people fear. The fear is almost always worse than the reality. We're a resilient people and we have a pretty good track record of correcting our course and heading in the right direction overall. I understand the concerns a personality like Trump generates and I wish a much better person had been elected, but they weren't, so we're going to have to deal with it and we might suffer some setbacks along the way. I've learned to have kind of a "sh#t happens" attitude. We'll just have to deal with it as it comes, try to prevent what we can and fix the other stuff later. Life is too short to let what one dbag might do or is doing to strangle us with preoccupation. At least that's where I'm at.

[Danny Bateman]

JJ, I enjoy reading your thoughts on the subject, since you're in the minority here willing to give Trump a chance and not be skeptical, but not in the mindless way some others are. You're far more reasonable.

Do you have faith in a Republican Congress to be an effective check on Trump?

[RedDenver]

JJ, I enjoy reading your thoughts on the subject, since you're in the minority here willing to give Trump a chance and not be skeptical, but not in the mindless way some others are. You're far more reasonable.

 

Do you have faith in a Republican Congress to be an effective check on Trump?

That's the most concerning part to me. There are little to no checks against the Republicans, so it falls to the Republicans themselves to be the check against Trump. That's a recipe for disaster.

[JJ Husker]

JJ, I enjoy reading your thoughts on the subject, since you're in the minority here willing to give Trump a chance and not be skeptical, but not in the mindless way some others are. You're far more reasonable.

Do you have faith in a Republican Congress to be an effective check on Trump?

It's not so much that I want to give him a chance but more that we really don't have anot her option at this point so I'm willing to wait and see what happens. I don't have high hopes but I also don't think it can be as bad as so many are fearing. Like I've said becore, I could be wrong and quite possibly all the handwringing is not premature. He sure hasn't given any signs that it will be a great 4 years.

 

And for your question, I don't have any faith in our government, Republican or Democrat, anymore. But yes, I think even a repub congress will provide some checks on him. Obviously not to the level dems would but the people have spoken. Now they'll get what they voted for. Probably won't be good in all cases and probably won't be the end of our country either. If he does go completely batsh#t crazy, at least maybe the electorate will learn a little something and hopefully we'll get much candidates in the future. Some people won't believe the flame is hot until they get burned by it.

[JJ Husker]

 

JJ, I enjoy reading your thoughts on the subject, since you're in the minority here willing to give Trump a chance and not be skeptical, but not in the mindless way some others are. You're far more reasonable.

Do you have faith in a Republican Congress to be an effective check on Trump?

 

That's the most concerning part to me. There are little to no checks against the Republicans, so it falls to the Republicans themselves to be the check against Trump. That's a recipe for disaster.

The way I look at it, with a quasi-repub President and the repubs in control of congress, our government may actually get something accomplished. Now of course, the big question is, will it be good or bad? A lot of signs point towards not too good. But, in a sort of sick way, I think the American people will win anyway. If Trump and the repubs do get some good things pushed through, great. And if they don't and royally screw the pooch, well, it might very well be the end of the repub party, and the way they've been lately, that wouldn't be a bad thing. At the very least, they will have to do a complete makeover and get their priorities straightened out. They're in charge now and it is going to be virtually impossible to blame the dems if things don't get fixed or if they get worse. I believe the people voted for change for a reason and that reason was not that they liked Trump. It was because they were extremely dissatisfied with our government and conditions (primarily economic) in this country. I don't believe the people will be forgiving or partisan if they don't see some improvement in their lives. And now the repubs will be held completely accountable for what transpires. If we have to take a few steps backwards to get our course corrected, that's better IMO than continuing as we were.

 

I guess a good analogy would be, just like Nebraska football when Pelini was ousted. Did we really want to continue winning 9 games but never achieving anything of importance? 9 wins isn't bad, sort of like things in our country aren't terrible, but people expect more than just not bad. Maybe I tried too hard there because I think economically things in this country are probably a lot worse than 9 wins, but hopefully it still makes sense.

[zoogs]

It's not so binary, in my view. "Some good" might be a basic level of economic stability, where factors outside an administration's control come into play anyway.

 

That sort of "good" can exist at the same time as plenty of bad. And the bad, if we track the campaign rhetoric and take it for what it is, will be targeted towards certain groups. We never /really/ feel the things that disproportionately affect others to begin with, so for example, "so what" if a lot more Mexicans are deported as criminals and "so what" if Muslisms are barred entry to the country, or registered and tracked after they're here, and "so what" if we go after the "inner cities" and police them "hard".

[JJ Husker]

It's not so binary, in my view. "Some good" might be a basic level of economic stability, where factors outside an administration's control come into play anyway.That sort of "good" can exist at the same time as plenty of bad. And the bad, if we track the campaign rhetoric and take it for what it is, will be targeted towards certain groups. We never /really/ feel the things that disproportionately affect others to begin with, so for example, "so what" if a lot more Mexicans are deported as criminals and "so what" if Muslisms are barred entry to the country, or registered and tracked after they're here, and "so what" if we go after the "inner cities" and police them "hard".

I don't disagree with this. So the question becomes, how many people in this country are willing to trade some of those possible negatives for economic stability? I think this last election cycle answered that question. Not saying it's right in all cases, just the way it is.

 

I think when dealing with this issue it's important to be a little more specific though. If an illegal alien is a criminal, shouldn't they be deported? If a foreign national Muslim wants to enter this country and they have terrorist tendencies or want to advance some anti-western agenda, shouldn't they be disallowed entry? If there is disproportionate crime in inner city areas, shouldn't it be policed hard? I don't think there is much sympathy to be found if these policies are implemented correctly. On the other hand, if they aren't implemented correctly, yeah, it could be a nightmare for honest, legal, well intentioned people of certain ethnicities.

[zoogs]

So the question becomes, how many people in this country are willing to trade some of those possible negatives for economic stability?

I think the answer to this is a lot.

 

With respect to illegal aliens, technically, they're all criminal. What I mean is if someone gets a parking violation one day, and then their family is torn apart to satisfy the jingoistic urges that elevate (and keep) men like Trump in power. If we become a country that regards Muslim people as a threat, then I would say we have lost our own (highly progressive and virtuous) foundations of Western civilization. Here's a bit connecting Trump & Nixon on 'law and order' and it sort of goes back to the idea that punishment can create crime, and destroy lives. Nixon's efforts come in the ugly context of disrupting communities of political opposition.

 

But as you point out, it's completely easy for the ugly sides of all of this not to touch most people, and also for us to develop or subscribe to comforting narratives about how it's basically the right thing to do.

[JJ Husker]

 

So the question becomes, how many people in this country are willing to trade some of those possible negatives for economic stability?

I think the answer to this is a lot.With respect to illegal aliens, technically, they're all criminal. What I mean is if someone gets a parking violation one day, and then their family is torn apart to satisfy the jingoistic urges that elevate (and keep) men like Trump in power. If we become a country that regards Muslim people as a threat, then I would say we have lost our own (highly progressive and virtuous) foundations of Western civilization. Here's a bit connecting Trump & Nixon on 'law and order' and it sort of goes back to the idea that punishment can create crime, and destroy lives. Nixon's efforts come in the ugly context of disrupting communities of political opposition.But as you point out, it's completely easy for the ugly sides of all of this not to touch most people, and also for us to develop or subscribe to comforting narratives about how it's basically the right thing to do.

And that is exactly why I said it's very important to be specific about which people any of this applies to. A jaywalker is not a "criminal" and of course we don't want to tear apart that family. Now if it's a violent criminal, murderer, rapist etc., that person is responsible for tearing their family apart not a sensible law that kicks them out of the country because of it.

 

Same goes for radical terrorist Muslims. Of course we can't become a country that fears Muslims with no other qualifiers. But it is shear naivete to not acknowledge that there is this group of people in the world that want to do us harm. We need to do what we can to prevent that harm just as importantly as we need to not let it turn into persecuting people simply because of their religion.

 

Now, if we trust Trump and this republican congress to implement it the right way, that can be reasonably doubted and questioned. But let's not act like some reasonable measures can't be enacted, they can. We just have to be vigilant that they don't go wrong.

[zoogs]

Well, of course. You can easily see (template: history), though, how they could do something and then post hoc claim that yeah, they were the bad ones. This is kind of Trump's M.O. And the empirical evidence is that people by and large swallow it; to the extent that there may be accountability and resistance, he has gone full on in the attack of those institutions. Has he stopped trying to discredit the Times yet, or has he just moved on to The Post and that Carrier union guy?

 

If papers criticize, he'll go full attack on them. He may win. Other countries have fought this battle before. And even for truly unfortunate results; people with pre-existing conditions couldn't get sane coverage before what, 2010? And the world at large around them fundamentally did not care. It just didn't register. It continues to be a blip of protest, but maybe that will eventually change. I use this only as an example of what people will find tolerable. The actual 1960s, heck, that would be tolerable for plenty of people.

 

We're in the face of the anti-vigilance, anti-transparency strongman, who plays to crowds and empowers people with the worst of intentions.