OK...What's Next?

[Lantern7]

I imagine Francis praying. "Dear Lord, I walk a fine line between yesterday and tomorrow.  I am expected to preserve the traditions, yet I feel myself needing to make progress. And I knew that I would not get any sort of substantial reward in his life when I accepted the position. But . . . for me . . . a rash. A rash on that person in a very embarrassing place. I won't brag about it if You pull it off. I just would like confirmation that Somebody out there is listening. Please?"

[random chance]

It's frustrating to me that noticing Trump is batshit crazy is described as "partisanship."

[Padma]

1 hour ago, Duke Silver said:

 

It’s Not About the Economy: In an increasingly polarized country, even economic progress can’t get voters to abandon their partisan allegiance.

EDIT:  forgot to include this; stupid quote box won't let me add edit below the quote I already had:

Piss poor messaging from Obama. Reagan (even Trump) would have been all over the recovery and had their surrogates doing the same -- and not just in an election year. He will be remembered as a good, not great, president and the failure to use the bully pulpit (and the personal popularity he is so proud of) will be part of that. Reagan did it. It's not rocket science

[bittersweet4149]

17 minutes ago, Padma said:

Piss poor messaging from Obama. Reagan (even Trump) would have been all over the recovery and had their surrogates doing the same -- and not just in an election year. He will be remembered as a good, not great, president and the failure to use the bully pulpit (and the personal popularity he is so proud of) will be part of that. Reagan did it. It's not rocket science

Agreed. I often wondered why Obama didn't use that tried-and-true Reagan play and make his charisma work for him.

From the article...

Quote

Andi Ermes, 39, offered a number of reasons for disliking Obama. She said Obama didn’t attend the Army-Navy football game, even though other presidents had. Obama has actually attended more Army-Navy games than George H.W. Bush. She said that he had taken too many vacations. He has taken fewer vacation days that George W. Bush. She also said that he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel. While it is true that Obama did not wear a flag on his lapel at points during the 2007 campaign, it was back on his suit by 2008. Ermes told me the news sources she consumes most are Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and a local conservative radio show hosted by Casey Hendrickson.

I lived in Elkhart, IN for four years (it was a central location for the sales territory I managed at the time). The sentence I put in bold pretty much says all you need to know about the local mentality.

[Duke Silver]

https://twitter.com/LOLGOP/status/813858304141234176

[NinjaPenguins]

What is this obsession with flag pins? If Zombie Hitler shambled across Indiana with an American flag pin smartly attached to the disintegrating collar of his Nazi uniform, would he be welcome in these people's homes? Any asshole can stick a cheap pin on their jacket. 

Obama obviously should have spent weeks clearing brush. That's how real 'Muricans roll. 

[Padma]

2 minutes ago, NinjaPenguins said:

What is this obsession with flag pins? If Zombie Hitler shambled across Indiana with an American flag pin smartly attached to the disintegrating collar of his Nazi uniform, would he be welcome in these people's homes? Any asshole can stick a cheap pin on their jacket. 

 

I always like Sinclair Lewis' quote that "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a Bible."  Only now, it could just wear a flag pin and misquote "Two" Corinthians.

[Duke Silver]

Hopefully they kill each other.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/trump-fans-deploraball-party-descends-into-chaotic-infighting-over-nazi-salutes-and-book-burnings/

[Duke Silver]

 

So #RussianHack didn't help elect Trump, huh?

Edited December 28, 2016 by Duke Silver

[Lantern7]

"And I'm proud to be an American. Or at least I used to be . . ." That lyric ran through my head during the Dubya years. Looks like I might have to rewrite a modern "classic." I mean, I'm still hoping something changes in the next three-and-a-half weeks, but it would have to be huge epic.

[aradia22]

http://prospect.org/article/professor-watchlist-gets-f-accuracy

[Duke Silver]

Well, for Republicans, government action = loss of personal freedoms, ostensibly.  That's what many Republicans in my life would say (Trump supporters as well as #neverTrump 'ers).  I put it that way because individual analysis doesn't go that deep in the vast majority of cases, IMO.  Other things like internalized attitudes toward racism/misogyny drive fears much more than nuanced political philosophy.  JMO.

[PatsyandEddie]

^^Rather frightening in a way, aradia.

Edited December 28, 2016 by PatsyandEddie

[Padma]

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

http://prospect.org/article/professor-watchlist-gets-f-accuracy

That's an important article and I'm sure the intention of this "Watchlist" is exactly as Dreier says--to intimidate liberal intellectuals from criticizing Trump (or from simply having "liberal" ideas, despite valid and uncontroversial teaching methods).

But I couldn't help noticing the irony that Dreier, a prominent professor, plagiarizes from Wikipedia.

Here's wiki's intro to the Niemöller  poem:

"....poem written by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power and subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group."

Here's Dreier's:

"it is always useful to remember the poem written by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power and subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group."

Tsk. Tsk, Professor.

[Duke Silver]

https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/status/813940139315474432

[Duke Silver]

-------------------------------------------------------------

I won't link to a David Duke anything, but McMullin re-tweeted this:

[possibilities]

The idea that Nazi salutes are even being debated for an inaugural event is so horrifying to me that I really don't know what to say about it.

RE "sunny" doesn't explain Trump: I think "Make America Great Again" is the same as Reagan's slogan of "Morning in America"-- he kept promising he'd fix everything, like a knight in racist armor. Compare to Hillary who talked about how there was work to be done and incremental steps to be taken together to improve things. She promised to work hard and Trump promised to save everyone as he alone could do.... Obviously I am not defending any of this and it's all total bullshit. But I do think his supporters find Trump to be a ray of sunshine, a rescuer who invokes a fantasy for a certain segment of the population (the good old days of white male supremacy and license to despise ones neighbor) where Hillary's supporters find her to be a sensible person with solid ideas and a track record of working hard. It's something about the total delusionality of Trump that makes him appealing to those who he appeals to, vs the realism of a Hillary. I don't get it. I find it repellant. But I think that sentiment is out there despite my revulsion towards it. We appear to be a nation of delusionals who want to be rescued and not have to think.

Here's my "where to go for inspiration" article for the day: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/12/post-election-activists-gain-resolve-civil-rights-veterans

And Michael Moore's strategy suggestions for the everyday person who doesn't have a media empire of their own: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbaqst_B498

 

 

[galaxygirl76]

I hope that Evan McMullen has a lot of security for being pretty much the lone opposing voice in the GOP, I'm sure he's getting all sorts of threats. 

[Bookish Jen]

12 minutes ago, galaxygirl76 said:

I hope that Evan McMullen has a lot of security for being pretty much the lone opposing voice in the GOP, I'm sure he's getting all sorts of threats. 

My respect for him just keeps growing and growing. He is a treasure among the deplorable sheep of today's GOP.

[sistermagpie]

6 minutes ago, Bookish Jen said:

My respect for him just keeps growing and growing. He is a treasure among the deplorable sheep of today's GOP.

Yes, I so one Tweet from a left wing person scolding people saying that the guy they were cooing over was anti-choice or whatever. And I was like...see, this is why you're not helping. We *get* that he's an actual Republican and that we wouldn't vote for him because we don't agree with his policies. If he had all of your values he would be a Democrat. The fact that he's a Republican standing up to Trump is important here. We'd love more of him. The point is to work with them on things we should all agree on!

[possibilities]

Some of the Rockettes (this article says the majority of them!) actually are speaking up against performing at the inauguration. Their union is backing them.

http://www.businessinsider.com/rockettes-trump-inauguration-2016-12

[DollEyes]

In light of the late, great Carrie Fisher's death, K O'Shea, author of The Ghost Army Of Atlantis, posted a tweet that was both a tribute to Ms. Fisher's most iconic character and some valuable advice to the Resistance:

Quote

Fight on the front lines. Strangle fascists with the chains they would have you wear. Be a motherfuckin' general.

[MulletorHater]

17 hours ago, Duke Silver said:

https://twitter.com/LOLGOP/status/813858304141234176

That's because like most con men and frauds, Paul Ryan is looking at the long game.  He's an Ayn Rand acolyte (despite publicly repudiating her beliefs in 2012 because it was politically expedient for him to do so).  He has long had a plan to gut Medicare and Social Security and will do what he can to ram it through.

So, while the rest of media are fixated on Drumpf's latest round of fuckery, Ryan is working around the clock to put their plan in place on the first day.  They want it done as quickly as possible and will even find a way to blame the Democrats.  That's why Ryan was willing to swallow his "dignity" and play the go-along-to-get-along game when Drumpf and his more virulent supporters attacked him.

[Blergh]

23 hours ago, DollEyes said:

Still respectfully disagreeing. Not lumping all Trump supporters to the worst ones sounds nice in theory, but them giving him access to more power than he could possibly handle and his surrounding himself with those who seem to have no one's best interests at heart but their own gives me pause, to put it mildly. To quote the old saying, "All it takes for evil to triumph is good people who do nothing."

In light of the death of George Michael, here's an appropriate song:

Praying For Time

Doll Eyes,

 

 Sorry for not replying earlier (and this will be my last one on this particular subject on this thread) but I guess I was too stunned by Miss Fisher's passing (and I had to go to work).

  Respectfully, you make a good point about evil triumphing re good people doing nothing. HOWEVER; when one refuses to believe that there COULD be good in  people  (or even not entirely evil people) among the voters of someone one despises, one DOES help evil by shutting out the possibility of building a bridge with potential allies. One could certainly agree that Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been abused and persecuted by evil folks yet they didn't say  'ALL English people and their supporters/ ALL white people and their supporters are totally evil without any possibility of any person among their group being an ally' . Instead they appealed to the humanity  and tried to see the good within even when badly abused, taunted and tormented and they DID find allies among those whom one might not initially been willing to consider. They saw that one could NOT protest bigotry and injustice with any credence if they themselves were willing to be bigoted to those who were different from them.  Even Anne Frank said in one of her last journal entries that she still believed people were ' good at heart' in a time and place when she knew that she could DIE in the next five minutes merely for being different from others yet while she certainly and justly denounced NAZIs and their credo she didn't denounce the possibility of humanity of other people.

     As I said, this will be my last post on this subject within this thread, but I've studied history all my life and I don't see how it is of any benefit to anyone to act like Madame Defarge by being eager to persecute those one wants to believe has guilt by mere association even when they themselves have done nothing to hurt others via words or deeds and may want to reach out to help others and be an ally to those who otherwise would have no voice. 

[Padma]

So John Kerry gives a major speech on Israel and Palestine. It's 72 minutes long, detailed and actually quite interesting in both historical and current positions--with some blunt and detailed criticism of Netanyahu's settlement policy on the West Bank.

A few minutes later, he sits down for an "exclusive interview" with NBC's Andrea Mitchell.  Her first question?  "What do you think of Donald Trump's tweet (then reads)?"

These people just can't learn, can they?

[fastiller]

@Padma - sigh.

[sistermagpie]

14 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Even Anne Frank said in one of her last journal entries that she still believed people were ' good at heart' in a time and place when she knew that she could DIE in the next five minutes merely for being different from others yet while she certainly and justly denounced NAZIs and their credo she didn't denounce the possibility of humanity of other people.

It does seem like the trick is to get these people as allies since they have the potential to not be driven by fear or bigotry--you just don't want to do it by accepting those things. The priority is justice for everyone rather than just venting anger or judging people. I will be more than happy to embrace Trump voters who want to undo things their vote did.

3 minutes ago, Padma said:

A few minutes later, he sits down for an "exclusive interview" with NBC's Andrea Mitchell.  Her first question?  "What do you think of Donald Trump's tweet (then reads)?"

Just keeping dumbing it down, NBC...

[catrox14]

Just now, Padma said:

A few minutes later, he sits down for an "exclusive interview" with NBC's Andrea Mitchell.  Her first question?  "What do you think of Donald Trump's tweet (then reads)?"

 I think her question was more to the point that Trump's tweeting could be influencing other heads of state and policy that undermines the current administration. No matter what Trump tweets we still have only one President and one administration at a time.   At least that's how I took her asking about it.

[aradia22]

Quote

Respectfully, you make a good point about evil triumphing re good people doing nothing. HOWEVER; when one refuses to believe that there COULD be good in  people  (or even not entirely evil people) among the voters of someone one despises, one DOES help evil by shutting out the possibility of building a bridge with potential allies. One could certainly agree that Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been abused and persecuted by evil folks yet they didn't say  'ALL English people and their supporters/ ALL white people and their supporters are totally evil without any possibility of any person among their group being an ally' . Instead they appealed to the humanity  and tried to see the good within even when badly abused, taunted and tormented and they DID find allies among those whom one might not initially been willing to consider. They saw that one could NOT protest bigotry and injustice with any credence if they themselves were willing to be bigoted to those who were different from them.  

I would respectfully argue that unlike the "English" or "white people", Trump voters have self-selected their membership into that group. I think sadly that there are a lot of self-serving people in the world right now and the only way to make them allies is to make them realize that what they're doing won't serve them well. Unfortunately, at the moment, they hold all the chips and it's difficult to see a path towards applying political pressure to those in government and to make anyone else understand that there will be repercussions, beyond perhaps the temporary wrath of twitter. 

In other news, I'm starting to think Trump has some kind of propaganda deal with China because otherwise this dummy is going to get us into a war. What is he doing???

[Padma]

15 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

 I think her question was more to the point that Trump's tweeting could be influencing other heads of state and policy that undermines the current administration. No matter what Trump tweets we still have only one President and one administration at a time.   At least that's how I took her asking about it.

Did you see it? She read Trump's tweet (written before the speech) and Netanyahu's criticizing the U.S., showing he and Trump were on the same page.  She asked what Kerry thought of them. First question.

I'm sure she'd like your explanation. To me, even IF that was her reason, she still should have waited and actually, you know, discussed THE SPEECH first before getting to Trump.  Not make it her first question.

But, I didn't take it that way.  For me, it's just more of the personality-driven b.s. that we've seen throughout the election--a very, very obvious tactic to grab the headline that the media buys into with Trump Every. Single. Time.

Really, Lincoln could deliver the Gettysburg Address and a reporter would say, "Trump just tweeted, 'I can write a better message than that speech Lincoln just gave on the battlefield--and I'd only use 140 characters!' President Lincoln, your comments?"

[catrox14]

 I saw it.   I watched Kerry's speech in full, and I watched her interview with Kerry in full in real time. I would not have commented otherwise.

Yes, she immediately addressed Trump's tweet but I did not take her bringing it up as some kind of "LOOK HERE TRUMP" kind of thing because she did say specifically "His tweet was not really helpful ".  So that's why I am not seeing it as her making Trump's tweet more important than the speech.  I guess I just wasn't particularly perturbed by it. She asked about it, and he refused to discuss it. 

I also think the media should have ignored Trump early on before he got elected but they didn't. Unfortunately, now that he is the PEOTUS IMO they would be remiss to ignore his tweets especially when they seem to be setting policy in 140 characters.   It's a nasty double edged sword. 

[Duke Silver]

I watched a populist leader rise in my country. That’s why I’m genuinely worried for America.

Quote

Prime Minister Viktor Orban has depicted migrants as rapists, job-stealers, terrorists and “poison” for the nation, and built a vast fence along Hungary’s southern border. The popularity of his nativist agitation has allowed him to easily debunk as unpatriotic or partisan any resistance to his self-styled “illiberal democracy,” which he said he modeled after “successful states” such as Russia and Turkey.

Quote

Populists govern by swapping issues, as opposed to resolving them. Purposeful randomness, constant ambush, relentless slaloming and red herrings dropped all around are the new normal. Their favorite means of communication is provoking conflict. They do not mind being hated. Their two basic postures of “defending” and “triumphing” are impossible to perform without picking enemies.

Quote

I have plenty of gloomy don’t-dos, but few proven trump cards. There is perhaps one mighty exception, the issue of corruption, which the polite American media like to describe as “conflicts of interest.”  It is the public’s moral indignation over nepotism that has proved to be the nemesis of illiberal regimes. Personal and family greed, cronyism, thievery combined with hypocrisy are in the genes of illiberal autocracy; and in many countries betrayed expectations of a selfless strongman have led to a civic awakening.

emphasis mine

[film noire]

1 hour ago, Blergh said:

One could certainly agree that Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been abused and persecuted by evil folks yet they didn't say  'ALL English people and their supporters/ ALL white people and their supporters are totally evil without any possibility of any person among their group being an ally' . Instead they appealed to the humanity  and tried to see the good within even when badly abused, taunted and tormented and they DID find allies among those whom one might not initially been willing to consider.

King also called out White America as a group:  “Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn.” (From "Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community".)  I think if King were alive, he'd be horrified by Trump and his voters, and King's statement would be even more strongly phrased.

Edited December 28, 2016 by film noire

[Lantern7]

I'm guessing Kerry wouldn't have been asked about the next "president" if he had a berserk button. "What do I-? Tweet?!? Fucker, I fought in a war! I fucking lost to George W. Bush!! LEGITIMATELY!!! I represent America and pray no diplomat pats me on the head and offers me a cookie, and you're asking me about him?!?"

ETA: Today's Penny Arcade isn't as relevant as Monday's, but it still portends a dark future.

[aradia22]

I'm feeling a little tired and sad today but Re: that Washington post blurb, someone make a joke about how Obama had a message of hope and change and the best case scenario for Trump is the futile hope that he'll change. I'm not feeling clever enough to do it properly.

[catrox14]

Just to be clear, I know the media does stupid things with regard to this election, I just think in this particular case with this particular interview, I think Mitchell was trying to get a response from the sitting Secretary of State about this psuedo-policy making/policy-stating on Twitter from Trump that is directly contradicting the sitting administration's policies.

[Padma]

31 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Just to be clear, I know the media does stupid things with regard to this election, I just think in this particular case with this particular interview, I think Mitchell was trying to get a response from the sitting Secretary of State about this psuedo-policy making/policy-stating on Twitter from Trump that is directly contradicting the sitting administration's policies.

Maybe so.  But with the background of similar b.s. interviewing from Mitchell and others throughout this election, I felt it was the typical "go to" for television journalists these days.  They lead with whatever Trump has just said or tweeted and get a response to it. They've been doing it -- to Dems and Republicans alike-- for eighteen months and I'm sick of it.

It's so predictable, which made Mitchell's first question--whatever her intent was--really, really annoying.  These television people have such an aversion to policy discussions and ask question more like People magazine interviews.  Kerry had just given a 72 minutes MAJOR policy speech with no mention of Trump and was, out of the gate, being asked to respond to yet another idiotic and inflammatory tweet from our know-nothing President elect.

I think she could have at least responded to the CONTENT of the speech before getting to the trivial and banal latest Trumpism.  It was like a great violin virtuoso playing brilliantly for an hour and the first thing you say to him is, "Did you like that pretty girl in the audience who just brought you the flowers?"

It's going to be a long, long four years.

[Pixel]

2 hours ago, Blergh said:

Doll Eyes,

 

 Sorry for not replying earlier (and this will be my last one on this particular subject on this thread) but I guess I was too stunned by Miss Fisher's passing (and I had to go to work).

  Respectfully, you make a good point about evil triumphing re good people doing nothing. HOWEVER; when one refuses to believe that there COULD be good in  people  (or even not entirely evil people) among the voters of someone one despises, one DOES help evil by shutting out the possibility of building a bridge with potential allies. One could certainly agree that Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been abused and persecuted by evil folks yet they didn't say  'ALL English people and their supporters/ ALL white people and their supporters are totally evil without any possibility of any person among their group being an ally' . Instead they appealed to the humanity  and tried to see the good within even when badly abused, taunted and tormented and they DID find allies among those whom one might not initially been willing to consider. They saw that one could NOT protest bigotry and injustice with any credence if they themselves were willing to be bigoted to those who were different from them.  Even Anne Frank said in one of her last journal entries that she still believed people were ' good at heart' in a time and place when she knew that she could DIE in the next five minutes merely for being different from others yet while she certainly and justly denounced NAZIs and their credo she didn't denounce the possibility of humanity of other people.

     As I said, this will be my last post on this subject within this thread, but I've studied history all my life and I don't see how it is of any benefit to anyone to act like Madame Defarge by being eager to persecute those one wants to believe has guilt by mere association even when they themselves have done nothing to hurt others via words or deeds and may want to reach out to help others and be an ally to those who otherwise would have no voice. 

I admit I have cut people off of my FB because of their support of Trump, and I definitely waffle on being unbelievably pissed off and unforgiving, or trying to see common ground.  I do believe that you cannot create pathways to understanding if you are burning all of your bridges, and people don't change without understanding why they are wrong (or right) about something.  I think about the former white supremacist (whose name I can't recall right now) who recently wrote an article about how he left white supremacy. He was pretty high up in the organization - a relative of David Duke, I think.  It wasn't some epiphany - it was a gradual learning (from those around him when he went to college and who interacted with him outside of his "home" turf) that his belief system was wildly fucked up.  But he never could have learned that if the people around him had cut him off and refused to interact with him because they knew his background.

So, I am learning that I can be angry with people, but not hate them, and that cutting them off also eliminates the possibility of educating them.  That sounds condescending, but I'm not talking about compromising values, like everyone should have the same civil rights, etc. - those to me are hard and fast.  And I'm not saying my beliefs are the right ones all the time (although some things to me are deal breakers. Again, civil rights. Equality for gays). But there is no pathway to change without communication.  It doesn't happen overnight.

[SmithW6079]

On 12/27/2016 at 0:46 PM, DollEyes said:

Still respectfully disagreeing. Not lumping all Trump supporters to the worst ones sounds nice in theory, but them giving him access to more power than he could possibly handle and his surrounding himself with those who seem to have no one's best interests at heart but their own gives me pause, to put it mildly. To quote the old saying, "All it takes for evil to triumph is good people who do nothing."

Also:

Aesop: “A man is known by the company he keeps”

Ben Franklin: "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."

Awful lot of Trump supporters scratching those fleas now and whinging about how they're being treated. You know, kind of like "snowflakes."

Edited December 28, 2016 by SmithW6079
Amended the Trump-scratching-fleas sentence.

[MulletorHater]

6 minutes ago, SmithW6079 said:

Also:

Aesop: “A man is known by the company he keeps”

Ben Franklin: "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."

Awful lot of Trump supporters scratching those fleas now. 

And, since so many of Drumpf's supporters identify as evangelical Christians, I'm sure they are quite familiar with this Bible verse, Proverbs 13:20 (New American Standard:

Quote

He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will suffer harm [or shall be destroyed (KJV)]

Not only did these vile hypocrites welcome this viper into their midst for their own self-serving reasons, but they couched their support of him as some kind of End Times prophecy.  Some even convinced their congregations that President Obama and Secretary Clinton were literal demons that smelled of sulfur.  

[AntiBeeSpray]

2 hours ago, Pixel said:

I admit I have cut people off of my FB because of their support of Drumpf, and I definitely waffle on being unbelievably pissed off and unforgiving, or trying to see common ground.  I do believe that you cannot create pathways to understanding if you are burning all of your bridges, and people don't change without understanding why they are wrong (or right) about something.  I think about the former white supremacist (whose name I can't recall right now) who recently wrote an article about how he left white supremacy. He was pretty high up in the organization - a relative of David Duke, I think.  It wasn't some epiphany - it was a gradual learning (from those around him when he went to college and who interacted with him outside of his "home" turf) that his belief system was wildly fucked up.  But he never could have learned that if the people around him had cut him off and refused to interact with him because they knew his background.

So, I am learning that I can be angry with people, but not hate them, and that cutting them off also eliminates the possibility of educating them.  That sounds condescending, but I'm not talking about compromising values, like everyone should have the same civil rights, etc. - those to me are hard and fast.  And I'm not saying my beliefs are the right ones all the time (although some things to me are deal breakers. Again, civil rights. Equality for gays). But there is no pathway to change without communication.  It doesn't happen overnight.

I wish you the best on that. I'm not even bothering with that. People are going to act how they're going to act. Maybe when things come down to the brass tacks (meaning their rights are affected) then maybe they might listen. But for now, they're on their own.

[Lantern7]

This just in: 2016 is now gunning for celebrity parents and children. First Zsa Zsa dies. Then Carrie Fisher. Then we find out Zsa Zsa's son died. And now, Debbie Reynolds, twenty-four hours after her daughter. Once again . . . celebrities are people, people die all the time, but it feels very lopsided this year.

[Chicken Wing]

9 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

This just in: 2016 is now gunning for celebrity parents and children. First Zsa Zsa dies. Then Carrie Fisher. Then we find out Zsa Zsa's son died. And now, Debbie Reynolds, twenty-four hours after her daughter. Once again . . . celebrities are people, people die all the time, but it feels very lopsided this year.

Yet Bieber remains at large.

[Enigma X]

Why I just won't engage entertain them.

I have been at work for two hours and have listened to these trumpeteers convince themselves that Mexico has built a southern border to keep people out, that Pence is right on the money with conversion therapy, that minorities do nothing but play the victim, that black people harp too much on slavery, and that liberals are blaming Trump and the Russians for all the celebrity deaths. They are loud and know that I and others can hear them. As a believer in human rights, I was insulted by all of it. They cared not one bit about whom they were offending. This is what they do daily in a government office. No way will I be the one who bends, especially when I can see they are taking pure delight in dehumanizing people (me included). This is not an isolated scenario either.

I think it was said in this thread by someone "fuck that noise" when it comes to engaging them. I second that motion. We are the ones who they need to start dialogue with. I am so sick of the left leaning expected to be the ones to turn the other cheek and understand. Nope, not hearing it!

Edited December 29, 2016 by Enigma X

[Pixel]

16 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

Why I just won't engage entertain them.

I have been at work for two hours and have listened to these trumpeteers convince themselves that Mexico has built a southern border to keep people out, that Pence is right on the money with conversion therapy, that minorities do nothing but play the victim, that black people harp too much on slavery, and that liberals are blaming Trump and the Russians for all the celebrity deaths. They are loud and know that I and others can hear them. As a believer in human rights, I was insulted by all of it. They cared not one bit about whom they were offending. This is what they do daily in a government office. No way will I be the one who bends, especially when I can see they are taking pure delight in dehumanizing people (me included). This is not an isolated scenario either.

I think it was said in this thread by someone "fuck that noise" when it comes to engaging them. I second that motion. We are the ones who they need to start dialog with. I am so sick of the left leaning expected to be the ones to turn the other cheek and understand. Nope, not hearing it!

I am not in any way suggesting to bend to them or to go out of your way to engage them.  I don't want to understand them.  I'm not enabling that bullshit.  But if we don't even talk to them when they are present, how do you change minds?  How do you get people on board when you just write them off?  I understand that we are all fed up with the throwback racist ideas and bigotry and hate and all of it, but if someone raised in white supremacy can change the way they think by virtue of being surrounded by people who are willing to show him where he's gone wrong, there's hope for many.

Like I said, like many others here I've dumped the Trumpanzees in my life off of my Facebook. I'm not a freaking saint by any means!

[Enigma X]

9 minutes ago, Pixel said:

I am not in any way suggesting to bend to them or to go out of your way to engage them.  I don't want to understand them.  I'm not enabling that bullshit.  But if we don't even talk to them when they are present, how do you change minds?  How do you get people on board when you just write them off?  I understand that we are all fed up with the throwback racist ideas and bigotry and hate and all of it, but if someone raised in white supremacy can change the way they think by virtue of being surrounded by people who are willing to show him where he's gone wrong, there's hope for many.

Like I said, like many others here I've dumped the Trumpanzees in my life off of my Facebook. I'm not a freaking saint by any means!

Good luck to you. I mean that with respect and sincerity.

I will take some of their supposed advice though. I will not be around them to be their victim. I also won't be around to be the butt of their jokes, token, or anything else.

[DollEyes]

On 12/28/2016 at 0:47 PM, Blergh said:

Doll Eyes,

 

 Sorry for not replying earlier (and this will be my last one on this particular subject on this thread) but I guess I was too stunned by Miss Fisher's passing (and I had to go to work).

  Respectfully, you make a good point about evil triumphing re good people doing nothing. HOWEVER; when one refuses to believe that there COULD be good in  people  (or even not entirely evil people) among the voters of someone one despises, one DOES help evil by shutting out the possibility of building a bridge with potential allies. One could certainly agree that Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been abused and persecuted by evil folks yet they didn't say  'ALL English people and their supporters/ ALL white people and their supporters are totally evil without any possibility of any person among their group being an ally' . Instead they appealed to the humanity  and tried to see the good within even when badly abused, taunted and tormented and they DID find allies among those whom one might not initially been willing to consider. They saw that one could NOT protest bigotry and injustice with any credence if they themselves were willing to be bigoted to those who were different from them.  Even Anne Frank said in one of her last journal entries that she still believed people were ' good at heart' in a time and place when she knew that she could DIE in the next five minutes merely for being different from others yet while she certainly and justly denounced NAZIs and their credo she didn't denounce the possibility of humanity of other people.

     As I said, this will be my last post on this subject within this thread, but I've studied history all my life and I don't see how it is of any benefit to anyone to act like Madame Defarge by being eager to persecute those one wants to believe has guilt by mere association even when they themselves have done nothing to hurt others via words or deeds and may want to reach out to help others and be an ally to those who otherwise would have no voice. 

  Still respectfully disagreeing. The way I see it, when people choose to vote for someone who epitomizes everything I despise, it's not my job nor my desire to make them as a group feel better about themselves for doing it.  When those people get the rude awakenings that will inevitably come, they'll deserve every "I told you so" they'll get, as far as I'm concerned. Since I didn't vote for the Orange-Tinted Turd in the first place, the way I see it, my conscience is clear, unlike theirs. They'll have to earn their redemption from me, not demand it.

Edited December 31, 2016 by DollEyes

[Pixel]

16 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

Good luck to you. I mean that with respect and sincerity.

I will take some of their supposed advice though. I will not be around them to be their victim. I also won't be around to be the butt of their jokes, token, or anything else.

I appreciate that. Believe me, I am as disgusted by it as you guys are.  When I think about people voting for what that abomination stands for, I'm literally nauseated. (Note, that because I am not a Trumpanzee, I used the word "literally" correctly.  My stomach is upset frequently these days.) I don't want to have anything to do with them.  I am fighting my baser nature, because what I'd really like to do is say, "Oh, you voted for Trump? You can just fuck right off then, and don't waste my time".  But the nurse and educator part of me wants to try to save the world, so I can't just completely close myself off. 

[callmebetty]

1 hour ago, Enigma X said:

Why I just won't engage entertain them.

I have been at work for two hours and have listened to these trumpeteers convince themselves that Mexico has built a southern border to keep people out, that Pence is right on the money with conversion therapy, that minorities do nothing but play the victim, that black people harp too much on slavery, and that liberals are blaming Trump and the Russians for all the celebrity deaths. They are loud and know that I and others can hear them. As a believer in human rights, I was insulted by all of it. They cared not one bit about whom they were offending. This is what they do daily in a government office. No way will I be the one who bends, especially when I can see they are taking pure delight in dehumanizing people (me included). This is not an isolated scenario either.

I think it was said in this thread by someone "fuck that noise" when it comes to engaging them. I second that motion. We are the ones who they need to start dialog with. I am so sick of the left leaning expected to be the ones to turn the other cheek and understand. Nope, not hearing it!

Other bolding is mine. Seriously,  who is blaming them for celebrity deaths other than in a joking manner. This is the shit they believe? And are these peers or higher ups, if they are peers where I'd the boss in all of this shit talking they are doing? How is it productive work time for any of you? I'm sorry you have to deal with this shit.

[aradia22]

Quote

I am so sick of the left leaning expected to be the ones to turn the other cheek and understand. Nope, not hearing it!

Especially since I'm not the one who is supposed to be a Christian. The latest Fox News tactic is accusing Democrats of just looking for reasons to be angry or to protest since Trump is making all these great decisions. I feel like they're living in an upside down world. The less charitable part of me really hopes these people get what's coming to them... though they probably won't.