Forty Two wrote:Brian Peacock wrote:And the point I made was is that considering the political climate since the summer people would have gone just as nuts if he hadn't won - in fact Trump actively seeded the ground for this kind of nuttery in the event that he wasn't elected. People pointed this out before the election. I'm not laying the entire blame on Trump, and to assume otherwise is to ignore the point. I'm just saying Trump's organisation (him, his surrogates, his PR team, his campaign staff, etc) have been, and are, active participants and a significant contributory factor to the terms by which the US's political debate is currently taking place - including intimidation, threats, and violence.
Yes, but when Democrats were calling for civility a couple of years ago, their supporters were resolute that "this sort of thing" is what the bad Republicans do... not us...we're the thoughtful, intelligent, calm Democrats, who would never stoop to "martial rhetoric" or rude and uncivil behavior. Tuck Frump!
Which Democrats are using martial rhetoric, what is rude exactly, and what exactly is uncivil behaviour, and which Democrats have been rude and/or advocated uncivil behaviour, and how?
You're casting this at the door of the Democrat party, yet when Trump supporters (like White Supremacists for example) are rude or advocate uncivil behaviour (re the Boston Globe article I posted earlier) you're quick to disavow the idea that those people have anything to do with Trump or represent the mainstream view of Republicans.
You still avoided the point I was making though. Never mind.
Much of Trump's rhetoric has been incredibly divisive. It's not surprising therefore that people are incredibly and starkly divided. If he's serious about his one-nation agenda he's got to reach out to those who feel unrepresented by him, just as he reached out during the campaign to those who felt unrepresented by the previous administration. He can't Make American Great Again if he's only going to take half the nation on that journey - or in his case not even the majority of citizens who cast a vote. That's what people are really worried about: that he'll govern for the benefit of his friends and supporters, for the benefit of the few rather than the many. That path will only lead to ever deeper and wider political polarisation - more 'government for us and our own, but not for you and your ilk'.
My personal feeling is that those who want to stuff it to 'the man' at the monent should make every effort towards peaceful protest, and if they're feeling like they'd like to turn over a few cop cars then just stay home and think about turning that energy towards supporting their own communities - in the meantime wait and see how thing pan out. Nonethelesd, social, political, and civil unrest doesn't come from nowhere and if people feel they've got more to lose by remaining silent than by protesting they will, in the end, find their way onto the streets. Being outraged by protests and declaring protesting and protesters automatically morally flawed is the first step to authoritarianism, and the second step is passing laws to stop them.
