Is There Hope For The American Republic After Trump?

Via:  dignitatem-societatis  •  4 months ago  •  24 comments

By:   Andrew Sullivan

Is There Hope For The American Republic After Trump?

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T

Our Caesar

Can the country come back from Trump? The Republic already looks like Rome in ruins.

By Andrew Sullivan

Four years after Donald Trump emerged as the most nakedly authoritarian candidate in American history, it’s tempting to view the threat he once seemed to pose as overblown. Upon his election, some panicked that he would be a proto-dictator, trampling every democratic institution in the fascist manner imported from Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany. Others saw merely a malign, illiberal incompetent who would probably amount to nothing too threatening — or believed that America’s democratic institutions and strong Constitution would surely survive Trump’s strongman posturing, however menacing it appeared in the abstract. Many contended that his manifest criminality meant he would be dispatched in short order, with impeachment simply a matter of time.

It was all, unavoidably, unknown and unknowable — and so we cast around for historical analogies to guide us. Was this the 1930s, along the lines of Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here? Or the 19th century in Latin America, with Trump an old-school caudillo? Was he another demagogue like George Wallace or Huey Long — but in the White House?

Well, we now have a solid record of what Trump has said and done. And it fits few modern templates exactly. He is no Pinochet nor Hitler, no Nixon nor Clinton. His emergence as a cultish strongman in a constitutional democracy who believes he has Article 2 sanction to do “whatever I want” — as he boasted, just casually, last month — seems to have few precedents.

But zoom out a little more and one obvious and arguably apposite parallel exists: the Roman Republic, whose fate the Founding Fathers were extremely conscious of when they designed the U.S. Constitution. That tremendously successful republic began, like ours, by throwing off monarchy, and went on to last for the better part of 500 years. It practiced slavery as an integral and fast-growing part of its economy. It became embroiled in bitter and bloody civil wars, even as its territory kept expanding and its population took off. It won its own hot-and-cold war with its original nemesis, Carthage, bringing it into unexpected dominance over the entire Mediterranean as well as the whole Italian peninsula and Spain.

And the unprecedented wealth it acquired by essentially looting or taxing every city and territory it won and occupied soon created not just the first superpower but a superwealthy micro-elite — a one percent of its day — that used its money to control the political process and, over time, more to advance its own interests than the public good. As the republic grew and grew in size and population and wealth, these elites generated intense and increasing resentment and hatred from the lower orders, and two deeply hostile factions eventually emerged, largely on class lines, to be exploited by canny and charismatic opportunists. Well, you get the point.

Of course, in so many ways, ancient Rome is profoundly different from the modern U.S. It had no written constitution; it barely had a functioning state or a unified professional military insulated from politics. Many leaders were absent from Rome for long stretches of time as they waged military campaigns abroad. There was no established international order, no advanced technology, and only the barest of welfare safety nets.

But there is a reason the Founding Fathers thought it was worth deep study. They saw the destabilizing consequences of a slaveholding republic expanding its territory and becoming a vast, regional hegemon. And they were acutely aware of how, in its final century and a half, an astonishing republican success story unraveled into a profoundly polarized polity, increasingly beset by violence, shedding one established republican norm after another, its elites fighting among themselves in a zero-sum struggle for power. And they saw how the weakening of those norms and the inability to compromise and mounting inequalities slowly corroded republican institutions. And saw, too, with the benefit of hindsight, where that ultimately led: to strongman rule, a dictatorship.

So when, one wonders, will our Caesars finally arrive? Or has one already?


This piece is a bit long to reproduce in full, so read the rest of it here (or hit the 'seeded content' bar above, of course).

Please read it before commenting. A familiarity with the history of the Roman Republic would probably come in handy, but the author explains things well enough that it isn't really necessary.


jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Dignitatem Societatis
1  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis    4 months ago

From the article:

But Rome wasn’t lost in a day. Its republic took the better part of a century and a half to lose its practices and its soul. Neither will the United States suddenly succumb to a new fascist party. There is space for populist reform — and it may be essential to restore the legitimacy of both capitalism and democracy — but if it is spearheaded by a charismatic cultish leader instead of a more traditional president, if it runs roughshod over republican norms and procedural compromise, if it responds to Trump’s rhetoric and methods by mimicking them, it may compound the problem.
Republics do not suddenly evaporate. The institutions they establish tend to continue — but, over time, in a deeply polarized and increasingly unequal society, they can become less and less potent, as various leaders and their followings fight zero-sum games using the rhetoric of power rather than the dialogue of deliberation. Precedents are broken; habits of mind and behavior erode; the advance of executive power ebbs and flows; but relentlessly, the water line of what is an acceptable level of autocracy rises. In Rome, it took a long while, but there were periods of much quicker erosion, as charismatic figures established a space for authoritarianism that came to be permanent. And then, of course, a sudden and unexpected collapse. In America, the question of whether this history will repeat itself hangs ominously in the air. But that sound you hear in the distance is of future Caesars preparing to make their move.

Can our republic heal and survive, or are we on the cusp of our own 'Augustine' transition to autocracy?

1.1  WallyW  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1    4 months ago

If you think it's bad now, wait until he's reelected, and the Republicans regain the House  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Dignitatem Societatis
1.1.1  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  WallyW @1.1    4 months ago

The irony of you using Jefferson as your avatar is striking.

Jefferson would consider Trump a tyrant, and rightly so.

1.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.1.1    4 months ago

What do you think Jefferson would have considered President "I have a cell phone and pen" Obama?

Trump more of an authoritarian than Obama? Trump's biggest authoritarian acts have been undoing Obama's EO's, EA's, and other executive branch only decisions. 

If you like I can list out the times Obama abused his executive power. They are far worse than anything Trump has done.

1.1.3  JBB  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.2    4 months ago

You say that and yet unlike with Trump exactly ZERO ranking Obama campaign or administration officials have ever been criminally indicted for official malfeasance. 

Do the names Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, Rick Gates, George Popadoupolis and Paul Manafort ring any bells for you?

Dignitatem Societatis
1.1.4  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.2    4 months ago
Trump more of an authoritarian than Obama? Trump's biggest authoritarian acts have been undoing Obama's EO's, EA's, and other executive branch only decisions.

Aren't you aware that Obama signed fewer executive orders per year than any other president since Grover Cleveland's first term (1885-89), including Trump?

See the following - List of United States federal executive orders

Here are the more recent ones:

  • Trump -- 134 in 2.85 years, or 47 per year
  • Obama -- 276 in 8 years, or 34.5 per year
  • George W. Bush -- 291 in 8 years, or 36.4 per year
  • Bill Clinton -- 364 in 8 years, or 45.5 per year
  • George H. W. Bush -- 166 in 4 years, or 41.5 per year
  • Ronald Reagan -- 381 in 8 years, or 47.6 per year
If you like I can list out the times Obama abused his executive power. They are far worse than anything Trump has done.

Oh FFS. This article (penned by a self-identifying conservative, by the way) does an excellent job of outlining Trump's malfeasance. It touches on some of the previous presidents as well, including Obama. Since you apparently didn't read it, I'll go ahead and post a rather lengthy but pertinent excerpt:

When you think of how the Founders conceived the presidency, the 21st-century version is close to unrecognizable. Their phobia about monarchy placed the presidency beneath the Congress in the pecking order, stripping him of pomp and majesty. No newspaper bothered even to post a reporter at the White House until the 20th century. The “bully pulpit” was anathema, and public speeches vanishingly rare. As George F. Will points out in his new book on conservatism, the president of the United States did not even have an office until 1902, working from his living room until Teddy Roosevelt built the West Wing.

Some presidents rose above this level of modesty. Lincoln temporarily assumed far greater powers in the Civil War, of course, but it was Teddy Roosevelt who added celebrity and imperial aspirations to the office, Woodrow Wilson who began to construct an administrative state through which the executive branch could govern independently, FDR who, as president for what turned out to be life, revolutionized and metastasized the American government and bequeathed a Cold War presidency atop a military-industrial complex that now deploys troops in some 164 foreign countries.

Kennedy — and the Camelot myth that surrounded him — dazzled the elites and the public; Reagan ushered in a movie-star model for a commander-in-chief — telegenic, charismatic, and, in time, something of a cult figure; and then the 9/11 attacks created an atmosphere similar to that of Rome’s temporary, emergency dictatorships, except vast powers of war-making, surveillance, rendition, and even torture were simply transferred to an office for non-emergency times as well, as theorists of the unitary executive — relatively unbound by Congress or the rule of law — formed a tight circle around a wartime boss. And there was no six-month time limit; almost none of these powers has since been revoked.

Some hoped that Barack Obama would wind this presidency-on-steroids down. He didn’t. His presidency began with a flurry of executive orders. He launched a calamitous war on Libya with no congressional authorization; he refused to prosecute those who were involved with Bush’s torture program, who continued to rise through the ranks on his watch; he pushed his executive powers to fix a health-care law that constitutionally only Congress had the right to; and, in his second term, he ignored Congress’s legally mandated deportation of 800,000 Dreamers by refusing to enforce it. He had once ruled such a move out — “I’m president, I’m not king” — and then reinvented the move as a mere shift in priorities. To advance his environmental agenda, he used the EPA to drastically intensify regulations, bypassing Congress altogether. To push his cultural agenda, his Justice Department refused to defend the existing marriage laws and abruptly interpreted Title IX to cover transgender high-school kids without any public debate.

No Democrats regarded these moves as particularly offensive — although partisan Republicans were eager to broadcast their largely phony constitutional objections as soon as the president was not a Republican. And Congress had long since acquiesced to presidentialism anyway, wriggling out of any serious input on the war on terror, dodging the difficult task of amending the health-care law, bobbing and weaving on the environment. And although the worship of Trump is on a whole different level of fanaticism, if you didn’t see some cultish elements in the Obama movement, you weren’t looking very hard. Like Roman commanders slowly acquiring the trappings of gods, presidents have long since slipped the bounds of republican austerity into a world of elected monarchs, flying the world in a massive, airborne chariot, constantly photographed, and now commanding our attention every single day through Twitter.

But Obama was Obama, and Trump is Trump, obliterating most of what mos maiorum remained after his predecessor. Like Pompey, who bypassed all the usual qualifications for the highest office of consul, Trump stormed into party politics by mocking the very idea of political qualifications, violating norms with abandon. He had never been elected to office before; he was a businessman and a brand, not a public servant of any kind; he had no serious grip on the Constitution, liberal-democratic debate, the separation of powers, or limited government. His tangible proposals were slogans. He referred to his peers with crude nicknames, and his instincts were those of a mob boss. But he offered himself, rather like the populares in Rome, as a riposte and antidote to the political and cultural elite, the optimates. A brilliant if dangerous demagogue, he became the first presidential candidate to run not as the leader of a political party, or as a disciple of conservatism or liberalism, but as a fully fledged strongman who promised unilaterally to “make America great again.” It is hard to equate any kind of republican government with a leader who insists, of any American problem, “I, alone, can fix it.”

No one in the American system at this level has ever behaved like this before, crudely trampling on republican practices, scoffing at the rule of law, targeting individual citizens for calumny, openly demonizing his opponents, calling a free press treasonous, deploying deceit impulsively, skirting the boundaries of mental illness, bragging of sexual assault, delegitimizing his own government when it showed even a flicker of independence — and yet he almost instantly commanded the near-total loyalty of an entire political party, and of 40 percent of the country, and this loyalty has barely wavered.

If republicanism at its core is a suspicion of one-man rule, and that suspicion is the central animating principle of the American experiment in self-government, Trump has effectively suspended it for the past three years and normalized strongman politics in America. Nothing and no one in his administration matters except him, as he constantly reminds us. His Cabinet appeared to rein him in for a while, until most experienced adults left it as his demands for total subservience became more insistent. Vast tracts of the bureaucracy are simply ignored, the State Department all but shut down, foreign policy made by impulse, whim, nepotism, for financial gain, or from strange personal rapport with thugs like Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin, rather than by any kind of collective deliberation or policy process. Pliant nobodies fill administrative roles where real expertise matters and pushback against the president could have been effective in the past. Congress has very occasionally objected, but it has either been vetoed, as in the recent attempt to curtail U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s wars, or, if it succeeded in passing legislation with a veto-proof majority, as in Russian sanctions, been slow-walked by the White House.

Writing honestly about this — and the extraordinary upping of the authoritarian ante this presidency has entailed — comes across at times like a dystopian portrait of a nightmare future, except it is very much the present and greeted either with enthusiastic support from the GOP or growing numbness and acceptance by the broader public. The old-school relative reticence of the republican concept of a president had already been transformed, of course, but Trump ramped up the volume to 11: a propaganda channel broadcasting round the clock, with memes almost instantly retweeted by the president, endless provocations to own the news cycle, and mass rallies to sustain his populist appeal. If the definition of a free society is that you don’t have to think about who governs you every minute of the day, then we no longer live in a free society. The press? Vilified, lied to, ignored, mocked, threatened.

When Trump has collided with the rule of law, moreover, he has had a remarkable string of victories. After a period in which he was amazed that his attorney general would follow legal ethics rather than the boss’s instructions, he has now finally appointed one to protect him personally, pursue his political opponents, and defend an extreme theory of presidential Article 2 power. Checked for the first time this year by a Democratic House, he has responded the way a monarch would — by simply refusing, in an unprecedentedly total fashion, to cooperate with any congressional investigation of anything in his administration. Far from being transparent to prove his lack of corruption, he has actively sued anyone seeking any information on his finances. He has declared a phony emergency to justify seizing and using congressional funds for a purpose specifically opposed by the Congress, building a wall on the southern border, and gotten away with it. He has taken his authority to negotiate tariffs in a national-security emergency and turned it into a routine part of presidential conduct to wage a general trade war. And he has enabled an army of grifters and opportunists to line their pockets or accumulate perks at public expense — as long as they never utter a word of criticism.

He has also definitively shown that a president can accept support from a foreign power to get elected, attempt to shut down any inquiry into his crimes, obstruct justice, suborn perjury from an aide, get caught … and get away with all of it. Asking for his tax returns or a radical distancing from his business interests strikes him as an act of lèse-majesté. He refers to “my military” and “my generals,” and claims they all support him, as if he were Pompey or Caesar. He muses constantly about extending his term of office indefinitely, just as those Roman populists did.

Does he mean it? It almost doesn’t matter. He’s testing those guardrails to see just how numb a public can become to grotesque violations of ethical or rhetorical norms, and he has found them exhilaratingly wanting. And he has an unerring instinct for where the weaknesses of our republican system lie. He has abused the limitless pardon powers of the president that were created for rare occasions of clemency, a concept that to Trump has literally no meaning. He has done so to reward political friends, enthuse his base, and, much more gravely, to corrupt the course of justice in the Mueller investigation. The concept even of a “self-pardon” has been added to the existing interdiction on prosecuting a sitting president.

He has also abused various laws allowing him to declare national emergencies in order to get his way even when no such emergencies exist.
Congress has passed several of these laws, assuming naïvely that in our system, a president can be relied on not to invent emergencies to seize otherwise unconstitutional powers — like executive control of legislative spending. This, of course, is not a minor matter; it’s an assault on the core principle of separation of powers that makes a republican government possible. But when the Supreme Court recently lifted a stay on the funds in a legal technicality, where was the outcry? The ruling registered as barely a blip.

The whims of one man now determine much of what happens in what we think of as a republic, where power should, in principle, be widely disseminated. And you don’t just see this in what has objectively happened. You can feel the difference in the culture. Every morning, Washington wakes up and needs to ask only one question to figure out what’s going on, as they did in the royal courts of old: What is the president’s mood today? If that isn’t a sign of a fast-eroding republic, what is?

Good enough for you?

1.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.1.1    4 months ago
Jefferson would consider Trump a tyrant, and rightly so.

Current Americans have a weakness in that far too many of them are so distracted by what people SAY that they cannot focus on what they actually DO.

I'm not sure Trump's actions paint him as any more of a tyrant that Obama or any other president.

1.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @1.1.3    4 months ago
You say that and yet unlike with Trump exactly ZERO ranking Obama campaign or administration officials have ever been criminally indicted for official malfeasance.  Do the names Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, Rick Gates, George Popadoupolis and Paul Manafort ring any bells for you?

Right.  Sure.  Because it's a common thing among tyrants that their henchmen are convicted..... Riiiiiiight.

1.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.1.4    4 months ago

Nope, not even close.

You think quantity equals quality in EO's? Most of Trump's EO's were overturning Obama overreaches on the environment, DACA, and federal regulations. But you want to count that against him?

The article also left out three major Obama acts.

1) Libya wasn't the only time Obama abuse his power. Inserting troops back into Iraq, and entering Syria, under the "War on Terror" w/o approval from Congress. Also his extra judicial drone killings across the ME and Africa.

2) Obama spied on the media. That outweighs Trump condemning the media. Imagine if Trump used the US government to spy on reporters. The Democratic House would have already impeached him and be demanding the Senate to follow.

Trump may use extraordinary rhetoric to undermine trust in the press, but Obama arguably went farther — using extraordinary actions to block the flow of information to the public.

The Obama administration used the 1917 Espionage Act with unprecedented vigor, prosecuting more people under that law for leaking sensitive information to the public than all previous administrations combined. Obama’s Justice Department dug into confidential communications between news organizations and their sources as part of that effort.

In 2013 the Obama administration obtained the records of 20 Associated Press office phone lines and reporters’ home and cell phones, seizing them without notice, as part of an investigation into the disclosure of information about a foiled al-Qaida terrorist plot.

AP was not the target of the investigation. But it called the seizure a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into its news-gathering activities, betraying information about its operations “that the government has no conceivable right to know.”

Obama’s Justice Department also secretly dogged Fox News journalist James Rosen, getting his phone records, tracking his arrivals and departures at the State Department through his security-badge use, obtaining a search warrant to see his personal emails and naming him as a possible criminal conspirator in the investigation of a news leak.

“The Obama administration,” The New York Times editorial board wrote at the time, “has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news.”

3) Think Trump's DOJ is bad? Left out Obama's two sycophants to hold the position. Holder; who was held in contempt of Congress; and Obama extended Executive Privilege not just to Holder; but also Holder's wife! Then there is Lynch; who oversaw Comey to make sure the Clinton email investigation turned out the way she (meaning Obama) wanted it. It is not like she ever met Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in private or anything while the investigation was going on. It also wasn't like Comey didn't have severe reservations about Lynch's impartiality. Of course he didn't bother voicing those until being questioned by Congress. 

Trump is a liar, loud mouthed, and he likes being the boss; but pretending that he is more authoritarian than the presidents that came before him- especially Obama- is just flat out wrong.

Dignitatem Societatis
1.1.8  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.5    4 months ago
I'm not sure Trump's actions paint him as any more of a tyrant that Obama or any other president.


Trump is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else. The Constitution charges the President with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and not only did he admit on national television to obstructing justice, but he's been in open contempt of Congress for almost a year now.

Not to mention all of the other things this article addresses.

You're really not seeing a difference?

Dignitatem Societatis
1.1.9  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.7    4 months ago
pretending that he is more authoritarian than the presidents that came before him- especially Obama- is just flat out wrong.

That's completely insane. Trump is in a league of his own, by far.

People who defend Trump and constantly try to normalize his bullshit with a litany of false equivalencies turn my stomach. Literally. It makes me feel physically ill.

Do you have anything thoughtful to say about the article's Roman history lesson and the analogy to our present (which is what this discussion is supposed to be about)? If not, then I have no desire whatsoever to interact with you any further. It's disgusting. It makes me feel filthy and nauseous, like I imagine wading hip-deep through raw sewage would.

1.1.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.1.8    4 months ago
Trump is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else.

Meh.  I don't share that view.

The Constitution charges the President with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed,

The previous president refused to enforce various immigration and drug laws.  It's not unique to Trump by any stretch of the imagination

and not only did he admit on national television to obstructing justice, but he's been in open contempt of Congress for almost a year now.

The problem is that people don't trust Congress to act objectively.  They have given us no reason to believe their integrity is any better than Trump's.  So Trump refusing to agree to help them drag him through the mud is hardly concerning.

Not to mention all of the other things this article addresses. You're really not seeing a difference?

In style, yes.  In substance, not so much.

But remember, I don't listen to what he says.  I watch what he does.  I realize he talks a lot of shit, but VAST amounts of what he has said has not actually translated to action.

1.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.1.9    4 months ago
That's completely insane. Trump is in a league of his own, by far. People who defend Trump and constantly try to normalize his bullshit with a litany of false equivalencies turn my stomach. Literally. It makes me feel physically ill.

Your bias is preventing you from seeing things objectively.

1.1.12  bbl-1  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.2    4 months ago

Well then, list them or get off the crapper.

1.1.13  Ronin2  replied to  bbl-1 @1.1.12    4 months ago

See 1.1.4

2  TᵢG    4 months ago

From the article:

Trump simply has no understanding of any of this. His very psyche — his staggering vanity, narcissism, and selfishness — is far more compatible with monarchical government than a republican one. He takes no responsibility for failures on his watch and every single credit for anything successful, whatever its provenance. The idea that he would put the system’s interest above his own makes no sense to him. It is only ever about him. And the public has so internalized this fact it can sometimes seem like a natural feature of the political landscape, not the insidiously horrifying turn in American political history and culture that it is.

The electorate allowed Trump.   It may do so again even with all it has learned.

Dignitatem Societatis
2.1  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  TᵢG @2    4 months ago
The electorate allowed Trump.

I'm still flabbergasted by that. It's often stated that he's a symptom, not the cause. 

 It may do so again even with all it has learned.

This part of the article speaks to that, and has been stuck in the forefront of my mind since I read it: 

If republican virtues and liberal democratic values are a forest of traditions and norms, Trump has created a vast and expanding clearing. What Rome’s experience definitively shows is that once this space is cleared, even if it is not immediately filled, some day it will be. Someone shrewder, more ruthless, focused, and competent, can easily exploit the wider vista for authoritarianism. Or Trump himself, more liberated than ever in a second term, huffing the fumes of his own power, could cross a Rubicon for which he has prepared us all.

It's like a bad dream I keep wanting to wake up from. Unfortunately, like you said, the electorate actually allowed this. Not the entire electorate, though. Specifically, it was the Republican Party and its base.

The "Republican" (!) Party, irony is thy name. More like a "Death to the Republic" party these days.

2.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @2.1    4 months ago

We have seen the qualifications for who would be elected to PotUS diminish over the years.    This establishes a precedent which enables further lowering of the bar by incrementalism.   The American people are now desensitized to the point where we do not demand the likes of Dwight Eisenhower but will settle for highly flawed characters like Trump.    

dennis smith
2.1.2  dennis smith  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @2.1    4 months ago

The electorate allowed Trump. The system worked as it is supposed to. They did not allow anything, they voted him into office.

I'm still flabbergasted by that. Denial takes many forms. 

3  bugsy    4 months ago

So please tell us what Trump has ACTUALLY done to make your life so miserable. Is it one of those "lies" the triggered keep speaking of? Which of those lies affected you personally?

Are you mad because your tax cut did not mean "I get more stuff for free"?

Please, tell us what is so bad in your life that Trump and ONLY Trump has brought upon you.

Also, feelings don't count. I'm asking for hard evidence.

Now, this article is an OpEd and should probably be in that category, not the "news" category.

I think you can scream at the sky there.

Dignitatem Societatis
3.1  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  bugsy @3    4 months ago
So please tell us what Trump has ACTUALLY done

You know, instead of posting it all again, I'm just going to refer you to the excerpt I posted above in 1.1.4

Now, this article is an OpEd and should probably be in that category, not the "news" category.

*cough* Um... It is in the Op/Ed category.


3.1.1  bugsy  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @3.1    4 months ago
It is in the Op/Ed category.

OK..I made a mistake and am big enough to admit it. No biggie...

Now, about your Op/Ed. It is just that. An opinion from someone else, and JUST an opinion. I believe I asked you how Trump has affected YOU personally, not some obscure never Trumper who may claim to be a conservative, but only when it benefits him.

Again....How has Trump negatively affected YOU. I seriously doubt he has made your life worse. If his policies have not made it better, then you have not been affected personally.

I am a 20 year veteran, and it I were still active duty, I would be proud to serve under this President. Do you wish to still be in the conflicts Obama got us into? I'm glad he is pulling us out of bs skirmishes we should never had been in the first place.

4  bbl-1    4 months ago

The United States lost it's Americanism with Supply Side Economics, Citizens United and the culmination of wealth concentration which led to expanding Middle Eastern conflicts, all of which were based on lies, waged for fraud and plundered the American people's treasury.

As far as Trump?  Religious jingoism, self indulgence, fear of the other, suspicion of established norms with a well planned and better executed assault on democratic values led by autocratic regimes ( mainly Russia and The Saudi Caliphate ) have led to an anti-American cult status which allowed the rise of Trump as it has also done in Russia, Hungary, Poland and Brazil among other lesser states in the World.

Is there hope?  There is always hope.  But when the lie and alternative facts are projected without consequence, the prospect of that hope is diminished.

Freedom Warrior
4.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  bbl-1 @4    4 months ago

 Yeah there’s a there’s always hope the left wing [deleted] decide to come back to reality or they could always fulfill their fantasy and sail off to Unicornia and leave the freedom loving and we’ll reasoned members of peace.


Who is online

Donald J. Trump Fan #1
Sparty On

53 visitors