A new US Republican thread 2016

[seebart]

Again, andrewjoy is just repeating a tired argument heard all over the place, and he hasn’t thought much about whose interests it serves or how and why it was constructed.

If that's what he wants to post that's his decision.

I don’t think he should be ashamed

Good because that would be WAY out of line. Fuck professional pundits BTW. This goddamn election is over.

Let's at least get a little bit of "fun" in this grim thread, jacobolus I think you also like comics...

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/11/10- ... -election/

Manhattan’s Trump Place to Change Name, Use Street Addresses

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -addresses

LAPD Chief Says He Won't Help Donald Trump Deport Immigrants

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

[vivalarevolución]

Wow, you all managed to piss off seebart, that's quite an achievement.

[fohat]

they voted for change

But they didn't.

They returned well over 90% of incumbents back to continue doing exactly what they have been doing, and elected a fat old white billionaire (?) tax-dodger who wants to keep doing all the things that have been strangling the country for decades.

[chuckdee]

Your view. Not theirs. They voted for the change they wanted to see. Just as in 2008/2012 people voted for the change they wanted to see.

[002]

I think I was too aggressive last night -- probably because it was late and I was drinking, so I am sorry for the too-close-to-personal attacks. I'm done with this thread because it isn't going to go anywhere. I honestly don't think much is going to change for you guys but I've set a reminder for myself to come back in 1 year to this thread and see what the state of play is. I will gladly eat my words if the US is in such a bad state as a result of Trump's silly ideas.

[The Demongolator]

❤ Best topic ever! ❤

[seebart]

Wow, you all managed to piss off seebart, that's quite an achievement.

No, only jacobolus got me slightly worked up with one line but that's fine. My point was eveyone should be able to post their opinion here, political ones included.

[jacobolus]

The purges have started before he’s even in office...

A former U.S. official with ties to the Trump team described the ousters of Rogers and others as a “bloodletting of anybody that associated in any way on the transition with Christie,” and said that the departures were engineered by two Trump loyalists who have taken control of who will get national security posts in the administration: retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Rogers had no prior significant ties to Christie but had been recruited to join the Trump team as an adviser by the former New Jersey governor. At least three other Christie associates were also pushed aside, former officials said, apparently in retaliation for Christie’s role as a U.S. prosecutor in sending Kushner’s father to prison.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

But when Mr. Cohen, a former national security official in George W. Bush’s administration, suggested the caveat that many foreign policy hands would enlist only if there were credible people leading national security agencies and departments, he said he received a vituperative email in response.

The tone of the email surprised him, he said, expressing a level of vengefulness at odds with an administration that is trying to fill important national security positions with qualified people.

“They think of these jobs as lollipops,” Mr. Cohen said. “I think we’re on the verge of a crisis here.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/po ... ition.html

Also from that story, Trumps ibanker economic advisors want tax cuts 3 times bigger than the Bush tax cuts.

* * *

Good thing Trump knows more than all the generals, because all the generals are telling him to take global warming seriously.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ty-threat/

* * *

The upcoming administration stands on three legs: bigotry/hatred, graft/corruption/greed, and domination/revenge. Everything else is window dressing aimed at the gullible and ignorant.

[fohat]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html


“They think of these jobs as lollipops,” Mr. Cohen said. “I think we’re on the verge of a crisis here.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/po ... ition.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ty-threat/

I thought that I was about saturated, but you succeeded in raising my anxiety to a whole new level with this.

[webwit]

That last link.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pentag ... -2/5402505

[vivalarevolución]

I think I was too aggressive last night -- probably because it was late and I was drinking, so I am sorry for the too-close-to-personal attacks. I'm done with this thread because it isn't going to go anywhere. I honestly don't think much is going to change for you guys but I've set a reminder for myself to come back in 1 year to this thread and see what the state of play is. I will gladly eat my words if the US is in such a bad state as a result of Trump's silly ideas.

Whatever, I had fun. Drinking brings out the best discussion.

I would give it a couple years, that's how long it took the Indiana state government to start sucking under Pence. The first year, the policies just start getting implemented, you barely notice.

[002]

Drinking brings out the best discussion.

In general I agree...when politics or religion is involved though -- maybe not
Even if nothing crazy has happened in a years time we should have a fair idea if there are turds in the pipeline.

[webwit]

Drinking brings out the best discussion.

Fuck this is better than Game of Thrones. And in three years, the circus will reset and start again!

[jacobolus]

> I would give it a couple years, that's how long it took the Indiana state government to start sucking under Pence. The first year, the policies just start getting implemented, you barely notice.

(a) Indiana had a Republican governor before Pence, meaning there were existing people in state executive offices who could provide some continuity. (b) Pence isn’t nearly as incompetent as Trump, and is much less belligerent in his personal communication. (c) There’s a lot less to do when running a medium-sized state than when running the whole country.

I think this is going to be a much bigger shit show, faster and more explosive than the Indiana situation.

I’m sorry for your loss, by the way. It’s sad when the state government guts all its own institutions.

[vivalarevolución]

Drinking brings out the best discussion.

Fuck this is better than Game of Thrones. And in three years, the circus will reset and start again!

Honestly, if the country's institutions are strong enough to withstand the president-elect and this group of Republicans, I'll go back to viewing it all as entertainment. I do wonder what it's like to live in a country where large parts of the government are not siphoned off into military escapades.

Drinking brings out the best discussion.

In general I agree...when politics or religion is involved though -- maybe not
Even if nothing crazy has happened in a years time we should have a fair idea if there are turds in the pipeline.

I have no doubt there are turds already in the pipeline. Current news is that people are actually declining positions in the administration, which is unprecedented for individuals that always seem to be after more power, prestige, status, and control. How they will affect the rest of the American population, that remains to be seen.

> I would give it a couple years, that's how long it took the Indiana state government to start sucking under Pence. The first year, the policies just start getting implemented, you barely notice.

(a) Indiana had a Republican governor before Pence, meaning there were existing people in state executive offices who could provide some continuity. (b) Pence isn’t nearly as incompetent as Trump, and is much less belligerent in his personal communication. (c) There’s a lot less to do when running a medium-sized state than when running the whole country.

I think this is going to be a much bigger shit show, faster and more explosive than the Indiana situation.

I’m sorry for your loss, by the way. It’s sad when the state government guts all its own institutions.

Possibly. The The 100 Days plan thing basically seemed like it was immediately putting the brakes on government executive branch activities, with many of the similar policies that Pence put in place. The cast of characters being assembled to run things probably have no plan about how they are going to run the departments and agencies that they will be running in about two months. This always happens with administration change, but this group seems especially hostile to the idea of governance (despite their careers being dependent upon it).

I do expect a shit show, with corporations and lobbyists running more wild than ever. I see the stock market is still wacking itself off at the prospect.

The Indiana state government has been constrained, asking to do the same or more with less. Many in the private industry has gone through this in lean times. However, government service delivery is suffering in some areas, and the regulated community and citizens are starting to notice. Long-time employees also say employee morale is possibly the worst its ever been.

[jacobolus]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Eliot A. Cohen November 15 at 9:33 PM

Eliot A. Cohen is the author of the forthcoming “The Big Stick: The Limits of Soft Power and the Necessity of Military Force.” He served as counselor of the State Department from 2007 to 2009.

I am a national security Never-Trumper who, after the election, made the case that young conservatives should volunteer to serve in the new administration, warily, their undated letters of resignation ready. That advice, I have concluded, was wrong.

My about-face began with a discreet request to me from a friend in Trumpworld to provide names — unsullied by having signed the two anti-Trump foreign policy letters — of those who might be willing to serve. My friend and I had agreed to disagree a while back about my taking an uncompromising anti-Trump stand; now, he wanted assistance and I willingly complied.

After an exchange about a senior figure who would not submit a résumé but would listen if contacted, an email exchange ensued that I found astonishing. My friend was seething with anger directed at those of us who had opposed Donald Trump — even those who stood ready to help steer good people to an administration that understandably wanted nothing to do with the likes of me, someone who had been out front in opposing Trump since the beginning.

This friend was someone I liked and admired, and still do. It was a momentary eruption of temper, and we have since patched up our relationship. I surmise that he has been furious for some time, knowing that supporting Trump has been distinctly unpopular in his normal circles. He is in the midst of a transition team that was never well-prepared to begin with and is now torn by acrimony, resignations and palace coups. And then there are the pent-up resentments against a liberal intellectual and media establishment that scorned his ilk for years.

I sympathize, but the episode has caused me to change my mind about recommending that conservatives serve in the administration, albeit with a firm view in their minds of what would cause them to quit. This was a tipping point. The tenor of the Trump team, from everything I see, read and hear, is such that, for a garden-variety Republican policy specialist, service in the early phase of the administration would carry a high risk of compromising one’s integrity and reputation.

In a normal transition to a normal administration, there’s always disorder. There are the presidential friends and second cousins, the flacks and the hangers-on who flame out in the first year or two. There are the bad choices — the abusive bosses, the angry ideologues and the sheer dullards. You accept the good with the bad and know that there will be stupid stuff going on, particularly at the beginning. Things shake out. Even if you are just blocking errors, it is a contribution.

This time may be different. Trump was not a normal candidate, the transition is not a normal transition, and this will probably not be a normal administration. The president-elect is surrounding himself with mediocrities whose chief qualification seems to be unquestioning loyalty. He gets credit for becoming a statesman when he says something any newly elected president might say (“I very much look forward to dealing with the president in the future”) — and then reverts to tweeting against demonstrators and the New York Times. By all accounts, his ignorance, and that of his entourage, about the executive branch is fathomless. It’s not even clear that he accepts that he should live in the White House rather than in his gilt-smeared penthouse in New York.

In the best of times, government service carries with it the danger of compromising your principles. Here, though, we may be in for something much worse. The canary in the coal mine was not merely the selection of Stephen K. Bannon for the job previously filled by John Podesta and Karl Rove, that of counselor to the president and chief strategist. Rather, the warning signs came from the Republican leaders excusing and normalizing this sinister character — and those who then justified the normalizers.

One bad boss can be endured. A gaggle of them will poison all decision-making. They will turn on each other. No band of brothers this: rather the permanent campaign as waged by triumphalist rabble-rousers and demagogues, abetted by people out of their depth and unfit for the jobs they will hold, gripped by grievance, resentment and lurking insecurity. Their mistakes — because there will be mistakes — will be exceptional.

Nemesis pursues and punishes all administrations, but this one will get a double dose. Until it can acquire some measure of humility about what it knows, and a degree of magnanimity to those who have opposed it, it will smash into crises and failures. With the disarray of its transition team, in a way, it already has.

My bottom line: Conservative political types should not volunteer to serve in this administration, at least for now. They would probably have to make excuses for things that are inexcusable and defend people who are indefensible. At the very least, they should wait to see who gets the top jobs. Until then, let the Trump team fill the deputy assistant secretary and assistant secretary jobs with civil servants, retired military officers and diplomats, or the large supply of loyal or obsequious second-raters who will be eager to serve. The administration may shake itself out in a year or two and reach out to others who have been worried about Trump. Or maybe not.

I hope that I am wrong. I hope that the administration will settle down and that I can cheer it when it is right and offer temperate criticisms when it is wrong. But the auspices here are disturbing.

So what should the policy community do for now? Do what you can do in other venues, and remember that this too will pass, and some day a more normal kind of administration will either emerge or replace this one.

Your country still needs you — just not yet.

[Kurplop]

Good thing Trump knows more than all the generals, because all the generals are telling him to take global warming seriously.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ty-threat/

The upcoming administration stands on three legs: bigotry/hatred, graft/corruption/greed, and domination/revenge. Everything else is window dressing aimed at the gullible and ignorant.

Just a note to my fellow gullible and ignorant friends. Because of our limitations we are sometimes easily taken in. As an example (this should be in the critical thinking textbooks), notice how a quick reading of the above quotes would suggest that every single general is telling Trump to take global warming seriously. Now, after a moments reflection, we all know that to be an outlandish statement that can't be taken seriously. You know, like something Trump would say. But quickly reading it, you may not have caught the blunder and subliminally begin to believe it. You may even refer to it in some later conversation while trying to impress your friends, the whole time not realizing that you've been duped. Well, enough about that. Now let's consider the generals.

The piece from Scientific American doesn't name the generals but tells us they are a non-partisan group of volunteers that form the Center for Climate & Security; a non-profit policy institute. Their website names 12 generals and admirals, all of them retired. Considering that there are currently 886 active generals and admirals presently serving, I don't suppose that it would be too hard to find a dozen like minded retired officers to offer an air of authority to their think tank. We're still waiting to hear from the other 874.

One of my favorite lines from the article says:
Many military leaders say that considering climate change and renewable energy has made their branches more resilient fighting forces and bureaucracies, starting with reducing emissions and creating a nimble fighting culture that is less dependent on fossil fuels. By reducing their carbon footprint, they become a combatant in the war on rising global temperatures, military leaders say.

It's good to know that our military is out there fighting carbon wherever it's origin, foreign and domestic.

The Department of Defense issued an executive directive requiring Pentagon agencies to take climate change into account when developing procedures. Again, on the surface it looks like everybody's on board. Sounds pretty neutral, except when we remember that the DoD is a department within the Executive Branch. Hmmmm.

On and on the article goes, offering more one sided directives and analysis, believing, I think, that if you repeat it enough, eventually people will accept it.

Don't misunderstand, I think that the climate change arguments have merit, the latency of co2 compared to other greenhouse gases like water vapor for one, presents challenges and I don't mean for anyone to confuse my exposing of jacobolus's propaganda techniques with real issues. I just want the reader to be alert. We may still have the market on bigotry/hatred, graft/corruption/greed and domination and revenge—but not all sneakiness and trickery comes from the right side of the aisle.

[jacobolus]

The House GOP added a provision to a military funding bill passed a few months ago (but it has failed so far in the Senate) to defund some military support of alternative energy. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con ... -bill/5293 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/ ... rack/popup

Reporting at the time http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20 ... lan-000149

The coal industry (and to some extent natural gas industry) are terrified of further scientific study of the global climate, and of further advances in alternative energy, with separately or together could wipe billions of dollars of value off their books.

* * *

Obviously top level active-duty military personnel aren’t going to wade into this kind of political fight in a public way.

Active military personnel are all walking on eggshells w/r/t public statements even tangentially related to this topic, and even about their statements made in classified briefing papers. Congressional hearings and other harassment can make their lives miserable, and most GOP congressmen and senators obtain significant campaign contributions from the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel donors in return for public adherence to a staunch climate denial position. Defectors are punished; for instance Kelly Ayotte lost out on millions in contributions after voting for a purely symbolic statement that man-made climate change is a real thing. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/05/rep ... te-change/ (Note the biggest spending went to the campaigns of Toomey, who has been a very reliable climate denialist, and Heck, where the Koch’s took personal interest in trying to beat Reid’s preferred successor – Reid has been viciously attacking the Kochs in public statements for years, and they’re furious about it because one of their goals is to keep a low profile.)

One would hope that internally the DOD has war-gamed out scenarios of severe droughts, civil unrest, massive displacements of people, etc. that will come of continuing rises in global temperatures. If e.g. the Indian subcontinent experiences a serious famine for a few years and hundreds of millions of people start trying to move, it would create a global crisis.

notice how a quick reading of the above quotes would suggest that every single general is telling Trump to take global warming seriously.

In context (for anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock) that is not even a remotely plausible inference to take from my snarky one-liner. I was obviously making a joke, playing on Trump’s “I know more about ISIS than the generals” comments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q26ikbTlQn0.

If I thought you couldn’t read and understand what the story at the posted link said, I wouldn’t have bothered posting a link at all. If I wanted to write a completely accurate short summary of the link, I would have spent at least 4–5 sentences on it.

But here, let me rephrase my hastily written joke for you in a clearer way, which more properly expresses my intended sarcasm:

“Good thing Trump knows more than ‘the generals’, because ‘the generals’ are telling him to take global warming seriously.”

Does that make it sufficiently obvious that the joke wasn’t intended as a precise literal summary of the link, and that literally all generals don’t perfectly agree about anything?

[seebart]

Well good to see this thread is back to it's "regular form"... time for me to scatter some mindless memes...

Unbenannt.PNG (406.88 KiB) Viewed 4684 times

[jacobolus]

Kurplop: I don’t think you are an inherently bad person, or inherently stupid, or inherently racist, etc.

I do think you made a grievous error in your vote, which you will come to deeply regret as the Trump presidency either implodes or starts carrying out the authoritarian plans it has threatened.

I also think that everyone in this country who cares about having a functioning society should have known better (some people may just want to burn the whole thing down), after having so many signs of the kind of person Trump is, and so many clear warnings from so many different people in so many different parts of the public arena – from Trump’s neighbors, former employees, former business partners, women he assaulted, newspapers from across the ideological spectrum, retired civil servants, unprecedented numbers of elected officials in his own party, etc. etc., and frankly from Trump’s own mouth.

I’m sorry that you feel personally attacked, but frankly, every Trump vote was a deeply personal assault on many of my dearest friends, which will cause them direct misery and could even put them into physical danger. My personal belief is that many if not most Trump voters have been willfully ignorant of the potential consequences of electing to high office a man with narcissistic personality disorder, no moral convictions, no knowledge of just about anything outside marketing/sales/reality TV, and no attention span or work ethic.

If you have never interacted with a narcissist, sociopath, or other person with a severe personality disorder in your personal or professional life, then fortune has smiled on you. These people (often unintentionally) leave trails of misery and destruction in their wake. Dating a woman with borderline personality disorder for just a couple months about 6 years ago was traumatizing, and left me emotionally scarred for years. Putting someone with apparently similar psychiatric problems into a position of national power is incredibly dangerous.

If you want to see a list of all the things in this election which went far beyond the bounds of normal campaigns and our normal civic life, I highly recommend spending a few hours skimming through Jim Fallows’s list compiled at his “Trump time capsule” blog, which he started back in May:

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/0 ... /?oldest=1

[seebart]

You enjoying this jacobolus? Team Trump seems to to have slight personnel problems:

Firings and Discord Put Trump Transition Team in a State of Disarray

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/po ... -news&_r=0

In other mixed news...

Pamela Ramsey Taylor, former executive director of the Clay Development Corp., referred to the first lady as an “Ape in heels” in the Facebook post

http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/20161 ... ebook-post

[andrewjoy]

Can we get some positivity in this thread again ?

I am going to list a few positive things about both candidates.


Clinton

More positive action on climate change.
Has past experience in government.
Better for science funding and research


Trump

Will improve relations with Russia
Will kill of the TPP
Wants to pull back on Americas policy of starting wars everywhere

[vivalarevolución]

Can we get some positivity in this thread again ?

I am going to list a few positive things about both candidates.


Clinton

More positive action on climate change.
Has past experience in government.
Better for science funding and research


Trump

Will improve relations with Russia
Will kill of the TPP
Wants to pull back on Americas policy of starting wars everywhere

Clinton doesn't really matter anymore, she lost and is out of the picture. Now all the focus is on how the president-elect will figure out how to run the government, considering the individuals we have making the selections here.

[Kurplop]

Jacobolus, thank you for the conciliatory tone in your last post. My past reactions have had much less to do with the issues you present and more with the way they have been delivered. We all benefit from good arguments which can be persuasive, but unfortunately, often deflected by raised defenses. I have both learned and have been challenged by your perspective. Unlikely as it may seem, my extended family includes both black and hispanics, I do have dear friends who also feel targeted by Trump's irrational statements and I am not deaf to them either. I'm not sure that Trump has created this tension but he has definitely brought it to the surface.

Of all the noise Trump has generated during the campaign, the one thing that I find to be valid is the resurrection of the idea of Sumner's forgotten man. He may not even know its origin but the condition is real. In our desire to promote equality for all (a good thing), we've elevated the rights and benefits of the oppressed and, by default, gave the bill to the quiet middle and working class. Somehow I think Trump picked up on the ubiquity of the forgotten man and the message struck a chord with a lot of people. These people just want to be understood and appreciated—much like your friends.

While I don't question the presence of racism within Trump's followers, I do think it's not as big a constituency as you may think. Coarse talk and blame hasn't helped as well as not admitting that it is there. Time will tell but I think Trump is primarily concerned with uncontrolled immigration, its effect on wages, and the lack of action against the small but present criminal element. If I see a wholesale example of cruelty executed towards innocent minorities, I'll protest with you.

I think many Trump voters, myself included, would have preferred a different option but he's who we've got. The alternative to accepting Trump's Presidency is either anarchy or revolution. After counting the costs from a civil war 150 years ago, I hope those deeply disappointed will consider working within the system, bring injustices to the surface, making a case for change, and be an example as to how they would like their opponents to act.

[Kurplop]

Can we get some positivity in this thread again ?

I am going to list a few positive things about both candidates.


Clinton

More positive action on climate change.
Has past experience in government.
Better for science funding and research


Trump

Will improve relations with Russia
Will kill of the TPP
Wants to pull back on Americas policy of starting wars everywhere

Clinton doesn't really matter anymore, she lost and is out of the picture.

Yes, but we could still be character witnesses at her trial. Just kidding.

[Wodan]

I finally watched the last Hunger Games movie last night and the last big scene could have been an epic final of this years elections. Old man tied to a post awaiting his execution, the executioner shoots his arrow at the power hungry woman in charge instead. Crowd tears up old, maniacally laughing man.

[vivalarevolución]

The almost Muslim immigrant registry but not quite Muslim immigrant registry might make a comeback.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... r-database

Also, it seems like targeting immigrants as the problem is going to be a key point in this administration. Just want everyone to remember that the Obama administration deported more immigrants than any other president.

[jacobolus]

How do people feel about the ongoing treatment of Native pipeline protestors?

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/16/ ... _locked_in

TARA HOUSKA: Yeah, I was arrested for criminal trespass as I was, you know, leaving a peaceful demonstration and getting into my car on a public road. They arrested us and zip-tied us on the side of the road for two hours. We were then thrown into jail—

AMY GOODMAN: In North Dakota.

TARA HOUSKA: —and put in a dog kennel with—

AMY GOODMAN: And what do you mean, a dog kennel?

TARA HOUSKA: Yeah, it was, you know, a large chainmail dog kennel, for over six hours, while they didn’t even actually charge us with crimes. After that, I was strip-searched and then thrown into jail and, finally, late, late that evening, was charged with a crime.

So, it’s, you know, a situation in which this is happening right now. Native people are being hurt right now. There were people being maced and tased again yesterday. These things are happening. And so, the administration needs to respond. And it needs to say, you know, either no pipeline, which would be ideal—that’s going to be a win for everybody, because clean drinking water is the future, and it’s something that we shouldn’t even be considering putting at risk for an unnecessary and unneeded project—but do an environmental impact statement. If this project is so safe, then do one. You know, the company doesn’t want to do this. It doesn’t want to go through that process, because it knows that this pipeline is unsafe. It knows that it would never meet those standards, and this would never be allowed to happen.

This is the police under the direction of the North Dakota GOP (operating under the direction of the fossil fuel industry), with ND GOP prosecutors etc. trying to arrest journalists covering the protests and imprison them on nonsensical criminal charges. For the moment, federal courts are unlikely to look kindly on such shenanigans. The Obama administration has been hesitant about stepping in too strongly. I can’t imagine the Trump administration doing anything but helping out with the crack-down on non-violent protest, gutting whatever environmental protection regulations they can, and appointing judges who will happily throw people in prison just to send a message.

[ohaimark]

There's been fuck ups on both sides, frankly. I don't like the negative treatment of peaceful protesters.

On the other hand, not all of those protesters have been peaceful. Sabotage, threats, and other things have been leveraged against the pipeline and its workers.

I'm also skeptical of any brutality that hasn't been filmed, photographed, or documented in some way. Get some body cameras on the law enforcement officers, get some film teams among the protesters, and do it soon so we can sort out who is doing what to whom.

[vivalarevolución]

I'm basically in favor of non-violent protesters anywhere for any cause. It's an essential part of freedom of speech. I don't care if they are protesting so citizens can buy rocket launchers or if the KKK is marching or if its the Westboro Baptist crazies. It's their right and should be protected so you can protest about the causes you care about.

My prediction is that the new administration will use events like protests to crack down on "violence" (aka peaceful resistance) in the name of "law and order", (aka establishing control and spreading fear through intimidation or even direct harm). We've seen such tactics before.