Why Doesn't the Left believe in the peaceful transfer of power?
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
The real question here is why are democrats, and much of the republican establishment trying so hard to reignite the cold war?
You're referring to the Russian business. I understand that. I also understand why it would be good for Russia and the Western Countries and their allies in other parts of the world (Japan) to have more cordial relations with the Russian Government. To that end, it still wouldn't make sense for Trump to appoint so many to positions in his Political Campaign and Administration with indirect, but obvious, connections to the Russian government or Russians. There is something amiss here. What is it? I think you have completely misread the efforts of Trumps opponents to answer that question.
No one in their right mind wants to re-kindle the cold war. There are no bad countries, but there are some very bad people in charge of some countries. Sadly, human nature is such that no country, including our own, is spared the risk of being taken over by those with mental disorders, or outright evil intent for personal gains. Maintaining diplomatic contact with another country is always a good thing. Beyond that one has to consider what kind of country one is dealing with, and is it a good thing to cozy up, especially if one's already good relationships with other countries might be harmed! We have nurtured our close ties to our allies and many friends around the world for nearly three-quarters of a century. Why would we want to put those close working relationships in jeopardy by cozying up to government like Russia's?
It gives me pause, that Mr. Trump and his advisor, Mr. Bannon, have proclivities very different from my own. Mr, Trump has a very evident mental disorder, wants to bring back torture, and has avoided credible charges of Fraud and a trial only by settling out of court at the last moment. Judging by his words, he has no clear ideology whatsoever. If he has one at all, than it changes from one day to the next, and sometimes within hours. He operates, in a most transparent way, via social media, by telling his correspondents what he has predetermined they want to hear; this is the stock and trade of con artists. The articulate Mr. Bannon, who seems to be playing a Dick Cheney-like role, on the other hand, is a person with very clear ideology --an ideology I personally detest. We are not an insulated and isolated country. We are not free to join hands with an assassin nation and at the same time respect our partner nations. Cozying up to Russia is not the way to make diplomatic progress, and neither is Trumps proposed 37% cut in the State Department budget. Diplomacy, in the end, is far, far less expensive in public treasure and lives than bullets, although magnificently profitable to those who trade in war and its implements. We can improve relations with Russia without harming our good relations with our partners. And that won't require that Russia be represented in our White House and Cabinet.
My question to you then is why you would think that anyone wants to rekindle the cold war, except perhaps those with very nefarious purpose. Isn't there reason enough to avoid cozying up to the Russian Government without wanting to start another cold war? And isn't there sound reason for wanting to know why there is this concentration of people with indirect ties to Russia in the Trump campaign, the White House, and the Cabinet, and by what reasoning is it justified? Certainly it can't be justified because one wants better relations with Russia.
Last edited:
I would suggest remaining a little circumspect here. The "news" you refer to, if I'm correct, wasn't initially from any credible news organization, but from a Trump Tweet!!!! Haven't we all learned by now, no matter what our political persuasion, that Trump's tweets may be based on "alternative facts"?
In my memory this kind of reaction to varying degrees is common on both sides of the political spectrum. Anyone claiming that Trump's refusal to concede is unprecedented is skating on thin ice. Certainly the national response to Trumps election, while perhaps unprecedented in modern times, is at least consistent with public response to government that is out of step with the consensus.
Anyone claiming that the left's response to the Trump victory is characteristic more of the left than the right is quite wrong. The degree of "disgruntledness" whether in the outcome of an election or a policy of government has always, so far as I can see, been directly related to the numbers on each side; their concentration and distribution. Left and right wingers are no different from one another in this regard.
What seems to be true, judging from history, is that whenever a government is unresponsive to the consensus, dependent on its size and distribution, violence may follow outcry if the government remains unresponsive. This may be more true in countries where the population has become used to a degree of freedom of expression. There are many examples throughout history. In the U.S., the progress of disenchantment to outright riots and civil disobedience during the later stages of the Vietnam war mirrored the shift in the consensus over time.
We should expect something similar in response to the current U.S. government, depending on where the consensus lies and how it shifts over time. What appears as a sour grapes reaction to the election outcome is a normal response to an unbalanced consensus. This is the result of an unpopular President being elected by the narrowest of margins in the Electoral College. It has nothing to do with whether the opposition's politics are on the left or right. When McGovern was so soundly defeated, the response on the left was quite different. Beyond great disappointment there was little civil disobedience, or large marches, because the consensus greatly favored the winning side. It is, however, to early to predict how the current consensus regarding the Trump administration will shift over time.
There was an intermediate response to the Bush v. Gore election. Bush, like Trump, was a minority President. The consensus in the Bush election, however, though on the side of Gore, more narrowly favored Gore then than it is now against the maverick politics of Trump and the outlying politics of his followers. The consensus* seems to have shifted even further away from Trump subsequent to the election. What we are seeing in the public response, if history has taught us anything, should be expected.
Last edited:
I realized after I posted the above that it doesn't make sense as a response to the portion of wildchild's post that I quoted, to whom I apologize for truncating his post excessively. Please see wildchild's original post. In that post wildchild remarked that Trump's detractors had claimed that by saying he would not concede the election if Hillary won he was inciting violence. Wild child pointed out "... a few days after Trumps victory ... the left is not inciting violence, they are committing it."
Your argument would be much more solid if it wasn't rooted in the Trump is insane position. If lying, exaggerating, grossly overstating the problems, and shooting before identifying the proper target are now signs of insanity then we need to find several thousand straight jackets for every member of congress, the entire media, most all of Hollywood, and damn near everyone with a Facebook account.
I would suggest remaining a little circumspect here. The "news" I am referring to came from the President of the United States.
What planet are you on? Bush was not a minority President, Trump is not a minority. Both won fair and square by the rules that were established 2 centuries ago. To detract from either Presidency is detracting from the Constitution itself.
It shows you have no concept of how or why we elect Presidents the way we do.
Also what is this bullshit about the government not being responsive is the cause of violence. During Obama's Presidency the blacks were rioting and committing violence more than anytime since the 1960s. According to your logic, this indicates Obama was not responsive to needs of the black community. Also, during the election, it was members of the ruling party who went to Trump elections and incited violence. Its well documented. Please save your excuses for Democrats behaving badly for someone else. You bring up history, I notice socialists are great at murdering people. Look Hilter, Stalin, and Mao for examples. You own hero Barack Hussein Obama bragged that he "good at killing people".