Slashdot Mirror
Donald Trump Is Sworn In As the 45th US President (reuters.com)
Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States on Friday, succeeding Barack Obama and taking control of a divided country in a transition of power that he has declared will lead to "America First" policies at home and abroad. Reuters reports: As scattered protests erupted elsewhere in Washington, Trump raised his right hand and put his left on a Bible used by Abraham Lincoln and repeated a 35-word oath of office from the U.S. Constitution, with U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts presiding.
Nobody rushing the stage shouting "You are the greatest monster in human history!" while blasting away?
That didn't take long. Keep thinking everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi.
He's been sworn in for almost an hour now and no nuclear war....exceeding expectations.
News for Nazis
This. Garbage like this is exactly why Trump won the election. I hope you're pleased with yourself.
Even if one opposes him, one should be hoping for success.
Absolutely. Personally, he frightens me - I feel like he's too impulsive to wield that much power. But if he does poorly, we all lose. I wish him nothing but success (assuming that his definition of success is close enough to my own.)
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
It amazes me that people continue to believe Trump is impulsive. There's nothing impulsive about anything Trump does; it's all extremely calculated. If I didn't know better I was say the press were in collusion to spread that myth in order to make people underestimate Trump, but as usual Occam's razor applies and the press are just full of idiots.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think my major concern with the next few years is that he's a bit of a loose cannon. You don't want a loose cannon who's obviously quite sensitive when pushed on things negotiating with other countries or making impulsive decisions that are hard to undo. I doubt he'd start a war (intentionally) but I really think he has to lay off the late-night Twitter. Telegraphing exactly what bothers you to your adversaries isn't a smart move. Sure, you can argue it's all a show, but some of the anger he's displayed with the press, his critics, etc. show that it's very hard to hide his feelings and just keep quiet.
Here's what I'm mainly worried about -- now that Trump's President, the gloves come off of every single loud-mouthed, opinionated angry citizen who loves to moan and complain. By providing an example of "acceptable" behavior via his constant personal attacks on people, I think he's going to signal to everyone that they no longer need to be civil to one another. I know a lot of people who just aren't happy unless they're railing loudly against anyone and anything. Having that be the starting point for any discussion or debate for the next 4 or 8 years is going to lead to further retrenchment of people into their respective camps. I for one can't stand engaging with people who come out swinging, looking for a fight on every little thing...it's just not a personality type I'm interested in dealing with. The world's complex enough already and life's short, so why waste processor cycles arguing pointlessly?
One thing I did like about the Obama years was that he was a very approachable President. Even when the political rancor was at its worst, with a few exceptions he took the high road in these arguments. I doubt we're going to see that very much anymore -- it's going to be years of angry press conferences and sound bites.
The United States is three times the size of India.
If you're talking about population. India is by far the world's largest democracy.
If you're talking about land size. Canada is the world's largest democracy. (unless you consider Russia democratic- then it is).
If you're talking about weight of the average person then... yes... in that scenario, the US is the largest democracy.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
So you think Israel should just unilaterally abandon the Two STate Solution and start colonizing Palestinian territory? I'm generally a supporter of Israel, but those illegal settlements are deliberately provocative.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No, he won because the Democratic Party is too busy tripping over their hypocritical statements and actions. You know, the party of inclusion that can't wait to have 60+ sitting congresspersons "boycott" the inauguration of the president that they now have to work with. Their candidate for president was even there, and tweeting about working together. Yet these petty and petulant asshats can't see that the inauguration is a celebration of the institution, and not of the man being sworn in.
The divisiveness only continues to get worse as long as these douchebags can't see that they are the ones perpetuating the problem.
I'm sure that the Democrats will show all the support and understanding to Trump that the Republicans showed to Obama.
The fact that there's a whole shitload of stupid people out there doesn't change the fact that those people are wrong.
I am not mad at people like you because Clinton lost. I am unconcerned that we have different politics. And I don’t think less of people like you because you vote one way and I vote another. I think less of people like you because you watched an adult mock a disabled person in front of a crowd and still supported him. I think less of you because you saw a man spouting clear racism and backed him. I think less of you because you listened to him advocate for war crimes, and still thought he should run this country. I think less of people like you because you watched him equate a woman’s worth to her appearance and got on board. It isn’t your politics that I find repulsive. It is your personal willingness to support racism, sexism, and cruelty. You sided with a bully when it mattered and that is something I will never forget. So, no people like you and I won’t be “coming together” to move forward or whatever. Trump disgusts me, but it is the fact that he doesn’t disgust people like you that will stick with me long after this election.
Trump is certainly *different* from previous Presidents and major candidates in important ways. Some good differences, some bad, and some with both good and bad aspects. We'll see what happens. I've been wrong when I predicted what Obama and Bush Jrs presidencies would be like, so I'm not going to try to predict Trump - we just have to wait and see.
Bad includes his seemingly impulsive Twitter comments to "fight back" against criticism. He probably should have ignored Meryl Streep, for example.
Good includes the fact that he's not dependent on campaign contributors like almost all major politicians are.
We'll just see where the roulette ball lands. I'll oppose any bad policies he proposes and support any good ones.
You might be interested in reading "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America", by Colin Woodard. The author argues that there are 11 distinct cultures in North America, which don't align neatly with state (or even national) boundaries, and that US politics is primarily a competition between two shifting coalitions of these 11 cultures, coalitions anchored in the Yankee culture (Democrats) and the Deep South culture (Republicans). One value that both of those cultures hold in common is authoritarianism, though of very different forms.
Yankeedom is built around and values a communitarian form of authoritarianism, derived largely from its Puritanical heritage. Even though the religious aspects of Yankee Puritanism have gone away, they've been replaced by a secular form of the same thing, which is the notion that while it's critical that the people as a whole have "independence", meaning they can form their own assemblies and regulate themselves, the individual should willingly subjugate his or her own will to that of the community. In Puritan days, this was severe; almost any form of disagreement with the community's religious and social values resulted in severe punishment. Individual freedom was not valued, and tolerance for alternative views was extremely low. Also, Yankeedom reveres education, and therefore the fruits of education, including progressiveness.
The Deep South is built around and values a hierarchical form of very strict authoritarianism, derived from that region's slaveholding culture, which enabled it to establish an essentially feudal model of lordly manors occupied by elegant idlers, supported by masses of lower classes. The southern planters placed tremendous value on "liberty" but it was the old Greek and Roman notion of liberty, which is available only to those at the top. The south took the "lower classes" notion a bit further than feudal lords with their serfs, but the southern class-based society wasn't just "planters" and "slaves", there was also a large underclass of what we might now call white trash, which was also expected to be subservient. What's perhaps odd about the old Deep Southern notions of hierarchy is that they were so deeply embedded in the society that although the underclasses chafed a bit, they also grew to expect a strong hierarchy and to respect their aristocratic leaders.
So, the two core cultures around which our political battles revolve are both authoritarians. Their allied cultures are less authoritarian, but it's the core cultures that hold the whip hand. In particular the left coast is very big on individual freedom and self-realization, but also has its roots in Yankeedom, including the trust in education and progress, which makes is a natural ally of the Yankee culture even though they disagree on individual freedom. Similarly, the far west culture is very libertarian but allies with the deep south because of its opposition to Yankeedom, rather than because it likes the southern authoritarianism.
Anyway, that's a flavor of what's in the book. You probably won't agree with all of it (I don't), but a lot of it makes a great deal of sense and I found that it really illuminates my understanding of the major political dynamics in the US, and has helped me understand why there is this strong streak of authoritarianism in a country that purportedly values freedom and independence.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
you didn't answer the question at all.
it may be the same way he mocks able-bodied folks, but WHY does he do it in that particular manner? If not to mock the particular physical disability that some folks have? (including the reporter in question)
it seems pretty clear that the jerking, arm-clutched-to-the-chest motion is the same thing that elementary school kids do to make fun of disabled people. surely you aren't claiming it to be purely coincidental that he chose that very specific physical action.
if your argument is that he mocks able-bodied and disabled folks in the same way, by pretending they all have a physical disability of the arm and hand that causes muscle spasms, then you aren't really helping the case.