intent on running the country like a criminal enterprise, laying to waste the idea of ‘Law and Order’?

And it's not like he's a political prisoner felon, nope he is a nefarious hateful scammer.

This poison is going to run through every aspect of the government. Acknowledging past indignations won't make me sleep any better. Our democracy IS in peril.

a member of the "move along nothing to see here" sect.

But I'm alive now and things look pretty bad.

Should we forget the holocaust because it happened before we were born? We can always learn from history

Maybe the human race survived, but millions of humans did not. Some of us will not survive what is transpiring now. Increased prescription drug cost and decreased disease research and monitoring will result in unnecessary deaths. I do not want to be one of them.

So I’m not sitting back, thinking that we’ve seen tough times before , so it will all work out this time.

That was the context of my post. Sorry if it was not clear.

Way, way out of bounds.

It's just that in a time of relative peace and prosperity, our nation has lost its collective mind and elected a madman dictator wannabe.

There is no crisis for our leadership to react badly to. It's simply going in and manufacturing crises on a global scale.

Not even fuckin close, comparable or anything else.

So you think forcefully marching 80,000 people off their land is nothing to fret about?

implied or even came close to? Bad faith discussion and I do not play the game. Next you will hit on gaslighting or some such rot.

yes indeed

And completely dismissing without any explanation one might say that's also bad faith discussion.

The "Southern Gent" is a history professor, doncha know.

Gradual and continuous cuts and oppressive actions. He’s sending the message not to challenge him because he has ample resources to destroy you and your family. And he will.

Although I concede that most thing's on this list could happen in some form or other the one bone I have to pick is the subject of martial Law. People use this too carelessly citing it as a move to be feared by the opposition at any given time if it proves to be convenient to them and their agenda. I heard this from rightwing co workers constantly when Obama was president as well, "Obama's gunna declare martial law"' "You watch" If he can't get his way then he's just going to declare martial law" " Declare martial law and make himself a dictator" etc ad nauseum. If one take's the time to look up and read the law concerning the implementation and limits of martial law you will see how utterly impossible it would be for this or any president to willy nilly simply "Declare Martial Law'' nationwide in order to help their own agenda, It is not an option that anyone of them has. If I don't convince anybody then simply google " Can the president declare martial law'' and read the damn truth about this fallacy right there

I don't deny that there were many people saying that about Obama but objectively, he was not the kind of person who would seek to do such a thing and even if he were, their were sufficient restraints in place to stop him.

Objectively, Trump is the kind of person who would, and most of the guardrails that would stop him are gone.

I will reserve judgment until we see how things actually play out but objective reality still exists and still matters.

It is not weather Obama would or would not do it, nor weather Trump would either, It is about the fact that "martial law" by it's very definition means Military law or rule in place of civil authority which as far as guardrails go are still very much in place since the military made it quite clear before the election that they would not obey any illegal order that came from the orange one if he were elected. In order for martial law to be implemented the entire civil authority must first be in a state of non functioning, No court's, no cops, etc. This can only be implemented in a specific geographical area, namely the area's immediately affected by some crises that rendered the civil authority moot, and once the civil authority is functioning then the martial law ceases immediately at that point. The Rodney King riots are a case in point, Once the cops abandoned the street's to the rioters martial law could have been legally imposed but it could not have been imposed two counties away where nothing untoward was happening, only where the crises was present and as soon as the cops reasserted control over thing's then the martial law would have ended at that moment. This is not about weather Trump would or would not. I believe he would like the idea,. It simply that imposition of martial law nationwide would be totally impossible without the collapse of civil authority everywhere to justify it and a complicit military who would perforce have to physically occupy every single jurisdiction in the land in order to make it work and they have all ready indicated that they will not go along with something like this. That is why when I see this bantered about I cringe because I know that it is a baseless scare tactic no matter who makes the accusation. That just alarms and scares people who don't realize how absolutely remote that idea is

Usually June 24th, but not always. They had it cranked up on high then.

That there's no telling

I was surprised it took this long to mention the ubiquitous tech of the surveillance economy...which they cleverly packaged so we won't just submit to it, but pursue and upgrade with our own personal resources. "Here, let me pay you to have all my personal information so you can get me to pay you more efficiently!"

I wish I could be that... hopeful...

It knowing history and putting it into perspective.

those presidents still believed in our constitution (as they read it), our institutions and government. They weren't out to destroy our democracy.

I mean really, do you really think that any of us is qualified to know what anyone else think?

n/t

I'm 80 years old. My optimism ran rout after Kent State, My Lai, and other events like the first crowning of Donnie the Destroyer.

Thanks for the advice, bud!

So the amount of time Ive been on DU is directly proportional to my knowledge and worth? Im sorry im not in the DU elite. Argumentum ad antiquitatem much?

Bad inference, friend.

yup

will Soros be next?

It is not the amount of time you have been here that discredits you, the quality of your posts do that more than adequately.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem! Aren't you clever. Quite the scholar you are.

The Supreme Court went back to the 1800s with their decision to deem women of reproductive age as the property of the State.

I don't believe it's going overboard to acknowledge this.

I believe our Democracy will survive the con artist but I'm not going to downplay the destruction and harm the con is causing.

As a relatively new person here on DU, I'm not taking your advice.

Going by your standard, Chuck Graseyis the wisest, best person in the US senate

None of those engages in an insurrection

Lincoln was in a Civil war and as disgusting as FDR's Japanese interment camps were, Trumps mass deportation is worse. At least FDR was in World War 2 with Japan and the reaction was xenophobia which was awful, but FDR never called for an end to birthright citizenship as far as I know. We are not at war with any Country south of the border or with any Country in Africa or India today. No immigrants today are a threat to the U.S. Government. Democracy isn't gone yet unless we surrender it, but lets not act like we are not up against it like never before.

Wasnt an insurrection . Someone needs to tell Abraham Lincoln because he used rhe insurrection act as justification to send the military to the southern states

Including Lincoln the insurrection was on the other side. This time we have President that engaged in an insurrection Trump.

Lincoln wasn't engaged in a insurrection. Trump is.

Lincoln "used the insurrection act as justification to send the military to the southern states?" Could you be any more transparent? The rebels started the bloodshed, not Lincoln, and they formed ad armed troops and sent them into the United States, seizing public property and firing of US military personnel. The public in the North demanded that the rebellion be put down.

Here is the proclamation by President Lincoln, April 15, 1861

of illegal immigrants.

I

Andrew Jackson’s cabinet makes Trump’s cabinet loom tame. Look at Grant’s and Harding’s

Don’t take this lightly. If he continues chopping at the tree, it will fall.
I expect we have until summer.

Probably the most corrupt congress was between 1871 and 1873 when the Union Pacific Railroad created a fake company, Crédit Mobilier, to funnel profits to insiders, including several prominent members of Congress

please stop with the excuses

I just think a little perspective is helpful. As a undergrad level history professor, I think I might know a little about us history

you really don't seem alarmed by what is happening

do you not get it? REPUKES HAVE IT ALL, the mainstream media is kissing their ass and the Supreme Court is now just an extension of the greedy old pig party

WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE

Our country is rife with periods of trouble. We tend to work it out. The difference between then and now is the visibility of it. I suspect if they had the same visibility, they would react the same way.

Democrats have had to clean up repuke mess for a LONG TIME now - but THIS time the sheer amount of damage just may be catastrophic - and pretending it's cyclical (like repukes do with climate change) is just plain naive.

"undergrad level history professor." Do you all not have a graduate program or do they not let you teach grad courses? I've never heard this term before ("undergrad level professor" ).

An undergraduate professor is a college or university instructor who teaches undergraduate courses. They may also teach graduate students or professional courses.

Yeah, those vary by institution.

Im up for tenure in 3 years. I just dont teach masters or doctorate level.

Cant get tenure because they aren’t full time.

I know perfectly well what an adjunct is, and, quite frankly, I think you know what I was asking and you're being a bit coy here. You implied that you are on the tenure track at your university, and that you are a professor. You also said that you don't teach graduate level courses. Why doesn't a tenure track faculty member teach graduate courses? Or are you in a tenure-eligible teaching faculty role? It's not clear why you're dancing around this question. You were the one who brought your own profession up, with the extremely uncommon designation of "undergraduate level professor.' Do you not have a PhD? Are you not research qualified to teach graduate courses (i.e., a certain numkber of peer reviewed publications)? Do you not have a graduate program in history? It's a simple question seeking clarification of your own statement!

I mean, it's fine to say that this is all too personal and more than you want to reveal. Hurrah. Let's go with that. But let's not continue on with this nonsense of pretending not to understand what you're being asked.

You are repeating one element of the right wing "Lincoln was a tyrant" nonsense. Lincoln didn't act very aggressively when others harassed pro-Confederate publications, but there isn't any evidence of him ordering the suppression of newspapers. There are records of him stopping the suppression of newspapers, however.

Coming directly from my masters thesis

Lincoln’s administration shut down hundreds of newspapers that were deemed sympathetic to the Confederacy or critical of Union war efforts.
• These papers were accused of undermining morale, spreading Confederate propaganda, or encouraging desertion among Union soldiers.
• Example: The Chicago Times was shut down temporarily for its anti-Union stance, though public backlash eventually led to its reopening.

Editors and journalists who criticized the war effort or Lincoln’s policies were sometimes arrested. These arrests were often justified under martial law or as necessary for national security.
• Example: Clement Vallandigham, a prominent “Copperhead” (Northern Democrat opposing the war), was arrested for making speeches against the Union war effort.

That is an example where Lincoln intervened to overturn suppression of a newspaper, as described in the excerpts I posted.

Defended his arrest and prosecution and conviction he even said that the “case requires, and the law and the Constitution sanction, this punishment.”

Vallandigham was a traitor, at a time of war.

A example of the sentiment in the North at the time:

One would think that "an undergrad level history professor" might know a little about US history.

But apparently not, sadly.

Who am I to think we may have, or should have evolved since 1860?

We wouldn't want to go overboard on something like a threat to democracy, would we? After all, bad things happened in the past, so move along, nothing to see here.

The slur against Lincoln is common in right wing and neo-Confederate circles. It isn't true. The evidence suggests that Lincoln never ordered anyone to shut down the press, and he did order closed newspapers to be reopened.

for a complete theft of the US Treasury?

People in his administration literally stole from the government coffers. People in his admin colluded with the liquor industry to defraud the Treasury of millions in liquor taxes.

Not a scandal. But you sit back and ignore what is about to happen.

Now you are going after Grant. I think this is about where your sympathies are, not historical facts. Grant was not personally corrupt.

Historically incorrect? Your argument is so weak you have to malign my character by implying im a repub.

I haven 't really made an argument. I just questioned yours.

Grant's sins, in the minds many white Americans:

A. He defeated Lee
B. He defended the rights of the former slaves

That is the context, in my opinion, and the context is important.

You picked Grant and Lincoln to use as examples of tyranny comparable to Trump, by implication and insinuation. Spreading that crap - Lincoln suppressed newspapers, Grant was corrupt, so don't worry about Trump - is what I am objecting to. It is misleading about Lincoln and Grant, and it vastly understates the threat Trump poses.

Keep on dancing "Southern Gent."

Talking about "Lincoln's suppression of newspapers" and "Grant's corruption" is highly misleading, as I have more than adequately demonstrated, and then saying that the point is that we "shouldn't go overboard" about the threat from Trump and that "this is not the first time that things looked bleak" is most definitely maligning Lincoln and Grant while minimizing the threat posed by Trump.

What possible point could your post have other than that? Why not be honest and own what you said instead of tap dancing around the issue?

"Nod off in class??" You are not in front of a class here, professor.

You know nothing about me or what I do.

The Confederate revisionism really bothers me.

How about Jefferson Davis? His administration stole half the damned country.

But I'm all for pipedreams and wishfull thinking

Has changed but not the hearts and motivation of people.

We might as well be listening to William Yancey when we listen to you.

We have a corrupt Supreme Court, and a corrupt and complicit republican congress. There is very little that can stop the Mango Malefactor.

... with malevolent, anti-democratic policies the way Chump has. And now he's done it twice!

I'm, like many others, watching every progressive gain I worked for, over the last 60 years, be wiped away. So, you can stay and prove it's not the end, but I'm leaving the US for good.

But if you really feel that way its probably for the best.

False equivalence.

Her take is very different.

She and her husband are republican/conservative.

kill a newly elected government of the United States in its crib.

the hairs on the back of my neck stand up whenever someone tries to pour cold water on QUITE legitimate concerns for the future of our country, our democracy, and the world.

Especially considering the actions undertaken by Trump and his sycophant ACCOMPLICES in just days alone.

In MY opinion (and apparently that of others here as well) the citing of a few incidents involving mostly Democratic figures,

or those Lincoln-Republicans who stepped UP to put down a treasonous rebellion against the U.S. - undertaken in the name of their "cause" (i.e. the right to keep an enslaved people in chains)

or any number of other such incidents NOT mentioned (with the exception of said rebellion), hardly suffice as an equivalent comparison to our present day threat from within.

Not to mention the defense of pro-Confederacy positions and the mangling of US history.

Look at all that NAZI has done in just one week?