Democrats and wimpy pacifist progressive insist on calling their complaints about president Donald Trump “the resistance.” But what exactly does this militant sounding political action entail? A lot of waiting around. Waiting for Democrats to take back the House of Representatives and the Senate. Waiting for impeachment. Even though Nancy Pelosi says the Democrats will never impeach Trump. Waiting for the special counsel to come up with something against Trump even though there’s not much evidence that he has anything. Waiting for some future election after more people are registered to vote, presumably after the Democratic Party starts to allow progressives to be nominated to high office. Waiting for the Russia collusion stuff to catch fire. Whatever this is, it ain’t resistance.
The Resistance to Trump Mostly Entails A Lot of Waiting Around for Someone Else to Actually Do Something
12 Comments. Leave new
“even though there’s not much evidence ”
Oh, so there is *some* evidence? Well, that’s certainly a step up from from repeating “there is no PRVF” over & over. (I understand that works better if you click your heels together three times, preferably while wearing ruby slippers)
Oh! Look! The US just expelled a whole lotta Dastardly Russians [TM] even though there’s not much evidence that they poisoned anybody, and even if they did there is no PRVF that it contributed to Hillary’s loss.
The fact of “Expelled Russians” is certainly evidence of belief, but not evidence that it is a belief about a true fact, or more than a contrived appearance of belief for propaganda purposes.
Nixon couldn’t believe that the Vietnam anti-war actions arose spontaneously from Americans without being incited by Russians.
Nixon must have believed that Americans were too stupid to see through military and executive branch lies without being led to that understanding by forces of evil rather than through personal experience.
Conservative Democrats will believe anything that their Goldwater Girl Hillary feeds them. They are homeless refugees since fleeing the Republican Party after it went totally insane.
… and perhaps I am a butterfly dreaming I’m a man.
The only resistance coming from “The Resistance” is the dragging of their feet.
Complaints from the anti-gun people about “no gun legislation” following school shooting after school shooting misses the $32 MILLION DOLLARS PER HOUR spent on the 15 plus year-long War on Terror beginning in Afghanistan.
There is plenty of money being spent on gun legislation, but it is pro-gun and pro-kill, large, and yet invisible in the normalized culture of kill.
https://popularresistance.org/the-u-s-is-spending-32-million-per-hour-on-war/
This money makes NRA donations to political campaigns peanuts in comparison to the MIC contributions for the really big guns, big war propaganda from Hollywood, broadcast, print and electronic media.
I supported Bernie Sanders for his social upside, but on his downside he is still a war monger. The impact of warmongering has a huge impact on the American culture, and the culture of kill is what kills Americans in their workplaces and schools.
The culture of kill can’t even be called mental illness because it is THE cultural norm, not until there is recognition that our lives are being lived in the “Sick Society” described by Eric Fromm.
Asking the most violent state in the history of the world to use its unjust but lawful violence on the culture of kill to stop violence is minimally ineffective if not totally absurd.
Gives new meaning to the term passive resistance….
+1
I think the “Resistance” has been dilluted by how much of a clown show the Trump administration has turned out to be. Trump is certainly doing real damage, but so far he’s largely failed to do the worst things he promised to do (with the exception of his gross corporate tax cut).
During his campaign and in the immediate aftermath of his election, the anti-Trump resistance looked like it could become fairly violent, at least by the standards of modern American political movements. Violent attempts to disrupt his campaign stops, black bloc tactics in DC for his inauguration, etc.
Now the anti-Trump movement has transformed into increased and more energetic attempts to support the Democratic party, a trend of centrist Democrats getting primaried from the left, and a more antagonistic American press than I’ve seen in my adult lifetime (I’m 36). None of these things are perfect, but they’re better to have than nothing.
It’s not the next anti-Nazi resistance, but Trump is proving too incompetant to be the next Hitler.
I do sometimes think it’s strange that we’ve all decided that this impulsive moron holding the nuclear codes is a tenable situation for even a short period of time – for this reason alone, a sane society would conjure up a mob and drag this guy out of the White House, today, right now – but I think the threat of global nuclear annihilation hanging over our heads for 70 years has dulled humanity’s fear of the apocalypse. It’s just a thing that might happen someday. Whatever. Hopefully a bomb will drop close enough to vaporize me.
Participating in la resistance had clear implications in both vision and practice. The occupying power and their Vichy collaborators were simply illegitimate. Therefore any order, any work for them should be if not directly refused, somehow sabotaged, or only temporarily complied with for tactical reasons while biding one’s time and focusing on direct action elsewhere.
As the regime in turn attacks the resistance – as in rounding up and killing suspects left and right – lines are drawn, and identities clarified. (Give or take very ugly gray areas like whether or not collaborators – who may be coerced or double-agents for all one knows – are fair game for outright assassination, etc.)
The one comparable aspect right now would be sanctuary cities – or more specifically, officials in those cities directly or indirectly tasked with assisting deportations. To refuse or at least drag one’s feet on such orders has direct consequences and carries some actual risk.
Most everybody else? Are people complying with the system as before, paying income tax, signing up for military servi
cetude, etc? Are people at least delegitimizing the system in tangible ways (aside from, importantly, BLM and high school survivors whose core issue is that they aren’t really admitted to partake in it in the first place)?Perhaps we should start by resisting the urge to binge-read negative “news” (sic) soundbites about the really-existing reality tv president like it’s a marathon run by a sprinter on steroids 😉
> The occupying power and their Vichy collaborators were simply illegitimate.
True dat. But then, the current US administration can hardly be called legitimate either. We have a pResident who lost the popular vote, had no qualifications for the job, is thoroughly fucking up the job and didn’t want the job in the first place.
Viva la Ohms!
Just a reminder: the US president is, in fact, chosen by the “electoral college.” Certainly it is based on the popular vote but the popular vote, per se, is NOT the method by which the president is chosen. This is fully explained in Article ii, Section 1 of the US Constitution.
This situation occurred also in 2000. At the time, many of the same congressional heavyweights, now claiming to lead “the Resistance,” characteristically did nothing but whine about it then, also.
The same section presents the qualifications for president: a) US citizen, b) 35 years old,
c) residence in the US for 14 years.
If you think a president’s job performance is poor you are urged to request that your representative in the House bring articles of impeachment.
If that representative is from the Democratic Party, you should also urge she/he to read the pertinent parts of the constitution regarding impeachment. Since the highest officials in that party were so pathetically misinformed about the mechanics of the presidential election process (and, apparently, desperately also want us to be) it seems likely that they might not have a clue about impeachment either.
Re the intentions for office of the current president. This seems to be a very clever 180º projection of the loser’s entitlement attitude. Alas, both completely irrelevant.
It has been noted, however, that the person the current president defeated in the election initially supported him in his party’s primary elections, because she thought he would be the easiest to defeat.
hey, falco –
So, yeah, we do sorta-kinda have a electoral college today, but it doesn’t work the way the founders intended. If it did, Hillary would be VP. If the electoral votes were properly distributed Hillary would be prez and Trump would be VP.
If anything is less appealing than the thought of either one being president, it’s both; so there is an upside after all. 😉
I just did my homework, cuz I don’t know these things. We stopped runner-up-as-VP in 1804; and we started having ‘running mates’ in 1834. So the college worked as originally designed for only 13 years.
Ted, you simply have to stop portraying les Maquis as hard-left nicotinists. Gauloises are no less lethal than AR-15s – think of the children !…
Henri