Skip to main content

long division

don't be a self-hater, now
after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in years, and was different enough from peacemaker obama that he really should have been allowed to run for another term.

rather than accepting the new trump reality, people have banded together in order to protest virtually everything that he stands for, in shocking numbers. well, maybe those numbers shouldn't be so shocking, since trump didn't win the popular vote, and since his policies always represented the will of the passionate right-wing fringe. but what is rather shocking is that the resistance to trump has already drawn support from the most unlikely of sources: people who voted for him.

now, let's not get ahead of ourselves: trump's approval rating is pretty stable [although historically low for a new president], and it's roughly equivalent to the share of the vote that he got in the general election. so it's not like he's hemorrhaging believers. however, a series of raucous public appearances by members of congress and the senate haven't been driven entirely by democrats. and there are enough people speaking up about their regrets on twitter that one woman [from my alma mater!] has dedicated an account to #trumpregrets.

to those people who are questioning their decision to support the cheeto benito [an increasing number since the unveiling of the new "trumpcare" plan], i have a sincere message:

go fuck yourselves, you ignorant, whiny bitches.

and i mean that from the bottom of my heart.

the "logic" of his supporters is grating enough, but what i really can't stomach is this stunned anger flowing out of people as if they were somehow duped into their decision. there are those who say that donald j. trump lies about everything, but it isn't true; he lies about almost everything and the one big thing that he has not lied about is his plans and priorities as president.

he always said that he was going to repeal and replace "obamacare", which he characterised as a disaster. it would be generous to describe his statements about the planned replacement as vague, however paul ryan has always been more than clear on what it is that he wanted to do. but even if those people who supported trump weren't familiar with ryan's alternative [and, seriously, there's no reason for that, if it was a major part of their decision], it is a little rich to see them freaking out about what's being proposed. did they seriously believe that trump's mumblings about complete coverage and lowered cost were going to be realised? he never made any promises about what would comprise his healthcare plan, but he railed for a year and a half about how he'd get rid of the affordable care act. if you voted for him on that basis, with no solid answers on his own plans, you're the kind of person that hands over the goods when approached by someone claiming to be the wallet inspector.

you should really be directing this at yourself

or to those who have expressed anger about trump's cosy relationship with russia: did you make any attempt to watch/ listen to/ read election coverage? even fox fucking news was on this story. trump excitedly praised vladimir putin at every opportunity and waxed poetic about the possibility that he could usher in a wonderful new era in american- russian partnership. he stood up for the russians when they were accused of hacking the dnc emails, when they were accused of attempting to illegally influence the election, and he employed people, most notably campaign manager paul manafort, who had long established close ties to the russian government and the tiny pack of oligarchs who form putin's inner circle. what the hell did these people think was going to happen when trump got the people's seal of approval? sorry folks, he might have misled you about the nature of his ties to russia, but he never disguised his admiration and eagerness to smooth over the relationship that the two countries had had.

well, yeah.
but it was totally ok not to trust them before he got elected

completely perplexing to me are the people who feel he's betrayed them on immigration. aside from the fact that his first executive order to ban people from certain countries from even visiting the united states was struck down in court, i think that this is the area where he's most successfully implemented the policies on which he campaigned. i mean, even he didn't say the wall was getting built in thirty days [how long a building project takes is probably one of the few things he does know]. but he's deployed an empowered deportation force, stopped immigrants, visitors and even visa holders at the borders, and given the order to put the wall-plan into action. i seriously don't understand how anyone who supported him could be disappointed in this regard.

this needs a much more detailed explanation

and some of his voters are so ridiculously ignorant that it's a wonder they can log onto twitter in order to broadcast their stupidity to the world. the worst examples of this are the tweets- and there are many of them- furious at trump's support for the dapl pipeline. how...? i mean... jesus, you fools are making me feel sorry for the man, and that makes me despise you even more. donald trump never ever ever ever ever ever gave even a hint of sympathy with the argument against fossil fuels. he championed the industry as a source of jobs, wealth, and innovation. he kissed the ass of coal miners so hard i thought he was going to end up with accidental blackface. and even beyond that, he always promised to dismantle the environmental protection agency and the regulations it had put in place. for a man who can barely string together a cogent sentence, there was never any doubt about where he stood, or about his support for projects like [and including] the dapl.

um, what?
as promised

but nothing, nothing is more inexplicable that the hundreds of people who are voicing their fury at trump for his ravings and tantrums on twitter. behold:
why would he stop now?

but the birth certificate and climate change b.s. were ok.

children don't grow up overnight. 70 children don't grow up at all.


i think that was actually one of his election promises 


note that these responses are all to his personal account, not the +POTUS ㅤ account he inherited from obama. not to beleaguer the obvious, but these are people on twitter who followed this man's longstanding account. the account where he railed about obama being born in kenya. the account where he claimed that all the employment numbers that were coming out of the bureau of labour statistics were false. the account where he insisted that global warming was a hoax perpetrated the chinese. the account where he supported the idea that vaccines cause autism. and i don't even have time to get into the personal attacks. there was never any better window into the mind of trump than his twitter account, and these people availed themselves of it.

since the election, trump's behaviour on twitter hasn't changed one bit, which he pretty much said it wouldn't. how can this suddenly be a problem? people, this was what the man was when you voted for him and this is what you got. it's not his fault you thought he was going to be something different. that's 100% on you.

the idea is that people who never supported trump are supposed to let go of their anger in the wake of the election and give the man a chance. everyone is supposed to make an effort to work together for the good of the country. but why would anyone who disagreed with his stances in the campaign agree to give him a chance, when what he's doing is implementing the policies that they found so odious? this isn't a case of minor disagreements. this is a case of people feeling that his promises could put their lives and livelihoods at risk. why would they give him the chance to do that? and why would anyone who supported him have believed that he would do any different?

the argument against this sort of resistance is that it protracts and worsens divisions among people. to which i can only reply: as it bloody well should. i'm not an american, but i think i speak on behalf of a lot of the people i know there when i say that i want the division between me and the people who believed in trump to be as wide and as deep and as impenetrable as possible. i want that division to be permanent. i want that division to be immediately apparent to people who speak to me. hell, if there was a way i could make sure that people could see the difference between trump supporters and me from a healthy distance, i'd be down with that.

people who were fine with the lies, the insults, the inability to explain how he'd accomplish anything, the insane rants on twitter have no right to claim they were misled. and those people are dangerous, because they'll clearly go flying after anyone who tells them even one thing that they want to hear. they don't listen, they don't read and they don't think, even to the person they're following. trump voters, you got what you bought. you made your bed, now lie in it. unless it's a hospital bed, because you're not going to be able to afford it anymore.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…