It seems to me there's a decided lack of clarity, resulting in aimless messaging. Why are you protesting? What are you protesting? What are your specific goals? If I could wave a magic wand and get someone that matters to listen, here would be my suggestions for issues that need to be explicitly focused on and enunciated. I'm no pro-writer so it's not pretty, I'm going for the thoughtful, perhaps even provocative, let others pretty it up.
Come on, this is for keeps, enough patty-cake - we must step it up, or we will get crushed!
Come on, this is for keeps, enough patty-cake - we must step it up, or we will get crushed!
What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd?
What about drawing attention to,Trump’s Russian obligations and him surrounding himself with “friends” of Russia?
What about drawing attention to Trump’s myriad business entanglements with enemy nations?
What about drawing attention to the fact that Trump’s win was hinged on a campaign of malicious wanton smears based on deliberately fabricated lies? (With Russia doling out the PR, through the Alter-reality of Bannon and Breitbart’s lie factory). WHY HAS THAT BECOME ACCEPTABLE?
What about demanding that this election get nullified if it turns out Putin played a decisive role in electing Trump his new obligate, the President of the Corporation of Amerika?
What about spotlighting that self-interested Faith Based rejection of Objective Facts and Constructive Learning is an obscenely self-destructive way to operate our government?
What about demanding that “Evaluation of the Objective Facts trumps Personal Faith-Based decision-making” ? What about ethics and honesty?
How about asking the question: Does American deserves a full time president, who's fully focused on leading his/her country - or a hobbyist?
How about asking the question:
"Do we want a Russian Obligate President?"
“Are we the United State of America or the Corporation of Amerika?”
What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd?
What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd? What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd? Over and over again! In some way that is the single most important and doable thing. If we can’t pull off that, … I shutter at the thought.
I bring this us because yesterday I listened in on a December19.US protest organizing group-call with much hope and finished feeling crushed and hopeless again. I’m sorry for being the old grump, but it was like listening in on kids planning a picnic. It was fine so far a “organizing’ stuff, but when it came to outlining the what and why of the protests, I was expecting a concise list, but there was nothing, beyond some mumbling.
Felt to me like the attitude was that, well ha, we all know it all sucks and yeah, well you know, and bad people, want them to know, and ah, that’s why we need as many there as possible... KNOW WHAT?
What is this protest supposed to accomplish?
Change anything?
Create community and solidarity?
Education someone (ourselves, opponents, on-lookers, leaders, who?)?
Demand Any Actions?
None of that was addressed at the phone call, later I double checked their (and other) websites and there too, no genuine messaging.
Just like Clinton’s prez campaign. Underestimating opponents. Thinking that going through the motions is enough. Inability to explain anything that matters to any one. Inability to confront the dirty tricks that this liberal white bread crowd so abhors.
It’s tragic how out of touch we seem to have become.
Now I’m back fearing these protests will amount to little more than exercises in venting and ‘feel good’.
A protest needs a clear message and “I hate Trump” may be clear, but it doesn’t say a damned thing and it certainly doesn’t move anything forward.
It doesn’t offer opponents or bystanders any explanation to help them understand what we are so upset about. It doesn't offer ourselves any better understanding of what we are up against these next years. It makes no attempts to change any minds. Nor does it draw any lines in the sand. Nor does it lay out any set of expectations to help guide us forward.
Allow me to repeat I could wave a magic wand and get someone that matters to listen, here would be my suggestions.
What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd?
What about drawing attention to,Trump’s Russian obligations and him surrounding himself with “friends” of Russia?
What about drawing attention to Trump’s myriad business entanglements with enemy nations?
What about drawing attention to the fact that Trump’s win was hinged on a campaign of malicious wanton smears based on deliberately fabricated lies? WHY HAS THAT BECOME ACCEPTABLE?
What about demanding that this election get nullified if it turns out Putin played a decisive role in election his new Obligate Presidents of the Corporation of the United States of Amerika?
What about spotlighting that self-interested Faith Based rejection of Objective Facts and Constructive Learning is an obscenely self-destructive way to operate our government?
What about demanding that “Evaluation of the Objective Facts trumps Personal Faith-Based decision-making” ?
How about asking the question: Does American deserves a full time president, who undecidedly focused on leading his/her country?
How about asking the question: Do we want a Russian Obligate President?
How about asking: “Are we the United State of America
or the Corporation of Amerika?”
What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd?
What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd? What about demanding, Merrick Garland get his Supreme Court Vote January 3rd? Over and over again! In some ways that is the single most important and doable thing. If we can’t pull off that, … I shutter at the thought.
__________________________________________________
All of Donald Trump’s known conflicts of interest in one place
Updated by Libby Nelson@libbyanelson Dec 13, 2016
____________________________________________________
With Biden in the chair on Jan. 3, the Senate can confirm a renominated Merrick Garland. Here's how.
Tuesday Dec 06, 2016
Here’s an idea to ponder as a sort of closing act for the Obama administration and/or and opening salvo from Senate Democrats: a mechanism for confirming Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. As we’re all aware, congressional elections in November determined the makeup of the entirety of the House of Representatives, as well as one-third of the Senate.
The Senate, of course, elects one-third of its membership every two years, such that the six-year terms are staggered among three “classes,” and two-thirds of the Senate membership remain incumbent in office even during elections and post-election transition periods.
At noon on January 3, 2017, the terms of the current members of the Senate’s Class III will come to an end. At that point, the Senate consists of 66 sitting senators, and we would ordinarily expect Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president (in which role he continues to serve until noon on January 20th), to begin swearing in the senators-elect of the new Class III.
Typically, the swearing-in would be the first order of business, although occasionally there are brief welcoming remarks from the Majority and Minority Leaders, the Majority Leader traditionally being afforded preferential recognition by the presiding officer. That is, he gets to speak first, if anyone has anything to say before things get started.
But when Biden looks out over the Senate floor—in what will likely be one of his last official acts—he’ll see 66 currently sworn and serving senators, 34 of whom will be Democrats, two who are independents, and 30 who are Republicans. At that moment you might wonder, then, just who constitutes the “majority,” and therefore who the Majority Leader actually is. In fact, as the numbers tell us, Democrats will make up the majority of the Senate, and their leader might arguably be entitled to preferential recognition.
This situation has surely occurred before. It’s just never mattered. And so in all likelihood, absent some other plan, we would expect Biden to afford that privilege to Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the current Majority Leader, who’s expected to continue in that role in the new Congress.
Suppose, though, that there is another plan. Suppose Biden instead chooses to recognize the sitting Democrats as the majority, that being the then-current truth of the matter? And suppose, therefore, he chose to recognize the Democratic floor leader first?
Now, we all understand that Chuck Schumer of New York is slated to become the Minority Leader in 2017. But at that point, he’s merely one of the 34 senators-elect waiting to take the oath and begin his term. Dick Durbin of Illinois is, at that moment, the highest ranking Democratic floor leader. So suppose Biden were to recognize Durbin first, and grant him the floor for opening remarks?
(Would that be fantastic to see, the Democratic Senators actually mustering the cojones to do this and stand behind it with defiance, pride and patriotism. Now that would be a genuine shock across the Trump Team’s bow.
If not for that all important Supreme Court than for what Mr. Senator?
America is supposed to be a nation of check and balances!
I understand absolutist Republicans wish to nullify all those so they can continue with their personal God’s Plan - Will our Democratic Senators demand we retain some check’n balances?)
___________________________________________________
Additional reading:
To Save the Country, the Senate Must Vote on Judge Merrick Garland
July 25, 2016
__________________________________________________
Can Merrick Garland Still Become Supreme Court Justice? Democrats Have A Few Loopholes At Their Disposal
President Obama's pick for U.S. Supreme Court justice may very well have waited the better part of year just to be replaced by a nominee chosen by President-elect Donald Trump. But can Merrick Garland still become a Supreme Court justice? Technically it's possible, but judging by the state of the Senate, Garland's chances are extremely slim.
Garland has waited for his confirmation to the Supreme Court for more than eight months, which is more than double the time of his longest-suffering predecessor. And, in that time, Garland has not been hearing cases due to the possibility of having to hear those cases while serving on the Supreme Court.
Many Republicans insisted that lame duck presidents should not be appointing justices, despite the fact that one-third of U.S. presidents have done exactly that. Even Trump insisted during a February primary debate that Senate Republicans should block Obama's nominee, saying, "It's called delay, delay, delay!” ..
__________________________________________________
In two appearances on cable TV Thursday night and Friday morning, the Oregon lawmaker said that he and those on his side of the Senate aisle “will do everything we possibly can to block” what he called the “theft” of the opportunity to pick the replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland was made on March 16, and thus has been waiting for any sign of Senate action for nearly eight months. Senate GOP leaders have said the Scalia replacement must be made by the president elected on November 8.
The new administration, taking office in January, “has no right to fill” that seat, Markley said on MSNBC Thursday night. …
__________________________________________________
A late attempt to save Judge Garland’s nomination?
November 11, 2016 by Lyle Denniston
_________________________________________________
Where We Stand on Stalled Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stand-stalled-supreme-court-nominee-merrick-garland/story?id=42648073
By ABC NEWS | Oct 7, 2016
__________________________________________________
Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald Explains How Trump’s Business Entanglements Would Cause A "National Security Nightmare"
Eichenwald: The Trump Organization Has Interests And Partnerships That September 14, 2016
It is the US Senate’s constitutional duty to provide “advice and consent” on the president’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. In 1916, the nomination of Justice Louis Brandeis by President Woodrow Wilson took 125 days to reach a Senate vote. Ironically, the nomination of Justice Brandeis was so controversial that the Senate held hearings on it — the first-ever for a Supreme Court nominee.
Now, the Senate is denying such hearings to Judge Garland. Judge Garland is a highly respected jurist with unprecedented bipartisan support and more judicial experience than any nominee in history. He received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association, which noted that “not one person uttered a negative word about him” in hundreds of interviews, and said he “displays the temperament, integrity and professionalism necessary to serve on the Supreme Court.”
Yet even he can’t get a hearing, never mind a vote. … __________________________________________________
To Save the Country, the Senate Must Vote on Judge Merrick Garland
by Nancy K. Kaufman
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
If you aren’t familiar with George Monbiot might I suggest the following, trust me you’ll find the investment in time worth it.
Profiles in Lucidity - George Monbiot
Reality Check - George Monbiot - Drums of War
________________________________________________
1 comment:
I sent December19.US an email to share this posting and hopefully shake 'em up a little bit.
If nothing else it would really be wonderful to see the "Demand Merrick Garland Vote Jan 3rd" gather real momentum.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TO: hello@democracyspring.org
Dear December19.US
Let me start by apologizing for being the party @¶*%!, but someone needs to do it.
I listened in on yesterday's 9pm phone call, wasn't able to get the CHAT feature to work for me, but I took notes. Please understand I am on your side - however, I have issues with how are going about this. I wrote the following post early this AM and cleaned it up a little a couple hours ago.
Please take the time to read it and share - you folks need to step outside your own bubble, the game has changed big time, and we are up against patently ruthless people, what didn't work pre 2016 election catastrophe, isn't going to be helping us today. Gotta step it up!
Sincerely, CC
Post a Comment