Donald trump. what is your take on him?
- Thread starter pucho812
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
T
tands
Guest
I don't think it's necessary to place them within a conceptual structure, anarchists aren't really that complicated, and don't really relate to political groupings. They don't transact with hierarchies. I'll let them speak for themselves, though.
"No One is Coming to Save Us: An Anarchist Response to the Election of Donald Trump
The surprise victory of Donald Trump this past Tuesday has quickly presented people in this country (and around the world) with a vastly different political landscape than we had expected. We are seeing a rise in right-wing attacks as the far right is emboldened by the victory, much like what happened earlier this year after the success of the Brexit referendum in the UK. The incompetence and capitulation of the Democratic Party has forced many of its former supporters to recognize that the fight against the far right cannot be won by liberal electoral politics. This new reality forces anti-authoritarians of all stripes to rise to the challenge of building strong movements for working class self-defense in this new atmosphere.
Much writing in the coming weeks will be dedicated to figuring out, from the Democratic perspective, “what went wrong.” Already many authors have argued that Trump’s success is solely the result of white nationalism and misogyny. Part of Trump’s appeal is that his ideas are a racist response to there currently being a black president. Trump’s open embrace of white supremacy and patriarchy was crucial to his victory, but we do not believe it can tell the whole story. It cannot, for example, explain why Trump received more votes than other recent Republicans from latinos, women, and black voters.
Another narrative states that in the rust belt as in Europe, the devastating effects of decades of austerity, neoliberal trade agreements, and an orientation towards multinational corporations have been challenged. That challenge in the U.S. and elsewhere has come in the form of xenophobic nationalism. There is a significant amount of truth to this as well, but it can’t explain much of Trump’s success without acknowledging the serious appeal that open white nationalism and misogyny has gained in this election.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of this moment is that after spending months describing Trump as a grave threat to the lives of women, people of color, queer and trans people and the disabled, the entire Democratic Party has immediately capitulated to him. They have made clear that they always held preserving their broken system to be far more important than our lives. Many among their base are for the first time seeing the party’s true colors, and are reaching out to radical organizations in the interest of carrying on the fight that the Democrats so quickly abandoned. Already we are seeing attacks on muslims, immigrants, people of every color besides white, queer and trans people. This is not abstract, it is already happening. We should expect more of this and must make organizing to oppose it a top priority.
For anti-authoritarians, this presents a fundamental challenge that we must rise to. Many on the left will continue to advocate for independent candidates, third parties, or “progressive” Democrats like Bernie Sanders. In response, we must not only articulate that this is a dead-end strategy but offer serious alternatives for people to engage in and understand what we mean by our watchword of Community Self-Defense.
Across the US, from cities to rural areas, it is imperative that anarchists and anti-authoritarians strive to build organizations to battle the emboldened far right, to advocate through militant action the needs of working-class communities, and to combat state repression. We must encourage broad participation from those who are now looking for an alternative to the failed strategy which has got us to this moment. Moving forward, we must be sure to resist the pull of nonprofits and electoralism which will surely return to stymie any radical activity once the Democratic Party recovers.
Trump is an opportunist who understood the frustration of mostly struggling white people and tapped into that anger. He is not currently a fascist but has fascist tendencies that emboldens fascists and authoritarians of many stripes. Calling him one can limit our understanding of fascism, which we need to develop in order to better oppose it.
We are encouraged that so many have taken to the streets across the country. We hope more will do the same. Trump’s attacks in the form of policy and his supporters physical attacks and intimidation, must be opposed from day one.
Our organizations must be effective. The sense of despair many are feeling is grounded in the reality of an ascendant far right. Right now, they face little resistance. The sense of urgency many of us have felt is a recognition of the need to build that resistance. It is time for us to take up that task, to find new comrades ready to fight, and to fight. No one is coming to save us–we cannot use the electoral system to fight the far right effectively. It’s time to stop waiting and defend each other in the streets!
What Needs to Be Done:
1. No to National “healing”, working with, or a grace period for the Trump Regime
2. Take to the streets – build a militant resistance
3. Build working-class defense organizations that resist racist attacks, sexual assault, immigration and homeland security raids and deportations, police brutality and state repression
4. Agitate and organize for workers actions – including a general strike against Trump
5. No to containment of the struggle back into the Democratic Party, electoralism and the Non-Profit Industrial Complex"
https://phillyantifa.noblogs.org/post/2016/11/12/no-one-is-coming-to-save-us-an-anarchist-response-to-the-election-of-donald-trump/
"No One is Coming to Save Us: An Anarchist Response to the Election of Donald Trump
The surprise victory of Donald Trump this past Tuesday has quickly presented people in this country (and around the world) with a vastly different political landscape than we had expected. We are seeing a rise in right-wing attacks as the far right is emboldened by the victory, much like what happened earlier this year after the success of the Brexit referendum in the UK. The incompetence and capitulation of the Democratic Party has forced many of its former supporters to recognize that the fight against the far right cannot be won by liberal electoral politics. This new reality forces anti-authoritarians of all stripes to rise to the challenge of building strong movements for working class self-defense in this new atmosphere.
Much writing in the coming weeks will be dedicated to figuring out, from the Democratic perspective, “what went wrong.” Already many authors have argued that Trump’s success is solely the result of white nationalism and misogyny. Part of Trump’s appeal is that his ideas are a racist response to there currently being a black president. Trump’s open embrace of white supremacy and patriarchy was crucial to his victory, but we do not believe it can tell the whole story. It cannot, for example, explain why Trump received more votes than other recent Republicans from latinos, women, and black voters.
Another narrative states that in the rust belt as in Europe, the devastating effects of decades of austerity, neoliberal trade agreements, and an orientation towards multinational corporations have been challenged. That challenge in the U.S. and elsewhere has come in the form of xenophobic nationalism. There is a significant amount of truth to this as well, but it can’t explain much of Trump’s success without acknowledging the serious appeal that open white nationalism and misogyny has gained in this election.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of this moment is that after spending months describing Trump as a grave threat to the lives of women, people of color, queer and trans people and the disabled, the entire Democratic Party has immediately capitulated to him. They have made clear that they always held preserving their broken system to be far more important than our lives. Many among their base are for the first time seeing the party’s true colors, and are reaching out to radical organizations in the interest of carrying on the fight that the Democrats so quickly abandoned. Already we are seeing attacks on muslims, immigrants, people of every color besides white, queer and trans people. This is not abstract, it is already happening. We should expect more of this and must make organizing to oppose it a top priority.
For anti-authoritarians, this presents a fundamental challenge that we must rise to. Many on the left will continue to advocate for independent candidates, third parties, or “progressive” Democrats like Bernie Sanders. In response, we must not only articulate that this is a dead-end strategy but offer serious alternatives for people to engage in and understand what we mean by our watchword of Community Self-Defense.
Across the US, from cities to rural areas, it is imperative that anarchists and anti-authoritarians strive to build organizations to battle the emboldened far right, to advocate through militant action the needs of working-class communities, and to combat state repression. We must encourage broad participation from those who are now looking for an alternative to the failed strategy which has got us to this moment. Moving forward, we must be sure to resist the pull of nonprofits and electoralism which will surely return to stymie any radical activity once the Democratic Party recovers.
Trump is an opportunist who understood the frustration of mostly struggling white people and tapped into that anger. He is not currently a fascist but has fascist tendencies that emboldens fascists and authoritarians of many stripes. Calling him one can limit our understanding of fascism, which we need to develop in order to better oppose it.
We are encouraged that so many have taken to the streets across the country. We hope more will do the same. Trump’s attacks in the form of policy and his supporters physical attacks and intimidation, must be opposed from day one.
Our organizations must be effective. The sense of despair many are feeling is grounded in the reality of an ascendant far right. Right now, they face little resistance. The sense of urgency many of us have felt is a recognition of the need to build that resistance. It is time for us to take up that task, to find new comrades ready to fight, and to fight. No one is coming to save us–we cannot use the electoral system to fight the far right effectively. It’s time to stop waiting and defend each other in the streets!
What Needs to Be Done:
1. No to National “healing”, working with, or a grace period for the Trump Regime
2. Take to the streets – build a militant resistance
3. Build working-class defense organizations that resist racist attacks, sexual assault, immigration and homeland security raids and deportations, police brutality and state repression
4. Agitate and organize for workers actions – including a general strike against Trump
5. No to containment of the struggle back into the Democratic Party, electoralism and the Non-Profit Industrial Complex"
https://phillyantifa.noblogs.org/post/2016/11/12/no-one-is-coming-to-save-us-an-anarchist-response-to-the-election-of-donald-trump/
T
tands
Guest
" The Trump administration on Thursday revised recent U.S. sanctions that prevented American companies from exporting some electronic equipment to Russia. It also modified penalties on Iran, expanding a list of medical equipment that needs federal authorization to be sold to Iranian customers.
The Treasury Department says U.S. companies can apply to Russia's Federal Security Service, or FSB, to sell encrypted electronic devices. FSB permission or notification is required by Russian law for encrypted devices to be imported, but such contact was barred under penalties the Obama administration imposed after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The FSB is the main successor to the Soviet-era KGB.
Several American businesses and consulting companies sought the change, which doesn't affect other Obama-era sanctions, according to officials.
The Treasury notice used technical language to explain the change. It said it would now allow "certain transactions" with the FSB "that are necessary and ordinarily incident to requesting certain licenses and authorizations for the importation, distribution, or use of certain information technology products in the Russian Federation." It did not elaborate.
Treasury officials weren't immediately available to explain its implications, but the moves don't appear to ease sanctions on the FSB itself.
Democrats and even some Republicans have been concerned about President Donald Trump's commitment to U.S. sanctions after his pledges to improve relations with Russia.
The White House denied it was easing sanctions.
"I haven't eased anything," Trump said in response to a shouted question from a reporter at the White House.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the move was part of a "regular course of action" in adjusting federal regulations."
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/national-govt--politics/revises-russia-sanctions-for-electronics-exports/aAARUO93bZl9yp50oBvMHJ/
The Treasury Department says U.S. companies can apply to Russia's Federal Security Service, or FSB, to sell encrypted electronic devices. FSB permission or notification is required by Russian law for encrypted devices to be imported, but such contact was barred under penalties the Obama administration imposed after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The FSB is the main successor to the Soviet-era KGB.
Several American businesses and consulting companies sought the change, which doesn't affect other Obama-era sanctions, according to officials.
The Treasury notice used technical language to explain the change. It said it would now allow "certain transactions" with the FSB "that are necessary and ordinarily incident to requesting certain licenses and authorizations for the importation, distribution, or use of certain information technology products in the Russian Federation." It did not elaborate.
Treasury officials weren't immediately available to explain its implications, but the moves don't appear to ease sanctions on the FSB itself.
Democrats and even some Republicans have been concerned about President Donald Trump's commitment to U.S. sanctions after his pledges to improve relations with Russia.
The White House denied it was easing sanctions.
"I haven't eased anything," Trump said in response to a shouted question from a reporter at the White House.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the move was part of a "regular course of action" in adjusting federal regulations."
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/national-govt--politics/revises-russia-sanctions-for-electronics-exports/aAARUO93bZl9yp50oBvMHJ/
I believe you actually wrote this post (not cut and paste).tands said:
I would appreciate a little less blanket pejorative (pissant) applied to an entire political party (even democrats).
This lack of civility spreads over into our communication with each other.
"its nice to be nice"
JR
PS: Not a warning just a hope that we can be nicer.
I read the Anarchists Manifesto, it's interesting that they don't brand Trump a fascist...........yet. That might come as a surprise to some.
I don't think he can really be called a misogynist either, I think maybe he likes women a little too much.
He has several women working in his government, maybe people think they are just tokens, I wonder if they feel that way too?
There must also have been a lot of women voting for misogyny in the last election, which seems unlikely.
Going back to the Anarchists, I'm getting the picture that they want to make some areas no-go areas for Police and cause a major confrontation along the lines of the 1968 Paris uprising. Stormy weather ahead.
DaveP
I don't think he can really be called a misogynist either, I think maybe he likes women a little too much.
He has several women working in his government, maybe people think they are just tokens, I wonder if they feel that way too?
There must also have been a lot of women voting for misogyny in the last election, which seems unlikely.
Going back to the Anarchists, I'm getting the picture that they want to make some areas no-go areas for Police and cause a major confrontation along the lines of the 1968 Paris uprising. Stormy weather ahead.
DaveP
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
In other words, you don't know, but you still make the claim... because it's the evil Iran.
The article states:
"Iran's foreign minister refused to confirm the test, saying the country's was not part of the landmark nuclear deal struck with world powers in 2015.
"As all signatories to the nuclear deal have announced, the missile issue is not a part of it," Mohammad Javad Zarif said.
He added that Iran's missile were “not designed for the capability of carrying a nuclear warhead...our ballistic missile was designed to carry a normal warhead in the field of legitimate defence.” "
and
"A Security Council resolution adopted after Iran reached its nuclear deal with world powers in 2015 calls on the country not to take any actions related to ballistic missiles that are “designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”
Mr Zarif contends that its ballistic missile launches are not banned under UN Security Council Resolution 2231 because the prohibition only applies to weapons specifically designed to carry nuclear warheads. "
So there you go.
Again, last time we went through this conservatives were salivating over the prospect of more violence int he middle east, willingly eating up every claim made by the Bush administration, no matter how ridiculous it was. No evidence before the invasion proved the claims, and none did after. Here we are again, with conservatives reading a headline and shaking in their boots just because they read "Iran" and "ballistic missile" in the same sentence.
You should read up on Frank Luntz. Get his book "Words that work" and read it. Watch interviews with him. One of his major achievements was building approval for the invasion of Iraq, and he admits himself that what he told politicians to do was to take word of the target, "Saddam" and "Iraq", and put it in close vicinity to a negative term, in that case "9/11", "Al Qaeda" or "Bin Laden". Just by having those in close proximity people will transfer the negative emotions of the latter to the former.
You might think I'm making this up, or that it's ludicrous, but this is his own words, and his resume speaks volumes, not to mention the fact that it worked back then as millions of ignorant Americans went on to support the war for those implied reasons. And here we are yet again. No actual proof is necessary, just a claim.
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
We've gone through this. It's about the normalization of something awful. Regardless of what you think about what these protesters did, that's what many of them fear. I actually agree that free speech is valuable, but Berkley surely isn't obligated to supply him with a platform for his hatred, misogyny and racism.
And please stop pretending that this small group of people that show up at protests throwing rocks and burning things are representing the masses. They represent the "liberal voice" about as much as your British civilized soccer houligan represents all soccer fans.
You make a fair point, no-one wants to fall into the Iraq trap again.
But it's not just conservatives who do the "No actual proof is necessary, just a claim" thing.
The whole Trump paranoia has the liberals doing much as you describe over Iran, over Trump.
DaveP
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
No, it's not unlikely at all. You have much too high an opinion about that subgroup of the electorate, and I don't mean women in general, I mean female Trump voters. If you don't get why he's a misogynist by now, then, well..... I don't think you ever will...
DaveP said:
Well, there's one way to be sure he gets his spoils, and that's by starting something, something you appear to promote.
The problem here is that you can't just reduce this to "damned if we do, damned if we don't" without actually understanding what you are proposing or supporting and its consequences, and juxtaposing that to what you actually know is factually true.
First prove that Iran is breaking the recent agreement, then discuss what actions could be taken, then figure out the consequences, then tally that up. Like I said, your rhetoric and that of the conservatives just assumes that because it's "Iran" + missile it's evil intent. It does look like the ramp-up to the Iraq war. Claim they're up to nothing good, then ask them to prove a negative.
Now, let me offer a perspective on this to (I think) prove my point:
- What means of defense is Iran allowed to have, both morally as a sovereign nation and legally as a sovereign nation, and what would that defense look like?
Now, if the answer to that question is "a conventional military with conventional weapons, not WMDs", then the answer to the second would be "just like what we just saw". Seeing an image of a missile test in newspaper tells you (us civilians) absolutely nothing about the capabilities of that missile.
By the way, it's curious when you invoke the security council as some sort of leverage for your argument against Iran, yet completely ignore the very same body when it comes to Israeli colonization using settlements. Then the security council resolutions are not really relevant....
DaveP said:
"would lead"? Not "Could lead"?
Israel has nukes, and in order for your prediction to be true the leadership in Iran would want to die. Not figuratively, but literally. Because the guaranteed response to an attack on Israel now that it has nukes, with nukes, is more nukes. In other words it's mutually assured destruction. So again, do you really think the leaders of Iran are suicidal?
I don't think they are. But I think ignoring that fact conveniently lends to a narrative that conservatives like.
(and yes, I keep harping on "conservatives" now because that's how we're describing people now, with no nuance at all. That's what works, not depth or breadth).
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
He said during the campaign he'd target Muslims, now he's doing it. He said during the campaign he'd essentially dismantle government agencies, now he's doing it. "We" said he'd put dangerous people in power, now he's doing it. This is only about two weeks into his presidency. Have you ever seen anything like this in the US? Like, EVER?
I'll just reiterate what I pointed out earlier, and I would for once like to see one of you Trump apologists at least acknowledge this appointment:
The CEO of the publication that issued headlines like the following has been placed as a regular member on the National Security Council;
'The solution to online 'harassment' is simple: Women should log off'
'Bill Kristol: Republican spoiler, renegade Jew'
'Trannies whine about hilarious Bruce Jenner billboard'
'Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy'
'Hoist it high and proud: The Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage'
' "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?" '
'Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet'
"There's no hiring bias against women in tech, they just suck at interviews"
Does that tell you nothing about where we're heading???
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
I have a problem with the label they ascribe to themselves, and the either-or view that is perpetuated in the US and to a degree also in Europe. The view is if you're not a Republican/Conservative you're a part of "them". Since a person who is a true Anarchist is not a conservative/Republican he will then be a "liberal" or "Democrat".
These protesters could be paid infiltrators, they could be people who call themselves "Anarchists" but aren't, and they could be actual revolutionary anarchists. We just don't know. But either way it's unfortunate to use that term to refer to them, because it only serves to dilute any real definitions of various political ideologies.
dmp
Well-known member
So for folks wondering why citizens in the US are protesting and resisting the Trump administration, here is a good example.
Republicans in the house introduced a bill to sell off millions of acres of Public land last night. I've already posted about the long term Republican goal to sell off (steal) Public assets as part of an ideological anti-government agenda.
Actions like this by Trump and the Republican Congress would not be reversible and would damage the public for generations.
The bill was already withdrawn after strong opposition by sportsman and conversationalists.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/02/republican-selling-public-lands-bill-withdraw-jason-chaffetz
Republicans in the house introduced a bill to sell off millions of acres of Public land last night. I've already posted about the long term Republican goal to sell off (steal) Public assets as part of an ideological anti-government agenda.
Actions like this by Trump and the Republican Congress would not be reversible and would damage the public for generations.
The bill was already withdrawn after strong opposition by sportsman and conversationalists.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/02/republican-selling-public-lands-bill-withdraw-jason-chaffetz
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
I think you're missing my point. Who are the people that have been quoted, and who do they represent? How are they best characterized and labeled?
This is all you have to go on:-
https://phillyantifa.noblogs.org/post/2016/11/12/no-one-is-coming-to-save-us-an-anarchist-response-to-the-election-of-donald-trump/
No I haven't, and I am forced to put some of it down to him being a business man and not a professional politician.
He is teetotal, must be a first.
He is delivering on his campaign promises, must be a first.
You have to admire his work ethic too.
I know that all of this is irrelevant to you, but it gets noticed as being different from business as usual.
DaveP
T
tands
Guest
mattiasNYC said:
Maybe this will help clarify. (And point taken, JR)
"We do not recognize the right of the majority to impose the law on the minority, even if the will of the majority in somewhat complicated issues could really be ascertained. The fact of having the majority on one’s side does not in any way prove that one must be right. Indeed, humanity has always advanced through the initiative and efforts of individuals and minorities, whereas the majority, by its very nature, is slow, conservative, submissive to superior force and to established privileges.
But if we do not for one moment recognize the right of majorities to dominate minorities, we are even more opposed to domination of the majority by a minority. It would be absurd to maintain that one is right because one is in a minority. If at all times there have been advanced and enlightened minorities, so too have there been minorities which were backward and reactionary; if there are human beings who are exceptional, and ahead of their times, there are also psychopaths, and especially are there apathetic individuals who allow themselves to be unconsciously carried on the tide of events.
In any case it is not a question of being right or wrong; it is a question of freedom, freedom for all, freedom for each individual so long as he does not violate the equal freedom of others. No one can judge with certainty who is right and who is wrong, who is closer to the truth and which is the best road to the greatest good for each and everyone. Experience through freedom is the only means to arrive at the truth and the best solutions; and there is no freedom if there is not the freedom to be wrong.
In our opinion, therefore, it is necessary that majority and minority should succeed in living together peacefully and profitably by mutual agreement and compromise, by the intelligent recognition of the practical necessities of communal life and of the usefulness of concessions which circumstances make necessary.
As well as their reason and experience telling them that in spite of using all the alchemy of elections and parliament one always ends up by having laws which represent everything but the will of the majority, anarchists do not recognize that the majority as such, even if it were possible to establish beyond all doubt what it wanted, has the right to impose itself on the dissident minorities by the use of force.
Apart from these considerations, there always exists the fact that in a capitalist regime, in which society is divided into rich and poor, into employers and employees whose next meal depends on the absolute power of the boss, there cannot be really free elections."
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-majorities-and-minorities
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
Ok, but then you have to continue... you link to "antifa" which is a global anti-fascist "mindset", and isn't necessarily anarchist in nature. That's the first issue. Secondly, that link leads to another link, and I quite dislike that type of 'sourcing' information. A link to a text which somewhere contains a link hopefully to its actual origin. So once you go further you end up with may1st anarchists.
So again, are they representing those who protested at Berkley, or vice versa?
DaveP said:
That's not irrelevant, but having a high work ethic or being efficient or effective don't really mean that anything good comes out of it. We were talking about nukes; they're very efficient at killing humans. A good thing? Not necessarily then. So, I won't praise any president just because he works hard if what he does at work is garbage.
As for just saying that some of what we see is just him being a business man I have to object on two accounts;
- we have rules against businesses because capitalism and business interests are inherently amoral, and do what they can to maximize profits. This should tell us that running a nation like it's a corporation is a very dangerous thing. It's not a corporation. It's a collection of human beings with needs that are far beyond that of a corporation. Running it like a business risks losing humanism completely, as well as a longer view on things. The notion that one can just sell out government resources because the free market (business) can exploit them more efficiently is exactly the kind of nonsensical narrow-minded short-sighted amoral and inhumane policies we can expect to see promoted which in turn will have very long term effects for generations to come. Trust me, I know this because I saw exactly this in Sweden.
A nation shouldn't be run as a business, and thus chalking up being a business man as a positive is debatable at best.
- I don't think a lot of what we see is actually due to him being a business man, I think it's due to his personality, and that's the biggest beef I've had with him from the get-go. I hardly need to revisit all of it, but just to add a couple of points to it; during an interview for TV (forget which network) it ended with Trump for a second time pointing to the image of his inauguration as he and the reporter were leaving the White House. He pointed out that the crowds were really large etc. Similarly, it's reported that he brought up his huge election win in the phone call to the Australian PM.
Now, ask yourself why on earth an already elected president of the US would do this. Why would he keep talking about how large his win was and how large the crowds were? If this was any other human with which you had no emotional or ideological connection, say it was an 8-year old for example, many of us would characterize that behavior as bending the truth because of an inflated need to be loved, or an inflated sense of self-importance. And I'm not the only one having put forth this view on Trump. He really is showing a lot of the traits of a narcissist personality disorder. He's acting like a petulant man-child.
Heck, he's the President Of The United States of America, and he finds the time to shit on Arnold Schwartzenegger for having lower ratings on The Apprentice than he did. I doubt he's joking about finding that important.
And this is all why we should be worried. His mental faculties aren't on a level that should be required for a POTUS.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/02/media/kfile-stern-on-trump/index.html
T
tands
Guest
Anarchists don't represent anyone but themselves, it's part of the deal. They do share some beliefs, but it's not required. I'm puzzled that you would choose to claim they're liberals if they don't like conservatives. They don't like liberals either. What's the trouble?
