[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by CarylB

The whole basis of a democracy is that we don't have to "suck it up" as so many Trump supporters are saying (and many Brexit supporters here). We need to hold those in power accountable, speak up in protest when they propose things we believe are detrimental. This is NOT about loving your country or not, nor about "taking it down", nor should it be derided or dismissed as "crying", nor are those of us who are vigilant, stand up and speak out "snowflakes". It is a vital and essential part of any democracy, and shows love of one's country and concern for its people, all of them, whether or not we are personally affected.

Very well-said, Caryl. I might argue that it is in fact patriotic to question authority (and remove it if necessary) that appears damaging to your country.

And Trump did a pretty good job himself of "taking down" the country in his inaugural speech.

Originally Posted by CarylB

The page on civil rights was replaced with a page entitled "Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community" that replaces concerns with how police act with a demand for more cops. It also paints predominantly black inner cities as shooting galleries. It includes the statement "In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent", which is false: homicides in Washington, D.C. were down in 2016 over 2015.

I find that page extremely troubling, and I support the Law Enforcement Community. The wording to me sounds threatening: " The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it." How does he propose to do this? Send in the National Guard? Declare Martial Law (which can suspend people's rights)?

"Supporting law enforcement means supporting our citizens’ ability to protect themselves. We will uphold Americans’ Second Amendment rights at every level of our judicial system."

The Second Amendment reads as such: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

He seems so committed to upholding the Second Amendment that he seems to have forgotten about the First, which gives the people the right to peaceful assembly, and also to freedom of speech and the press:

"Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter." More preying on fear.

We've seen his current war with the media; he's threatened to kick the press corps out of the White House unless they are nice to him. The first thing a tyrant wants to do is suppress the press.

Trump has mentioned Chicago specifically a couple of times; I won't deny that there is a real violence problem in some areas. And we do need more police, at least in this city, as they are short-staffed. I'm also all for a better relationship between the community and the police, but I don't want to see a police state. I was too young to remember the civil uprising and riots in the 60's, but my mother told me about how frightening it was; I fear we may be headed back there.

Am I being overly dramatic? I truly hope so. But it seems to me it's being plainly spelled out, and just reinforces what he said all through his campaign. People say, "Oh, just wait until he's president. You'll see, he'll change." I tend to believe what Maya Angelou wisely said, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

Originally Posted by nightinr

In fairness I think the protests have been very modest. A couple of shop windows smashed by a few thugs.

The left wing media are almost encouraging people to protest.

Let's see how he gets on....hopefully he'll become more humble and inclusive!

Well, he had a chance to become humble and inclusive beginning with his inauguration speech; he did not.

It does appear that the protests have so far been pretty peaceful, for the most part (we women know how to do it ). There have been a few sporadic incidents that for all we know could have been started by the right to make the other side look bad and incite unrest. I don't know what to believe anymore.

(I know I said I'd let it be- I guess I went back on that.)

Originally Posted by CarylB

.. and I'm quite sure that he removed the one of MLK because Obama had put it there, nothing to do with Churchill or the British (although as he seems reluctant to get full facts before acting, he may well have seized on the Churchill bust to replace it because he erroneously believed Obama had actually moved the original one out, rather than simply have placed the copy immediately outside when the original was returned to the UK).

It's interesting that you say that; I kind of had the feeling that he chose to take his oath on Abraham Lincoln's Bible, because Obama had been the first president since Lincoln to do so (which I thought was powerfully symbolic); almost like he had to pee on Obama's territory. I just found it distasteful.