Deeply moving essay from wife of a Trump supporter.

[Dr. Shades]

The intent is to make faculty feel like they can share no political opinions in the classroom or be very public political statements. The chilling effect of it all has been very effective.

That's a good thing, 'cause instructors should share their political opinions about as often as they share their religious opinions.

In Florida, they control education by dictating curriculum with the stroke of a pen. We had roughly a dozen GE courses before the politically controlled GE overhaul. Now we have three. The reason for doing this is partly to reduce enrollments in our classes. Republican lawmakers in Florida are not so well educated that they have any business deciding which courses belong in GE.

That's weird, 'cause history seems both politically innocuous and necessary at the same time.

You didn’t think this one through. It is the power the governor gave any citizen to challenge books that was the problem.

So, don't the snowflakes who gave in to the challenge share some of the blame?

Sure, lots of bad things could very well happen. They always do no matter who is in office. But there are checks and balances in the Constitution that prevent worst-case scenarios.

Checks and balances that Republicans have not been respecting at all in the Trump era. And will likely continue to disrespect more egregiously as much as they can.

Perhaps, but disrespecting a check or a balance doesn't cause it to stop working.

What exactly about Libertarianism do you find objectionable?

It is a childish philosophy that shows no real apprehension of the value and nature of institutions and community action.

I disagree. It's a philosophy that values institutions and community action to such a great extent that it advocates removing government interference therein so people can more freely engage in them. What's so disagreeable about that?

So, let's not talk past each other. I agree with you about Donald Trump. What I disagree with is hyper-snowflake-ism regarding Donald Trump, that's all. Yes, he is the way he is, but the sky isn't falling.

So, in other words, you have internalized and adopted partisan propaganda that transforms a valid concern about our constitutional republic into a schoolyard taunt that is tantamount to calling someone a sissy.

Never once have I done anything tantamount to calling anyone a sissy for having "valid concerns" about our constitutional republic. Hell, I have such concerns myself! Let's face it, though: Musicians and songwriters quitting creating, being "terrified," being "petrified," having a panic attack and having to leave work, and rescheduling an appointment because you just couldn't function isn't symptomatic of having "valid concerns." They're dead giveaways of hyper-snowflake-ism. We, and the country, have enough resilience to weather the upcoming presidency, just like we did last time.

That’s a dumb thing to do.

Then it's a good thing I didn't do it.

That’s exactly what I suggest.

How about the US Civil War? Should the North have minded their own business and let the South secede?

Let me answer your question with a question: Should Great Britain have minded its own business and let the 13 colonies secede?

[drumdude]

It’s really sad to see the isolationist virus infect so many Americans. There are some things that are worth fighting for.

But propaganda can apparently convince people that even WWII wasn’t worth fighting. I don’t know if “bonkers” adequately captures the feeling.

I respect shades a lot but that “alternative take” is really something else. And I’m seeing it from an increasing number of conservatives across the US.

[Dr. Shades]

I wonder if people should be concerned with putting a career criminal in the White House, or does that make us all snowflakes?

Like I told Kishkumen, there's a difference between "being concerned" and musicians & songwriters quitting creating, being "terrified," being "petrified," having a panic attack and having to leave work, and rescheduling an appointment because you just couldn't function. I too have concerns, but I don't suffer from the hyper-snowflake-ism described in the opening post.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

As is your take on Ukraine and Putin and its relationship to Trump in the White House.

My only "take" on Ukraine and Putin and its relationship to Trump and the White House is that Trump might shut off some or most of the gravy train. What's "dumb dumb dumb" about that take?

It’s really sad to see the isolationist virus infect so many Americans.

Isolationism is a "virus?" Remember, there's a difference between isolationism and military non-interventionism. I'm an advocate of the latter, not the former. Robust international trade and diplomatic relations are a good thing. Inflating the deficit and sending Americans abroad to be killed is a bad thing.

There are some things that are worth fighting for.

Are juicy government contracts for the stockholders of the military industrial complex some of those things that are worth fighting for?

But propaganda can apparently convince people that even WWII wasn’t worth fighting.

Just like propaganda has apparently convinced you that it was better to lose 500,000 Americans in World War II when those lives could've been spared, right?

I don’t know if “bonkers” adequately captures the feeling.

Neither do I.

I respect shades a lot but that “alternative take” is really something else. And I’m seeing it from an increasing number of conservatives across the US.

You've drunk the "America is always right" kool-aid that the powers-that-be want you to drink. Whatever America did is always right, simply because it's America that did it, correct?

[drumdude]

It’s really sad to see the isolationist virus infect so many Americans.

Isolationism is a "virus?" Remember, there's a difference between isolationism and military non-interventionism. I'm an advocate of the latter, not the former. Robust international trade and diplomatic relations are a good thing. Inflating the deficit and sending Americans abroad to be killed is a bad thing.

There are some things that are worth fighting for.

Are juicy government contracts for the stockholders of the military industrial complex some of those things that are worth fighting for?

But propaganda can apparently convince people that even WWII wasn’t worth fighting.

Just like propaganda has apparently convinced you that it was better to lose 500,000 Americans in World War II when those lives could've been spared, right?

I don’t know if “bonkers” adequately captures the feeling.

Neither do I.

I respect shades a lot but that “alternative take” is really something else. And I’m seeing it from an increasing number of conservatives across the US.

You've drunk the "America is always right" kool-aid that the powers-that-be want you to drink. Whatever America did is always right, simply because it's America that did it, correct?

America did Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Objectively terrible wars. Not only that but America’s intelligence agencies spent decades overthrowing governments only to leave them ten times worse than they were.

What I don’t understand is how you can equate our work in WWII with those. It’s a completely backwards understanding of modern history, at odds with (I would hazard to guess) nearly every modern historian. The marshal plan, for example, was an unprecedented success. Never before in history had a nation so thoroughly destroyed another, and so thoroughly restored them and their sovereignty. Japan and Germany are living testaments to the success of the western geopolitical policy.

That’s the part that the Russians and their internet propagandists miss. They want to equate Russia and the US’s struggle for power. But the US and NATO countries are not invading neighbors. Anyone who can’t see the difference is completely lost.

[Dr. Shades]

America did Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Objectively terrible wars. Not only that but America’s intelligence agencies spent decades overthrowing governments only to leave them ten times worse than they were.

So America's meddling is bad when it doesn't work, but good when it does.

What I don’t understand is how you can equate our work in WWII with those. It’s a completely backwards understanding of modern history, at odds with (I would hazard to guess) nearly every modern historian. The marshal plan, for example, was an unprecedented success. Never before in history had a nation so thoroughly destroyed another, and so thoroughly restored them and their sovereignty. Japan and Germany are living testaments to the success of the western geopolitical policy.

So the 500,000 American lives lost, and the trillions of dollars of increase of the national debt, were worth it?

That’s the part that the Russians and their internet propagandists miss.

I'm not an internet propagandist. I've held these views for over 30 years, long before the internet as we use it existed.

They want to equate Russia and the US’s struggle for power. But the US and NATO countries are not invading neighbors. Anyone who can’t see the difference is completely lost.

I never said NATO was invading neighbors. I said that NATO is a fatal alliance that can drag the United States into World War III against its will.

Let me ask you this: Should the United States send ground troops to Ukraine? If the answer is "no," then you agree with my take on war. If the answer is "yes," then should you (or your adult son, if you have one) be one of those drafted, trained, and sent there? If the answer is "no," then chances are good that you agree with my take on war.

[drumdude]

So the 500,000 American lives lost, and the trillions of dollars of increase of the national debt, were worth it?

6,000 American civilians lost their lives. In contrast 5,500,000 Polish civilians lost their lives. How many more civilians would you sacrifice to avoid intervening?

http://www.world-war-2.information/casualties/

[Dr. Shades]

So the 500,000 American lives lost, and the trillions of dollars of increase of the national debt, were worth it?

6,000 American civilians lost their lives. In contrast 5,500,00 Polish civilians lost their lives. How many more civilians would you sacrifice to avoid intervening?

As many as you would sacrifice before becoming convinced that intervening wasn't worth it.

[drumdude]

6,000 American civilians lost their lives. In contrast 5,500,00 Polish civilians lost their lives. How many more civilians would you sacrifice to avoid intervening?

As many as you would sacrifice before becoming convinced that intervening wasn't worth it.

The intervention happened and the civilian casualties as I just posted were extremely low. I am convinced it was worth it.

You’re convinced a fantasy hypothetical world where the US let Hitler run amok would have somehow saved lives, or money. Find one academic that believes that non-intervention was likely to produce a better outcome.

[Kishkumen]

Talk is cheap. Explain why getting involved in a world war is preferable to remaining out of it. Bonus points if you can do so without citing the propaganda of the military-industrial complex that makes billions from war.

What, you want me to fight one to prove the point?

[Kishkumen]

It’s really sad to see the isolationist virus infect so many Americans. There are some things that are worth fighting for.

But propaganda can apparently convince people that even WWII wasn’t worth fighting. I don’t know if “bonkers” adequately captures the feeling.

I respect shades a lot but that “alternative take” is really something else. And I’m seeing it from an increasing number of conservatives across the US.

At this point, I am worn out by the madness.