Donald Trump

[Fleetwood Mac]

I copied your post so that you could perhaps see what you sound like, and how all of your accusations are thus vapid and hypocritical. I'll ignore you from here on out, because it is evident that your arguments - and I use that term loosely - consist entirely of grade school level insults. "Mouse turd." "Twat". "Grow some balls". "You're not worth it". "Two year old". "Lame". And those were just from your latest post. Your previous posts are no better. When you insult all the time (and when the quality of your insults is such as it is), they have no impact. I mean that as advice, not as insult. Reflect upon your own behaviour.

Just a simple question borne out of idle curiosity:

I've never heard the term "here on out". Is this an Americanism?

In England it's: "here on in".

"Here on out" makes no sense. It's a bit like an old friend turning up on your doorstep. Naturally you'd say: "nice to see you, come in". In the US do they say: "nice to see you, come out, would you like a cup of tea?"?

[ChrisGeorge]

Just a simple question borne out of idle curiosity:

I've never heard the term "here on out". Is this an Americanism?

In England it's: "here on in".

"Here on out" makes no sense. It's a bit like an old friend turning up on your doorstep. Naturally you'd say: "nice to see you, come in". In the US do they say: "nice to see you, come out, would you like a cup of tea?"?

Here onward -- does that sound better? But both expressions make sense to me... I speak as a Transatlantic British-born American.

[Mayerling]

I'd have trouble, really, naming any Girondists. To fade away unremembered does seem to be the all too common fate of cautious men in memorable times. It's Danton, Robespierre, and (barely) Hebert that define the Revolution for me, with Napoleon representing more of a return to the normalcy of monarchy, for all that his brand of monarchism was like nothing seen since the time of the Caesars.

Of all the varied legacies of the Enlightment, and the Age of Reason, it is the particular legacy of Robespierre, I firmly believe, which continues to shape our lives and thinking to this day.

What Robespierre invented wasn't totalitarianism per se. Augustus had already done that. What Robespierre hit upon was the notion of human perfectibility through governmental intervention. Robespierre hoped to produce a New Man, one whom reason and natural theology would lead to virtue, when society was structured in such a way as to support virtue.

For all that we generally think of heroic-scale social engineering as a late 19th century idea, it dates from the summer of 1793. Gladstone's reforms; the Commune of Paris; Bismarck's Welfare State; Johnson's Great Society; and even Pol Pot's Re-education Camps all have their roots in Robespierre's notion of restructuring society to produce men of virtue by eliminating the causes of human weakness.

No one prior to Robespierre had even come close to this. Human nature had always been conceded to be the realm either of the Church or of the individual. Attempts to change it were made as appeals to the individual conscience. The idea that it might depend upon environmental factors was probably one that would never even have occurred to anyone before Descartes. The Church had certainly made attempts to suppress heresy by killing heretics; but those campaigns had the limited goal of stopping unwanted memes by killing their carriers. The Church's very zeal in suppressing dangerous ideas can be seen as an implicit admission of their belief in the impossibility of changing human nature.

To turn this back around (albeit perhaps clumsily) to the topic of the thread, I see Trump as battling, successfully so far, against Robespierre's legacy. The rage that the white working class is expressing, the rage that has fuelled Trump's campaign, is in some large part a rage against being told what to think, and how to feel, by the political elites. And not just telling people what to think, not just trying to shame people for contrary points of view, but literally trying to manipulate the language to make it difficult to coherently express dissenting opinions. The elites may not realize the genesis of their system, but Robespierre would know his own.

Interesting points Ginger. Actually I wonder if Robespierre himself would feel comfortable with the interpretation. He would not be claiming the originality of the ideas, as he is borrowing from the Enlightenment figures like Rousseau (especially him with his ideal child rearing concepts) and Voltaire. And other ones in the elite of the Revolution, like Marat, were quick to point connections with past Enlightenment figures. Marat kept claiming (as a doctor and so-called scientist) that he knew more about optics then Isaac Newton, and he was a friend of Benjamin Franklin (nothing has ever been found to show any connection between Franklin and Marat).

I also wonder if we can dismiss old Augustus with just producing totalitarianism. He actually was trying to revitalize the Roman religion for his capital and his empire: the importance of family and piety towards the Gods as the center of decent living. Ironically for Octavian, his own family's antics undermined his plans (as he slowly came to bitterly realize).

To me, Robespierre attempted to influence the general thinking of the French nation to practice what the philosophes and Enlightenment had preached, but his own nature was such as to slowly feel he alone embodied this, and everyone was therefore suspect. Interestingly modern scholarship has sort of reduced Robespierre's actual political importance a little (his symbolic importance remains high).

R. R. Palmer wrote a major study of the Revolution in the Reign of Terror back in the 1940s, "Twelve Who Ruled" about the "Committee of Public Safety", and he pointed out that several other members (many no longer well recalled, like Robert Lindet) were instrumental for the policies that emerged, in particular one whom became a thorn in Robespierre's side - that unexpected military genius Lazare Carnot, who was like the Albert Speer of the French Revolution in increasing military industrialization and supply, and in modernizing the French armies. Carnot was interested in driving the invaders out of France and protecting the Revolution, and had little time for removing unwelcome elements in the population that Robespierre sought to get rid of. Robespierre was not to thrilled about it, but could not prevent Carnot's rise in importance.

Interestingly a more popularizing historian of the 1960s, Stanley Loomis, in "Paris in the Terror" pointed out a flaw in the so-called success of the "Committee of Public Safety". Later in the "Reign of Terror" Robespierre found an even more dangerous foe than Danton, Hebert, or Carnot, in fellow-terrorist Joseph Fouche.

Fouche was tarnished by being part of the "Drownings" in Nantes (I think it is Nantes) of Carriere, because he was stationed there. There is some question about his actual planning involvement, but he did willingly carry out Carriere's orders. Robespierre summoned Fouche to Paris, and intended to give him similar treatment as he had most of his foes/victims. However, in Fouche he met his match, and his master in intrigue. First, Fouche joined the "Jacobins", and within a month, got himself elected President of that Club! While Robespierre wasted time getting Fouche kicked out, Fouche presented himself to the National Assembly to answer the charges Robespierre had brought. Now Robespierre expected Fouche would bring his defense to Robespierre's attention only or to the Committee of Public Safety (presumably Robespierre, Couthon, and St.Just hearing them). Instead Fouche addressed the main political committee: THE COMMITTEE OF GENERAL SAFETY, which technically controlled Robespierre's twelve man committee. Because it had been doing all this valuable work, the Committee of General Safety had never bothered Robespierre about his executions. Fouche, by doing what he did, was reminding them who was actually the boss! This was actually the point that things began to slip for Robespierre, though not thoroughly for another two or three months. To add to Fouche's admirable scheming against Robespierre, he went undercover, visiting hundreds of political figures, pointing out they were on Robespierre's hit list.
When that two days in Thermidor came, it hit Robespierre like a ton of bricks.

I think at this point we have to leave the French Revolution. In the past Abby got on my case on another thread about breaking the course of the thread by discoursing on an example that became a tangent. This thread is about Donald, not Maximillian. Pity, Maximillian is more interesting.

Actually, by now, those millions of bone headed white males who supported Donald (with some bone heads who were women) are beginning to sense some things they don't like:

1) He's getting lobbyists in Washington, D.C. to assist him. That means he is embracing the very elites that the boneheads were opposed to. This really should not be so surprising - any President would.

2) He's backtracking on the wall business - it might not be for some time, and Mexico probably won't pay for it. [If you recall, in the "Khaki" Election of 1918, Lloyd George promised to squeeze hard to make Germany pay for the war, "until the pips squeak" - and he and the French did! Which helped lead to Hitler. Maybe Trump is more aware of historically reoccurring threats than we thought.] The great bunch of fools don't like that.

3) Now (having met with Obama - I'm sure Obama had the Oval Office fumigated after the meeting) Donald is not quite willing to destroy Obamacare - he may only make one or two changes. The idiots wanted him to destroy it (one wonders why, most of them don't have medical insurance at all).

In short the back-tracking on campaign promises is beginning. His jackyl spokesmen Gingrich and Giuliani are offering lame excuses like, "Wasn't that a great campaign issue?!" (Newt) or "I'm sure it will be built soon!" (Rudy, the Mayor of no where in particular now). The disillusionment will slowly sink in. I note that Sanders has found his cohones (a term a Mexican would understand, but not a faux-billionaire golf course builder, even with a locker room sense of language) and threatened to be Donald's worse nightmare if he tries to dismantle too much.

In short, the political honeymoon is over. It lasted only four days. Shortest for any President since Herbert Hoover.

Jeff

[Karl]

Just a simple question borne out of idle curiosity:

I've never heard the term "here on out". Is this an Americanism?

In England it's: "here on in".

"Here on out" makes no sense. It's a bit like an old friend turning up on your doorstep. Naturally you'd say: "nice to see you, come in". In the US do they say: "nice to see you, come out, would you like a cup of tea?"?

"Here on out" - "from now on". Maybe it is an American phrase, I've never given that much thought. I have never heard "here on in", however - that makes no sense to me. "In" what? But it is "out" from this point in time.

[Ginger]

Just a simple question borne out of idle curiosity:

I've never heard the term "here on out". Is this an Americanism?

In England it's: "here on in".

"From here on out" is an Americanism, yes. I'm particularly aware of it as my late boyfriend (from Blackburn) always said "From here on in".

[Pcdunn]

I don't think "here on in" makes sense in that context, but I'm just an American, after all.

I've been trying to adjust to the outcome of the election and reorient myself. I had an argument with the bus driver on Election Tuesday, who turned out to be a fairly rabid Trump supporter (an angry white man) who despised Sec. Clinton and didn't seem to like women in general, from comments he made about his ex-wife and the lies she had told, etc. He felt either Hilary had used a secret server to hide her corrupt deals from the Freedom of Information Act Requests, or she had just loafed in her job, not handled any classified documents at all-- in which case, what were we, as tax-payers, paying her salary for, anyway?

I really didn't understand this anger was out there, and it saddens me. I'm a Baby Boomer, born in the mid-Fifties, growing up with the chaos of the Sixties and Seventies, who really believed in peace, love, equality, all the great ideals of our age. (You know, watching news footage of the huge, local anti-Trump demonstration at Denver's Capitol reminded me of the marches and rallies we used to see on the news, back in the day.)

Part of what depresses me is that our President-Elect used so many bigoted and lewd terms to appeal to his supporters-- and he got their support! It makes me feel as if the progress the country made over the decades is stopped, and the work will be undone.

I will continue to believe in diversity, freedom, fairness, and I hope our divided country will be able to "come together" again and make equitable decisions in the future for EVERYONE. I mean, many people didn't care for Obama, and that's fine, but swinging the pendulum so far backwards-- well, it is what it is. It just isn't something I like.

[Wickerman]

Just a simple question borne out of idle curiosity:

I've never heard the term "here on out". Is this an Americanism?

It's another way of saying, "from this day forward".

[Karl]

I don't think "here on in" makes sense in that context, but I'm just an American, after all.

I've been trying to adjust to the outcome of the election and reorient myself. I had an argument with the bus driver on Election Tuesday, who turned out to be a fairly rabid Trump supporter (an angry white man) who despised Sec. Clinton and didn't seem to like women in general, from comments he made about his ex-wife and the lies she had told, etc. He felt either Hilary had used a secret server to hide her corrupt deals from the Freedom of Information Act Requests, or she had just loafed in her job, not handled any classified documents at all-- in which case, what were we, as tax-payers, paying her salary for, anyway?

Well, to quote George Burns: It is too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxicabs [or buses, as the case may be] and cutting hair.

[John G]

Well, I did suggest that Trump was going to disappoint a lot of people: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...492_story.html

[Harry D]

I just love the fact that Trump woke up one day and shrugged "I wanna be president" and the bastard did it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

"From here on out" is an Americanism, yes. I'm particularly aware of it as my late boyfriend (from Blackburn) always said "From here on in".

I know Blackburn reasonably well - when I lived over Lancashire way.

Ever been?

[Fleetwood Mac]

It's another way of saying, "from this day forward".

Exactly my point.

If you're at the point of starting something, then in seems more appropriate than out - as clearly out suggests the end.

[ChrisGeorge]

This report by Ted Koppel about Trump voters in West Virginia is worth watching.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-view-of-voters-in-west-virginia-coal-country/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab8c&linkId=31103542

[sdreid]

I just love the fact that Trump woke up one day and shrugged "I wanna be president" and the bastard did it.

No question; this will be an election that will be studied for centuries.

[Magpie]

No question; this will be an election that will be studied for centuries.

Not as must as the next one: