I remember the Civil Rights Movement. It took marches, boycotts, sit-ins

[still_one]

and a wide range of other nonviolent activities at all levels, federal, state, local, and businesses, and it still took a decade before the Civil Rights Act was passed.

[Zoonart]

1. I understand your point

As MLK said, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
The problem here, is that we can't afford to wait for justice to arrive THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE and we need to put it out right now.
Our protests are going to have to display more and more urgency, and with that power and urgency will come the temptation by this administration to spark violence in order to shut us down.
This is the very real threat going forward.
During the previous civil justice movements including Civil Rights, Women's Reproductive Rights, LGBTQ rights, the sitting administrations were not INSANE. They reacted with the constitution in mind and the right to peaceful protest was not denied.
We cannot expect the same outcome.

[still_one]

2. The government will exert violence against the protesters. There was a lot of

violence by authorities to put those in the Civil Rights movement "in their place".

Hoover's FBI was part of the problem, and it was only because political pressure was exerted on the FBI that they actually started doing their job.

Your assessment is correct for the most part in regard to the past administrations. We do not have that foundation with the current occupant of the white house, so this could get very bad, very quickly.

[moda253]

3. There needs to be marches and sit ins and all of that constantly

[still_one]

4. yup

[socialist_n_TN]

5. Nothing substantial will happen until this struggle goes into.......

the economic sphere with strikes and boycotts. The people that rule this country and own this system don't care what you do as long as you don't affect their profit. Threaten their wallets and things happen. Bad first, but then good.

[still_one]

6. If they get their way and undo all regulation, it will make the financial

implosion of 2008 look like child's play. That is when they may start to pay attention, but by that time it may be too late

[socialist_n_TN]

7. Another even more severe "Great Recession" was already in the cards............

within the next couple of years no matter who won the presidency. Trump MIGHT rush the process along. Or he might not. It depends on how his policies affect the rate of profit which has been falling since 1999. HOWEVER that's not the effect I'm talking about. In the near and medium term, the only thing that will derail Trump and the right-wing agenda is the people hitting them in their profit margin.

[still_one]

8. I know that wasn't what you were referring to. I also don't agree with your assessment

that it would not have mattered who would have won the presidency. It sure would have. If the Democrats were in control Dodd/Frank would not be on the chopping block. They would not be looking for tax cuts for the top 1%, and there would not be a risk of a trade war, or for that matter a full blown hot war.

While I agree with you on the protests and boycotts, etc, because we lost complete government control, it is going to take a long time. Too long for some people before this is over

[socialist_n_TN]

9. The only economists that predicted the 2008 crash were Marxist.............

economists who tracked the falling rate of profit. Since profit is the ONLY thing that matters under capitalism and since the rate of profit STILL hasn't been restored since 2008, another crash was inevitable. That falling rate of profit is why we've been stuck in this Long Depression of low systemic growth since the Great Recession.

But if you want to blame Trump, I'd actually expect it. I'll probably do the same in order to fan the flames of discontent, but yeah, another even more severe GR was on the way no matter who won the election.

Getting rid of Dodd Frank might accelerate the march to another GR, but it was a pretty weak bill in the first place. And we don't really know what the ultimate outcome of taxation for the top 1% would have been under Clinton. She might have eventually cut taxes on billionaires too in order to restore growth. And wars under Clinton would have been on the agenda. The enemies have been different, but there are always wars over market share and resources when an empire is in decline. And Obama with his 7 countries bombed and droned proved Dems aren't averse to killing brown people overseas if it helps capitalist profits.

[KittyWampus]

10. It also took people getting murdered in cold blood and beaten.