AGREE TO DISAGREE? REALLY?

I, and some of my Marion County Democratic  colleagues have a table outside the Farmers Market on Saturdays, where we sell buttons and make a strong presence against the most incompetent presidential administration in our entire history. Not surprisingly, this same administration is also massively corrupt. Corruption and incompetence are connected. One accompanies the other as tightly as two snakes mating. It makes sense. Under corruption, where insiders compete to get inside the Boss's colon, people do not last long enough to get experienced. The rewards of our weekly ritual at Saturday Market are personal and gratifying. I love seeing someone crack a smile or give a thumbs-up as they pass by. By contrast, there are the very occasional MAGA. Some are brave enough to express themselves openly. Others say something as they pass by, like squeaking out a fart in the grocery store and quickly disappearing. Sometimes I get a quick word in. This is to the woman who ended her fart salad of words with, "we can agree to disagree":

No, lady we can not agree to disagree when it comes to the presidency of Donald J Trump and the party that blindly follows his lead, too timid to disagree. Chances are there have not been many things in the last 60 years that you and I could agree on. Economics, gun control, global climate change, even party politics. On those we could agree to disagree. But this is different. On this administration we can never agree that there is room for disagreement. Not when our Constitution is threatened. Not when a president is disregarding the rulings of the Courts, including the Supreme Court. Not when Due Process is hanging in the balance, even for a citizen of this nation. Not when people, who's skin is darker, are trundled off to a Salvadoran prison with no Due Process or Libya. These, and much more are the methods of a dictator. I will never agree that you and others like you have the right to disagree when these, and so many other examples are threatening our future as a democracy. 

What if I did agree to disagree? That would mean that the closure of federal office buildings and departments would continue under DOGE or some other extra-legislative group. Entities that had previously been established through the legislative process and signed into law by the President, funded through the years by Congressional appropriations. Entities where the legislative process included hours of debate between the two parties after the procedural process of proposing a bill and mark-up had been completed. Whatever the outcome both parties were full and complete participants in the process of making that bill into law. And  continueing its funding. Their actions are guided by the Constitution of the United States. Agreeing to disagree with you, would mean that legislators from both sides of the aisle are left out of the debate. There is no debate! One side, the fascist party, do not seem to mind. The other party, that represents the other half of the electorate, including us, has no opportunity to register their opinion. We have no chance to agree or disagree.

What do we do when the court rules against the Trump administration, in one case 9-0, and he does nothing to correct the issue that the court ruled he must?  We are left out of that discussion, too. Even worse, there is no legal protection of the court ruling. No punishment, legal or political. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is in fact being threatened by impeachment by a law group headed by Steven Miller, AKA Pee-Wee German, who is not even a lawyer. This is the result of you empty-headed people who think your opinion trumps
(forgive the stupid pun), the Democratic process. 

Finally, when the Constitutional right of Due Process is denied, even to American citizens, what right do we have to exercise our rights when there is nobody who cares what our rights are. What makes this even worse is that the people who's human rights are endangered by an unregulated immigration army of Brown Shirts, are blatantly lied against, with no place to go to defend their reputation? 

This is the result of people like you, Karen, or whatever your name is, thinking that you have the right to disagree, even when you're disagreement is not balanced by anything resembling thought! I can not agree to disagree with you, when the some total of your thought process is no more vigorous than which kind of toilet paper to buy.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE OREGON REPUBLICAN LEGISLATOR: IF YOU DON'T GET YOUR WAY, WALK OUT.

    Oregon is generally a blue state, thanks to the major population areas on the west side of the Cascades. The eastern half of the state is a much different story. Thanks to the motor-voter bill, signed into law a few years ago, and mail-in voting , that has been in place since about 1987, the Republican party has not been successful at voter suppression. Thus, the GOP holds a minority of seats in both houses of the legislature. In the Senate, Democrats have a veto-proof majority. Thus, the only legislative tactic left to them is a walkout which denies a quorum. They have done this twice, in two consecutive legislative sessions. Both times have been over the issue of cap-and-trade. In 2019, one legislator, Brian Boquist of Dallas, actually threatened to shoot any state cop who came to take him to the capitol. That's another thing about Republicans, there are too many unhinged people who own guns.       Republican disbelief aside, our world is threatened b...
Read more

IS THERE A MORE BORING VOICE THAN A I?

Most nights I sit with my cat in my lap as I scroll through the political offerings on YouTube. I have a TV, but I gave up trying to figure out how it works without cable. Thats how old i am. Like most things media, there are good Podcasts, and there are guys in muscle shirts. There are also historical snippets among the hysterical snippets. Some of them are very good and the narrators successfully run the gamet between professorial and subtle irony. Few are boring. It's not hard to tell the difference. The most disappointing historical snippets are the ones with digitally created voice-overs.  I used to know a fellow who was a pretty good actor, no one you would know, but one who strode the boards of local theater groups with characters that were believable; the aim of every actor. When I met Doug, he had been at it for about 10 years, after mustering out of the airforce at the end of the Cuba missile crisis. He completed his acting career in 2005 when his twenty-year battle with ...
Read more

ASSERTIVENESS

   A white Male with economic or political stature is expected to be assertive, it is a desirable trait. A black man or woman of any color with economic or political stature is accused of being a tyrant in the first instance, or pushy in the second, if they assert their stature. Assertiveness is considered an undesirable characteristic, or so asserts the white males. The Presidency of the United States is supposed to be held by a statesman or diplomat who, while asserting his/her stature, must be seen as thoughtful or reasoned. The election of 2008 gave us the first non-white Male president. He was thoughtful and reasoned, a gifted diplomat whose assertions were a model of statesmanship. The aggrieved white males whose candidacies were handily rejected could not tolerate this interloper on their rightful domain. He was a (gasp) black man who had moved his attractive and morally upright family into their Whitehouse. His desirable traits were a tyranny and he was a tyrant, they ...
Read more