What Does Racism Mean?

Let's start this post by getting the immediate triggers out of the way:
I'm white.
I'm male.
For good measure - I'm not a parent and I have been a citizen of the U.S.A my entire life.

If you feel that any of these things (or anything else, for that matter) means I am not allowed to have an opinion on a topic feel free to leave. If you feel anyone is ever not allowed to have an opinion on a topic then you are a major part of the divisiveness problem in out country and in society as a whole.

---

Before we go any further let's get some other important bits out of the way.

Racism is real.
Racism is a very serious problem.
Racism is pervasive.
Racism is taught to us all from the moment we start to absorb language through until the moment we expire from life.
There is no escaping racism in the modern world; we can but reject the racist thoughts that have infiltrated our minds and embrace the notions of equality and egalitarianism.

I do not, and never have, rejected these notions.

I will admit, as per some earlier posts, that it took me until specific experiences to really understand what these idea meant and to witness them, but I never claimed they did not exist. I, merely, failed to comprehend them. When I was much younger I even questioned some of the things that existed because I hadn't seen any evidence of the systemic oppression that occurs.

---

Some time ago, I am not precisely sure of when, I encountered a graphic in the facebook feed of someone I do not know who posts many graphics, memes, news articles, etc that highlight the various problems in our country. Most of them relate to racism and sexism. I agree with most of them because these things are a problem. But, then, there was this one graphic that jumped out at me because of the core, and severe, level of wrongness. I tried to find it to embed in this post and failed.

It was a screen shot segment of a tweet (or some other social media post) that said:

Black people cannot be racist.

Black people cannot be racist.

Black people cannot be racist.

Black people cannot be racist.

I, immediately, took offense to this as did a variety of other people. As I outlined in previous posts I have experience racism. I have experienced the tiniest sliver of what it is to receive hatred because of my various genetic phenotypes and the resulting physical traits. It was unpleasant but I was able to walk away from all of it. I understand that Black people cannot walk away from it because out entire society is built to maintain that level of scrutiny and subhuman* treatment toward them.

There was another graphic I encountered in the same facebook feed, which I also cannot find, presenting another set of ideas:

Men cannot say what is misogynistic

White people cannot say what is racist

Abusers cannot define what is abuse

I believe it had five lines in total, but I am sure you get the idea. It's a sound concept that outlines that those in the dominant position don't get to define what harms those in the weak position. The bully doesn't get to define whether or not the bullied feels bullied. The assaulter does not get to define if the assaultee is harmed. 

This is important because the origin point of the idea that Black people cannot be racist lies in a specific "equation"drafted by Pat Bidol in 1970

Racism = racial prejudice + institutional power

By the tenets of this equation Black people cannot be racist. The problems with this concept, though, are numerous. First, and foremost, those using this equation seem to subscribe to the concept that the oppressors cannot define the oppression; but the equation was drafted by a white author. Therefore, the very equation they are using to redefine racism as being a practice that can ONLY be perpetrated by the dominant racial group is a hypocrisy in their belief set.

Aside from the hypocritical origin point let's look at the actual words involved.

The combination of the words "race" and the suffix "ism" form the word "racism." Let's take a look at those:

As one can clearly see from these constructs "race" is a specific group of people who share genetic similarities that are physically apparent and "ism" is a practice of some sort related to the root of the "ism." Racism, therefore, is a practice based solely on racial traits. That is the formal definition.
The formal definition has NO mention of it only being applicable to the dominant racial group: NONE. Therefore, by the very definition of the word, anyone individual can be a racist and practice racism.

This newer concept of racism was generated in 1970 and is accepted by only the most far-left liberal academics as being THE valid definition. The term "racism" clearly dates to 1932 in popular use and has been dated to 1902 where it began to replace the previous variant of "racialism." My very meager research into this shows that the term "racialism" has been dated to at least 18971 and that the word "race" applied to humans dates back to at least 1500 with racialist ideas and concepts being discussed all the way back to the beginning of written history (just open The Holy Bible). The idea of segregation and sorting by race is NOT new and NEVER has it been exclusively contained to the dominant racial group.

Furthering this, piggybacking on the idea, is an NEA statement from 1973:

“All white individuals in our society are racists. Even is a white is totally free from all conscious racial prejudices, he remains a racist, for he receives benefits distributed by a white racist society through its institutions. Our institutional and cultural processes are so arranged as to automatically benefit whites, just because they are white.
It is essential for whites for whites to recognized that they receive most of these racist benefits automatically, unconsciously, unintentionally.”
--from EDUCATIONA & RACISM, National Education Association.

This has some merit, which I acknowledged and agreed with above, but it is not a valid statement overall. Both the idea that minorities cannot be racist and that every white person is are removing personal action and personal responsibility from the equation. They eliminate the very seed of institutional racism from reality: personal actions.

Take these examples:

A white person refuses to serve a Black person because of their skin color.
A white person refuses to serve a Latino person because of their skin color.
A white person refuses to serve an Asian person because of their skin color.
A white person refuses to serve an Arab person because of their skin color.
A white person refuses to serve a Native American person because of their skin color.

All of these are an INDIVIDUAL action. The white person in each of these examples is practicing prejudice against another person solely for the color of their skin; they are practicing racism and are, therefore, a racist.

Now, let's take these examples:
A Black person refuses to serve a white person because of their skin color.
A Latino person refuses to serve a Black person because of their skin color.
A Black person refuses to serve a Latino person because of their skin color.
An Asian person refuses to serve a white person because of their skin color.
A Black person refuses to serve an Asian person because of their skin color.
An Asian person refuses to serve a white person because of their skin color.
A Black person refuses to serve an Arab person because of their skin color.
A Native American person refuses to serve an Arab person because of their skin color.

All of these are ALSO INDIVIDUAL actions. In each case the same exact prejudicial practice is being performed based solely on the color of the person's skin. BUT, according to the equation-based definition NONE of these are racism because none of the perpetrators of the action are white.

That's right. This new racism definition is, in itself, racist. It says that the color of your skin determines whether or not you CAN be racist.

Shortly after encountering the above graphics I encountered this article. The author describes herself as "queer, nonbinary Black fat femme writer, artist, and cultural producer."

I posted the article to my facebook feed because I felt it had some good points but, also, that it highlights an ongoing trend of divisiveness that DOES NOT HELP.

This is what I posted with the article:
I agree that it shouldn't be a hobby.
I agree that anyone showing up for a photo op is a problem (I'm being nice and gentle).
I agree that people showing up to undermine the protest and subvert it for their own "fuck the police" or any other political agenda are scum.

I agree that black people have suffered in this land at the hands of oppression since the first one was tossed onto North American soil.
I agree that the systemic issues have arisen and been constantly reinforced in a recursive cycle of smaller and more tightly knit subtle ways to keep power through active oppression.
I agree that black people are disproportionately poor in most places in this country.

I agree that we need to level the playing field by increasing opportunity for the poorest among us and that we need to give them more resources to be able to succeed.
I agree that our efforts to help the poor should go to the poor regardless of their color and that that means those assistance programs will mostly go to black people.
I agree that such an "unfair" distribution is not, at all, unfair.

I don't agree that unilateral reparations are deserved as that is the same level of entitlement that poor whites are accused of for being white.
I don't agree that anyone alive today has experienced 400 years of it of oppression, merely the results of the oppression applied to their lives (VERY different).
I don't agree that every white person is as responsible as those who started the oppression (it's not specifically said, but it is implied).
I don't agree that white people can't be upset and want to help while still having their lives intact.
I don't agree that white people have no place vocalizing against police brutality and racism.

Lastly - this article bothers me because it is, inherently and completely, racist in itself. One canNOT eliminate racism by switching the polarity. One cannot eliminate racism by seeking vengeance based on skin color. One cannot seek to make the world a better place while advocating to judge people based on the color of their skin regardless of what color that is.

This article, like so many other strong activist stances I have seen, is NOT good for society; it's highlighting and advocating for preserving the barriers of skin color rather than trying to erode them.

Whatever color you skin is does not matter - if you judge others by the color of their skin you are a racist. Racism is NOT good.....

I want to see an end to the problem of disproportionate poverty (and ALL poverty). I want to see an end to inequality in educational opportunities. I want to see an end anything other than a person's own merit being the measure of their worth.

Being a good person who adds value to the world should be the ONLY thing that matters. THAT'S what I want to see in our society.

And, again, I was presented with a tirade of condemnation for my stances because I called the author racist. I was told that she cannot be racist because she is Black. I was told that I am undermining the entire equality movement for refusing to accept that the newer definition of racism is valid. I was told that I am using my privilege to reject the suffering of those who don't have it. I was told that I am "white privilege in the flesh" because I refuse to accept that minorities cannot be racist. I was told that racism is NOT a niche of prejudice which, by definition, it CLEARLY is.
The onslaught against me deviated into questioning my stance on sexism in a manner I cannot even comprehend well enough to rephrase. My rebuttal to that was, quite clearly, that the effort to achieve equality for all is NOT the same as redefining a word so that minorities are incapable of it. That doesn't reduce the problem but, rather, it gives a free pass to the minorities to act out the behaviors.

White person does a racist thing - they're racist and a monster
Black person does the same thing - they're "just prejudiced" and it's excusable.

This is NOT acceptable.

Those opposed to my stance were not abated in their onslaught but, rather, became more and more enraged by my continued stance that the meaning of the word is, in fact, the meaning of the word.

Knowing that I am a white male and, therefore, not entitled to any opinions (see above) about anything regarding oppression of any sort of anyone I sought validation from those who are far more qualified to speak to racism than I.

Malcom X said:
"The true Islam has shown me that a blanket indictment of all white people is as wrong as when whites make blanket indictments against blacks,"
and
"I totally reject Elijah Muham­mad's racist philosophy" (Elijah Muhammad was Black, therefore Malcolm X is clearly saying Black people can be racist)

MLK has also said (though these are a weaker example):
"Racism is a philosophy based on a contempt for life."
and
"Racism is total estrangement. It separates not only bodies, but minds and spirits. Inevitably it descends to inflicting spiritual and physical homicide upon the out-group.”


If Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X can both acknowledge racism is something black people can be then it is pretty clear that racism is not something black people are immune to.

Likewise, sexism (because it was brought up in an attempt to undermine my position and my morals with respect to racism) is something that women are not immune to. The first recorded instance of the word "sexism" in print was in 1968 by Caroline Bird. Her words on it include:

Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesn’t matter.

Sexism is intended to rhyme with racism. Both have used to keep the powers that be in power. Women are sexists as often as men.
and




They know isn’t so, but they use the sexist arguments to get around prejudice.

Note that Bird CLEARLY equates "sexism" to racism and CLEARLY outlines that women can be sexist and CLEARLY outlines that sexism is a FORM of prejudice - a niche of it.

I stand on my statements that any individual can be a racist. The creator of the term "sexism" agrees with me, the dictionary agrees with me, the etymology of the words that are combined to make "racism" agrees with me, the most prominent Black civil rights leaders in modern history agree with me. To disagree with me on this is to disagree with all of those.

What I will say, though, is that there is merit to the Bidol equation but it is missing a word (which may very well be in the original text - I cannot locate a copy online to check).

Institutional/systemic racism = racial prejudice + institutional power

There is, without question, legitimacy to this variation on the equation and, by it, minorities canNOT be part of the systemic racism problem on a macro level (there are still micro pockets where they can be the dominant race and white people are victims of racism in those situations). But individual behaviors are STILL A CHOICE. Each and every person, regardless of the color of their skin, has the CHOICE to accept the racist programming of society, reject it, or reverse the polarity and be as racist as those they are racist against.

Individual behavior is a choice. To say that individuals cannot be racist because of the color of their skin is, in itself, racist. Putting forth such racist ideas is a true undermining idea for the pursuit of equality. To say that someone can't be racist because they are a minority is to CONTINUE TO SEGREGATE THEM AND CATEGORIZE THEM AS SOMETHING LESS THAN HUMAN.

So, anyone who subscribes to Bidol's equation as applicable to individuals - YOU are racist. YOU are subverting advancement by continuing to enforce racial compartmentalization. YOU are advocating for a unilateral pardon to all minorities when they commit actions that are racially motivated. YOU are saying that they cannot be individually responsible for their own behavior. YOU are saying that they can't be trusted with their own moral agency when it comes to racial biases and prejudices.

That's right - I am calling everyone who subscribes to Bidol's equation as applied to individuals part of the problem and roadblocks to progress.

Stop saying that minorities can't be something just because of the color of their skin: it's racist.

*Yes, I said "subhuman," I am NOT saying Black people are subhuman. I am saying our society treats them as such. They are oppressed - I am not. Therefore I am NOT privileged; saying whites, specifically men, are privileged is to say that the treatment of women and minorities is NORMAL. It is NOT normal: it is reprehensible, therefore, it is subhuman treatment.


A bunch of links:

https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/feminism-friday-the-origins-of-the-word-sexism/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/01/05/260006815/the-ugly-fascinating-history-of-the-word-racism

https://books.google.com/books?id=JkXJZtI9DQoC&pg=PA663&lpg=PA663&dq=origin+of+%22racialism%22&source=bl&ots=3AofE2tyXX&sig=Pb8iEE6nRuta6xpTpaAq-7YpI2w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGyfWboPbNAhXK1R4KHY7fAC0Q6AEIRTAH#v=onepage&q=origin%20of%20%22racialism%22&f=false

What I consider to be Reasonable Gun Controls

    Another post on gun control. This one is no different from the others I have written in that it has redundancies (points I repeatedly call for) as well as being in favor of reasonable regulation of the firearms proliferation in this country.
    My thoughts stem from the idea that “it’s not the guns: it’s the people.” This phrase, often put forth by gun aficionados, is often paraphrased as “guns don’t kill people: people do.” There is perfect logic in this. People do kill people BUT guns let them do it faster and more efficiently therefore we need to have a means to screen out the PEOPLE but also decrease the efficiency of the guns. There is not a single approach vector to this problem that will solve it as there is not full solution to the problem of violence.

    I examine this problem from the idea of wanting to retain my right to own a firearm (or several). I examine this problem from the perspective of acknowledging that not everyone SHOULD own a firearm. I examine this problem from the view that not everyone should be allowed to own a firearm. I examine this problem as a problem that weights the 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm against the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” of everyone not behind the trigger of any individual firearms. I examine the right to own and operate against the right to life. I examine the right to live against the inconvenience of regulations. Yes, INCONVENIENCE, of regulations. I examine the most advanced personal weaponry on the planet at the time of the 2nd Amendment being crafted against what we have now and I examine the SCOTUS ruling that decided to make “well-regulated militia” a superfluous clause of the 2nd Amendment rather than making it a vital component (thus, altering the 2nd Amendment without a new amendment – really, think about it).

    I have participated in, and lurked in on, many gun control discussions, debates, and full-on flame wars throughout many places on the internet. I have come to the conclusion that the most vocal on either side are unrealistic in their expectations and delusional in their views. Moreover, I have come to the conclusion that many of the pro 2nd Amendment people are psychologically unfit to own and carry firearms and this scares me; it also explains why they are so opposed to regulating the people as they MUST suspect that they would fail to pass any required psychological examinations.

    With all of this preamble here is my proposal for what I consider to be valid, reasonable, and achievable gun control in this country. These ideas are not all my own but the amalgamation is. I acknowledge it will take at least 10 years for true progress to be seen and that it will take two full generations for the existing proliferation of weapons to be brought under control to a point of normalization. But the best programs generate sustainable, and slow, change.

    This plan has several parts that must all be in place to manage the problem.

    1.    Acknowledge the intent of the 2nd Amendment
        a.    “Well-regulated militia” is a core part of the Amendment and needs to be honored. A “militia” needs an official definition and part of having a license needs to be membership in one. As far as I am concerned a local gun club that has rules on how often equipment is serviced and how often marksmanship and handling are tested would be sufficient so long as it maintains records to validate the “well regulated” part. Such records must be made available to the authorities if a warrant is issued. Only records of INDIVIDUAL SUSPECTS can be copied and taken by the authorities as part of an active investigation – with an additional warrant for that specific information.
        b.    The National Guard can be considered a “well-regulated militia” – those enlisted in it meet the criteria.

    2.    Manage the people.
        a.    Every citizen who wishes to have a firearm must possess a license.
        b.    There will be multiple levels of licenses and endorsements. Each successive license includes written testing on the features/liabilities/responsibilities of that level only. Practical exams include safe handling (common for all levels) and marksmanship for that level.
            i.    Base License
                1.    Requires an educational course, a written test, and a practical exam for proper firearm handling.
                2.    Grants unrestricted purchase and use of muzzle-loading weaponry for which the powder, wadding, and ball are separate (e.g. what was available when the amendment was written).
                3.    Requires a preliminary background check.
            ii.    Bolt / Pump Action License
                1.    Requires an educational course, a written test, and a practical exam for proper gun handling AND basic marksmanship.
                2.    Allows 3-round magazines.
                3.    Requires a deeper background check
            iii.    Semi-automatic License
                1.    Requires the bolt/pump action license and a written exam.
                2.    Has two base endorsements: hand gun and long gun. Either/both can be sought. Each requires practical test for marksmanship and handling.
                3.    Allows 3-round magazines
                4.    Requires a deeper background check
            iv.    Full-automatic
                1.    Requires an intensive training program including practical examinations for servicing, handling, care, and marksmanship
                2.    Requires a written test
                3.    Requires an in-depth psychological evaluation and background check (essentially government clearance)
            v.    Continuous expanding licenses
                1.    Each incremental step requires intensive training in the specifics of the weaponry genre and deeper restrictions on psychological and behavioral assessments.
        c.    There will be a government profile built of gun owners as they acquire weapons. This will be a combination of the weapon registry and the online psych eval database. This database will be thousands of questions.
        d.    There are no accidents – any injury or property damage due to a discharged weapon is someone’s liability and will be treated as such in the eyes of the law.
        e.    Anyone discharging a weapon in an unsafe manner loses their license.
    3.    Manage the liability
        a.    Proof of blanket firearm liability insurance must be possessed to acquire a license.
        b.    Each weapon must be added to the policy within 14 days of purchase.
    4.    Manage the weapons
        a.    Every weapon must be registered from point of completion through to disposal; instant registration at the point of sale is the default for licensed vendors.
        b.    Every weapon will have ballistics information logged every time it passes through a licensed firearms merchant (and upon initial completion).
        c.    Each change of possession requires a registration form be filed by both buyer and seller. Buyer’s firearm license number and insurance policy is noted on both.
        d.    Create a buyback program where guns can be turned in for cash.
        e.    Create an anonymous drop program where guns can be anonymously turned in.
        f.    Both d&e generate examination of the weapons, including ballistics, etc. and comparison against open cases. Upon completion of the investigation the weapons are destroyed.
        g.    Every weapon must be sold with a trigger lock.
        h.    Every weapon must be stored in a secure manner.
        i.    In the event than an owner loses their license they have a reasonable time frame to liquidate their arsenal. This will be determined by the judge who revokes their license. Any weapons and ammunition in their possession after the deadline are forfeit.
    5.    Manage the sales
        a.    Every sale must require proof of license and insurance.
        b.    Every sale from a licensed vendor requires to buyer to take a quick (~25 questions) online psych eval. AT THE VENDOR’S FACILITY AND AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. This is a pass/fail scenario and the questions are pulled randomly from the government question base.
        c.    Every sale must have the background check performed. The more intense the licensure level the longer the waiting period. Licenses for up to semi-automatic should have an instantaneous background check.
    6.    Manage the ammunition
        a.    Magazines will be serialized.
        b.    Magazines must be registered; instant registration must be available and the default setting.
        c.    Magazines must be associated with a weapon owned by the same owner.
        d.    There will be magazine endorsements; each requires increasing background checks
            i.    3 magazines, 3-rounds each per weapon (standard)
            ii.    Two additional magazines.
            iii.    Up to 10 magazines
            iv.    Increased magazine capacity to 5 rounds
            v.    Increase magazines to 10 rounds
            vi.    Increase magazines to 30 rounds.
        e.    Ammunition will carry a 100% tax which goes toward treatment for gun violence victims and to support the licensure and background check program.
        i.    EXEMPTIONS
            1.    Police and military are exempted
            2.    Properly qualified security professionals are exempted
            3.    Licensed vendors do not pay the tax, they pass it along.
            4.    Licensed gun clubs and shooting ranges are exempted from charging the tax to members who consume the ammunition on premises. Only ammunition that is taken from the premises need pay the tax.
        f.    Boxes of ammunition are registered and tracked through to final point of sale. Inventory is carefully monitored so as to prevent unlicensed purchased. Individual purchases are assigned to a firearms license.
        g.    Ammunition cannot be purchased for a weapon not registered to the purchaser – even at time of weapon purchase (see instant registration)
    7.    Manage the weapons used in crimes
        a.    A weapon used for violence is forfeit; this also includes weapons that cause injury through accidents.
        b.    Upon completion of the investigation into the crimes in question the weapon is forfeit and destroyed. Even weapons discharged in self-defense are forfeit if they directly generate physical injury. This is a cost of discharging the weapon for violence.
        c.    The funds for selling the scrap metal are directed into the law enforcement and gun crime prevention programs.

In addition to my plan I’d like to share a list of outrageous comments I encountered when examining the gun control debate through the various venues. I tried to find a balanced number of ludicrous comments for each side but I failed.






1. Banning all guns will stop the problem completely

2. The answer is to give everyone guns.

3. No regulations or restrictions should be undertaken because they cannot completely stop the problem.

4. Guns are more important that driving.

5. Localized regions in the US that have strict laws and still have gun problems prove that no gun regulations will help.

6. Gun regulation has not helped anywhere in the world.

7. You can't take away someone's right to a gun even if they are a proven felon and dangerous to society.

8. There is no proof that limited magazine capacity and limited number of magazines would have had any effect on the mass shootings so we shouldn't even try it.

9. Single shot guns are all that should ever be allowed for any reason.

10. Obesity kills more people than guns so we should ban McDonald's first.

11. More people die in car accidents than by guns so we should ban them first.

12. Only the rich should have guns.

13. You can't impose any cost on gun ownership because it infringes the rights of the poor.

14. Everywhere in this country has tons of laws - nowhere can you walk in and buy a guy and walk out.

15. Waiting periods are unconstitutional.

16. Any form of gun control is saying that the entire civilian population is not allowed to have guns.

17. Any attempt to control guns is as bad as the Westborough Baptist Church.

18. Registration of guns will lead to confiscation of them.

19. No gun dealer ever bypasses the laws to sell guns; ESPECIALLY not at gun shows.

20. Private sales should always be exempted from any rules.

21. Every private sale should be illegal.

22. The good guy with the gun is not a myth. Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns constantly.

23. Every gun owner is crazy.

24. Every anti gun person is a communist.

25. Every anti gun person wants to take away ALL rights.

26. Gun ownership is a right, driving is a privilege so they cannot be compared.

27. It doesn't matter than the most advanced personal weaponry when the 2nd amendment was written was a double-barrel musket.

28. We should ban doctors because malpractice kills more people than guns.

29. Since people are killed for their beliefs we should get rid of the 1st Amendment to protect people from the repercussions of their words.

30. Owning guns is a God-given right and people can't take it away.

31. The cost of inconveniencing 100 million people (1/3 of Americans estimated to own guns) is too high to save the lives of people killed by guns every year.

32. Show me the data that shows gun crime is a problem here.
Data provided.
Well, you can't compare just the gun crime rates because poverty drives gun crimes.
Poverty data provided.
Well, the cultures are just too different so you can't compare those countries at all.
Note: countries compared were Canada, the U.K., Australia, Norway, and Israel (for good measure)

33. We shouldn't implement any gun controls because people can find other ways to do mass killings, like McVeigh and his truck bomb.

34. Any action that costs money will unfairly burden the poor so it can't be done.

The End. It was a good effort

There is one primary left.
It's Washington, D.C.

It's horrible to say, though it is completely true, that that primary does not matter.
The meager 20 delegates assigned to D.C. are insignificant except in the tightest of contests; far tighter than the one that just ended (except for D.C.) between Bernie and Hillary.

As it stands Hillary has 2,184 delegates from populace voting: Bernie 1,756.
Even if Bernie takes all 20 of D.C. it does not matter.

This voting tally is enough to generate a contested convention unless Bernie withdraws.
Given the inability of him to win, without bringing in a level of fuckery that would be undermining the populace vote, I hope he gracefully withdraws and diverts his momentum into bringing change through altering the sitting Congress and Senate in his direction. I also hope that a withdrawal will bring inertia for him to wrest control of the Democratic Party from the current leadership to rebuild a progressive platform rather than a platform of barely beating the Republicans.

All of that, though, is secondary to the intent of this post.

The intent of this is to expand upon my earlier predictions.

As I predicted, the situation would unfold such that Hillary ends up with the nomination. That is all but inevitable now.

I still predict that Hillary's nomination spells out doom for us all because it means Trump will take the Presidency.

I predict the following of a Trump Presidency:

He WILL attempt to repeal "Obamacare."
He WILL take actions to disrupt the trade between us and China and between us and Mexico.
He WILL kill the TPP (which I agree with).
He WILL support the Keystone pipeline and try to reanimate it as a project.
He WILL support continued fracking.
He WILL support continued, and expanded, oil drilling.
He WILL work with oil companies to suppress renewable energy.
He WILL try to inhibit or cancel programs that support the poor and underprivileged.
He WILL try to initiate a mass hunt and deportation of illegal immigrants.
He WILL try to mount a full-scale invasion of ISIS-controlled territory.

Why will he do these things?

The working class thinks Obamacare is an abomination that hurts them.
The working class thinks that the trade between us and China and between us and Mexico takes jobs away from the US (they're right, which is why Bernie was a proponent of bringing jobs home).
The TPP is just another way to offshore jobs and restrict our economic freedom to the benefit of the corporate executives.
The Keystone Pipeline will make jobs; the working class cannot see anything beyond that.
Fracking and continued drilling will bring reduce our foreign dependence on oil.
Renewable energy eliminates jobs in the oil industry and is "not feasible" (beliefs that the working class has, despite the reality that renewable energy CREATES jobs and is perfectly feasible).
The poor and underprivileged are, obviously, all freeloaders and shouldn't get the help they need.
The illegal immigrants are, obviously, the problem as they are taking jobs that Americans don't want from the Americans who don't want them while not paying taxes to their stolen SSNs and they're freeloading on our hospitals.
ISIS is the biggest threat to our home soil; it's definitely not white, middle-class, men in their late 20s and early to mid 30s who go crazy and take advantage of the easy access to guns in this country to commit atrocities. Nope - it's all ISIS.

What will happen?
Products from Mexico and China will increase in pricing by at least 10%, probably as much as 30%.
This will be due to a variety of factors, including the tariffs that will be imposed.
Those tariffs will generate revenue that he will use to initiate his great wall.
He will tout the tax revenue as proof that Mexico is paying for the wall and his supporters will applaud it.
His supporters will then blame the higher consumer prices on Obama and other Liberal programs to support freeloaders.
Trump supporters who are getting federal assistance will complain about the new restrictions put in place on them and their "benefits" and blame Liberals and illegal immigrants for those restrictions. Obviously THEY aren't the core demographic, they're the exception to who gets support because they work hard and just can't, quite, make it work out without help. Most people are just freeloaders.
The illegal immigration hunt will cost huge volumes of money and arrest countless people of color who are here legally and detain them for days before releasing them. Many will end up being charged with bogus crimes, or "resisting arrest" when they did nothing wrong. Some will die under mysterious conditions while in detainment. The number of illegal immigrants will decrease and it will become harder and harder to find them as they hide more effectively (and decrease in number). As they are not registered we have no way of knowing how many there are so this will become a massive cost center that always "needs more resources" to do their job.

On the plus side - I don't believe he will truly touch any of the major social issues directly. The only ones he will attack are those that the working class views as "supporting freeloaders" as his entire platform revolves around boosting the economic power of this country again.


I also predict that he will find a way to manage all of his own properties and business ventures and investments such that an impending failure of our economy serves him; because the actions above will strain the middle class through increased costs and taxation while not generating any real benefit.