search
top

Where Does It End?

Good conversations are being had among the sensible, but for the most part no one is backing away from the precipice we find ourselves at. My more fever swamp righty sources spent the better part of the day saying the cosplay revolutionaries were Antifa trying to make MAGA look bad. Once that was thoroughly debunked, they switched to “no riot at all.” Some are even suggesting that Ashli Babbit who was shot dead by Capitol Police isn’t really dead, and it’s all a false flag op. It’s classic: “my team can never do wrong.” I see more and more people descending into Q-anon bullshit. People who should know better. I see more and more lefties descending into their own fever swamps, where they are the anti-racist saviors who will defeat fascism. This is all a lie. None of this shit is real. Instead of trying to understand what drove Trump supporters to Trump, are doubling down on shaming the deplorables for supporting white supremacy.

This will not fix a damned thing, and will only make things worse.

Trump was often his own worst enemy. Historically, leaders who bring about political realignments are politically talented, but total lunatics. Think of Napoleon as being the archetype of this. Met his Waterloo and ended up in exile, but he changed the entire political landscape of Europe for generations. FDR might be the rare exception who was successful at effecting a long realignment but managed to not be a complete lunatic.

Would be change agents often their success is short lived because their own megalomania defeats them. Trump had that in spades. His strength was in media, which I think he has a very strong instinct for. But when it came to political survival, and moving the ball forward, he wasn’t able to carry much over the finish line. He almost certainly revealed the possibilities of a coalition that is more diverse racially, and more working class. I hope someone comes along who can carry that coalition forward who has fewer self-destructive tendencies than Trump. But that’s liable to be an insider, and I don’t think that coalition would tolerate someone on the inside.

Trumpism is not fundamentally an economic grievance, though economics is downstream from that. It is a deficit of dignity. The anger over politicians and elites who seem to care more about people in other countries than they do Americans here at home, that don’t care about the decay of small towns and cities due to job flight, that want to solve the problem by offering Universal Basic Income, which will only make the dignity deficit worse.

All it takes is a little respect, and maybe accepting that it’s better to pay extra for some things to ensure other Americans can make a decent living and provide. Maybe every election shouldn’t be about owning the “libturds” or the deplorables. Maybe we could agree that politicians are generally horrible people that shouldn’t be trusted with a lot of power. Maybe we can accept that we do actually need police reform in this country. Or that if Congress wants to make something illegal, it should have to pass a law, rather than having most of our laws made by people who are unaccountable.

But one thing is for sure, if we double down on hating our political opponents, calling them names, and descending farther down into the fever swamps, conspiracy theories, and thinking half of your fellow Americans are flaming racist xenophobes, this is going to end very badly.

89 Responses to “Where Does It End?”

  1. Pete says:

    Very well said. I agree completely.

  2. Alice says:

    “if …. this is going to end very badly.”
    Can you imagine worse than having as President someone who sold out to the Chinese Communist Party and took bribed from Ukraine? And it’s all being ignored and swept under the rug?

    Seriously, can you imagine worse?

    America is gone. It’s over. Come Jan. 20, 2021, we will be the occupied nation of Amerika.

    • Sebastian says:

      Sadly, I can imagine worse than Joe Biden.

      • Alex says:

        You don’t have to imagine, we’ve had worse for the last 4 years.

        • Alpheus says:

          In the last four years, we have seen the introduction of censorship by the Tech Industry, but in the last few days, it’s exploded.

          This is an immediate red flag that says the next four years are going to be far worse than the last four.

        • Scott in Phx says:

          That’s delusional.

    • Jim says:

      The sellout to China began with Nixon and really got dangerous under Clinton. Biden’s basically going to be a lapdog to the Chinese Communists for the love of easy money. What I’ve never understood is how unions can be aligned with democrats when they really don’t have union members best interests at heart. As for healing our differences as a nation that’s not going to happen, ever, and I’ve seen this personally. The real problem in this country is politicians trying to force their will on people who just want to be left alone. Eventually that comes to a head with either revolution by the citizens or mass slaughter by the government, we’re not immune from that. You are now seeing more Marxists out in the open in local, state and federal government. And we all know how much Marxists love mass slaughter. But there’s one thing that the people who support them have forgotten, they slaughter their own first.

    • ad-lib says:

      can you imagine reading this piece and IMMEDIATELY responding with this breathless response?

  3. Andy B. says:

    I agree with Pete. Very well said.

    I won’t call this a quibble, but, have you really analyzed that “deficit of dignity”? To what extent does it exist because we were told it exists? To what extent was it a manipulating tool developed over many decades?

    There is no more universal and effective tactic than persuading people they are perennial victims who need a savior to lead them back to their birthrights.

    At the great risk of offending too many people, I will use for an example Christian victimology, as characterized by the non-existent “War on Christmas”. But I know there are people who actually believe there was a time they could get in some kind of trouble for saying “Merry Christmas”, but now they can say it because Donald Trump became POTUS.

    • Jim says:

      I noticed the “Happy Holiday” thing at stores years ago. My response was and still is, “what holiday is that”? When they sheepishly reply “Christmas” my response is always, “well merry Christmas to you too”. Now I’m not saying they were ordered by their employers to not offend the customers, but Christmas shaming has become quite popular.

      • Sebastian says:

        I get kind of annoyed by the pooh poohing of Happy Holidays by Christians. I used it on our club greetings and expected to possibly get shit for it, but was happy I did not. We have jewish members. Sometimes it’s just more polite to use that, and it’s accurate because there are three holidays in close proximity across two major religions. Four if you count Festivus for the Restofus!

        • PAMEDIC says:

          Hanukkah’s date very fairly widely.

          The other one is completely made up communist propaganda.

          • Richard says:

            Actually, the other one is fake communist propaganda made up by an FBI informer. I know it is hard to tell with the FBI.

      • Andy B. says:

        “Christmas shaming has become quite popular.”

        For all I hear about it, I have yet to witness it anywhere.

      • ad-lib says:

        “happy holidays” is a greeting that works for everyone, including people who don’t celebrate Christmas (which is frankly a secular holiday at this point anyway).

        if you can’t be a Christian and accept a greeting of “happy holidays” without leaping into outrage, consider some self-reflection.

    • Bombloader says:

      The thing is, a “deficit of dignity” exists if people think it does. You cannot convince a man that he’s not being disrepected by saying “No one is disrespecting you” and not try to find out what he thinks is disrespectful, even if it seems weird to you. This is pretty basic cross cultural stuff, but sadly many on the left can wax eloquently about in regards to say, inner city blacks, but doesn’t even want to try with Trump supporters. Of course, this can be an issue for the right as well, too many right leaning commenters immediately went to statistical arguments about the most likely causes of violent death for young black men without trying come up with real police reform ideas. My point is, if you want to deal with the problem, the absolute worst way to do it is to say, “There’s really no large number of people who hold you with contempt, it’s just people manipulating to think it is,” especially if it’s based on a few personal experiences. Whoever your talking to is likely to hear that type of statement as “Your concerns are not valid and you’re an idiot.”

      • Andy B. says:

        I recently read the book “White Fragility.” I was generally sympathetic with the author’s views, except they seemed to imply that all offenses taken by blacks were equivalent, and thus worthy of equal consideration and sympathy.

        I can understand any group or class having a chip on their shoulder, but it will always be a valid question which chips are justified. Whether it’s inner city blacks or suburban Trump supporters, I will stand by my position that somewhere in the mix will be, that someone convinced them they should have chips on their shoulders. Similarly I will stand by my position that most perennial-victim Christians only became offended by “Happy Holidays” because opportunists told them to be offended.

        I’ll last note that in my minimal training in the Art of Fundraising (“on the right”) “hate, fear, and revenge” ranked high among motivators; and “revenge” cannot be invoked until you created self-perceived “victims.”

  4. Richard says:

    I had been skeptical about the false flag stuff due the paucity of damage but the SLC paper just identified one of the people arrested as a local BLM activist who was also arrested for the violent riot in Provo. Unclear what role he played at Capitol. So a combination perhaps as the woman killed was definitely a Trump supporter and perhaps a Q devotee.

    • Sebastian says:

      It looks like they might have been predominately q-anon loons.

    • Andy B. says:

      It’s really amazing that John Sullivan (the BLM clown) was able to persuade Trump to give that inflammatory “I’ll be with you” speech in the morning.

    • RAH says:

      There were infiltrators Yet I do not think they controlled the crowd Most were Trump supporters and were just wandering around Not really a big deal.

      Yet the fact that hundreds got into the Capital scared the crap out of the people that were there . Those people had no idea what the crowd would if the crowd was hostile.

      As Says Uncle would say ” Do not scare the normies” They scared the normies.

      • Andy B. says:

        “There were infiltrators”

        Agents provocateur are used by both/all camps, but some camps credit them with more importance than others; and deny completely using them, themselves.

  5. 399 says:

    “I see more and more lefties descending into their own fever swamps, where they are the anti-racist saviors who will defeat fascism. This is all a lie.”

    I’m not sure how you mean that but, I’m thinking of the saying “persuading you he doesn’t exist is Satan’s best trick.” I hope you didn’t mean that fascism hasn’t rebounded to be among the dominant ideologies in the world, and so resisting it is only a delusion. Racism is of course only a useful tool that almost always accompanies fascism. There is an anti-authoritarian left just as there is an anti-authoritarian right, and both often suffer from similar delusions. Both tend to see the authoritarian faults in the opposing faction more readily than they see their own. But it is fortunate for mankind that both exist.

    Fascism began to awaken from its temporary dormancy about when Vladmir Putin ascended to power in Russia. He as an ex-KGB officer was a textbook example that authoritarians of the left are readily convertible to authoritarians of the right, and that ideology is just a tool of authoritarianism. The fault with many within the spectrum of lefties is that the refuse to see how the things they advocate (notably gun control) will require extremes of authoritarianism; on the right the fault is advocating for people being forced to be free, within a narrow “conservative” definition of freedom. Both camps have charlatans who only use ideology to expand their own power.

  6. Divemedic says:

    The election was stolen.
    Gun laws are coming.
    Do you still think this is business as usual? Do you think that we can negotiate with them? Or are you simply hoping that they will come for you last?

    • Alex says:

      Funny how in court under penalty of perjury, Trump’s lawyers couldn’t produce any evidence of a stolen election.

      • Divemedic says:

        Name one court case that proceeded to the evidentiary phase, and was not dismissed by pre-discovery motions for dismissal on procedural grounds.

        • Matt says:

          This. Every one.

          It was a hot potato that none wanted. Most people in government, including the judiciary, hate him and would never give him the time of day.

        • Alex says:

          I see you can’t produce any evidence either.

          • Alpheus says:

            There has been all sorts of evidence presented, just none here.

            The most damning of all, though, is the fact that multiple Counties rejected Republican election watchers — with video evidence of said rejections — and even one Court dismissing the complaint, with the absurd reasoning of “the law doesn’t say that the watchers have to be able to watch the count, they just have to be in the same building”. There is no legitimate reason to do this.

            Beyond that, there are affidavits, statistical anomalies, a surprisingly large number of Biden votes without any votes down-race votes, uncalled-for pauses in the vote counting, among other issues.

            And finally, there’s guilt by suppression of evidence: Facebook, Twitter, et al doing everything they could to discredit any claims without rebuttal, and outright censoring anyone who tries to discuss this. If there’s no evidence, as you say, then what’s the harm in discussing the “evidence”? Why not let it flow freely, along with extensive rebuttals?

            • Andy B. says:

              Just observations about “poll watching”:

              In Pennsylvania there is a formal process for being a “poll watcher” and you have to have a “poll watchers certificate.” Showing up an claiming/demanding to be a poll watcher representing a political party is not enough, and you will likely be turned away. Perhaps that was the situation in the videos you viewed?

              Nonetheless in my day I was permitted to watch the vote count without official status, as a Libertarian, and also on behalf of some Republican friends who ran for office without party support. That was because I had become a piece of the Election Day furniture, and things were much more collegial between the party workers in those days. We liked each other. But I neither was treated nor behaved any differently than the “official” poll watchers with certificates. None of us were permitted or attempted to go behind the machines while the actual counters were reading off the numbers. They could have been making up the vote count for all we could tell, firsthand.

              The only slightly unusual thing I ever experienced was, one year I worked the polls for a Republican friend who was challenging the incumbent congressman in the Republican Primary. When the vote was counted my friend had only single-digit less votes than the incumbent. I dashed home to listen to the radio, expecting to hear a real horse-race reported. There was none. Overall my friend got only the typical 25 – 30 percent that candidates without party support get. Afterward, I figured that my poll working had nothing to do with his one-precinct success, but rather that he had strong pro-life support centered on my local parish. The close vote at my polling place was duly reported in the overall results.

              • Alpheus says:

                I have seen several videos, among them were the coverings of where the votes were being counted with cardboard, Republicans who had their names as official poll watchers denied access, and one video where poll watchers were there with a court order to be admitted still denied access.

                • Andy B. says:

                  If the goose can produce “fake news”, so can the gander. Who produced those videos?

                  • Alpheus says:

                    Perhaps, but just because it can be faked, doesn’t moan that it is.

                    My point isn’t that the evidence can be debunked. My point is that it’s there. It’s also been unchallenged: discussion if it is blocked by social media, and the courts have ignored it, relying on “lack of standing” rather than trying to challenge the claims themselves.

            • Alex says:

              Feel free to name the actual court case you’re describing… oh wait you can’t. There is literally no evidence to support your “uncalled-for pauses in the vote counting” claim.

              Undervoting has occurred in every presidential race; there’ were a large number of trump votes without any of the down ballot races filled out, but you don’t seem too concerned about those.

              Facebook and twitter are allowed to remove any content which violates their terms of service, they don’t owe you anything and you’re not entitled to use their platform to discuss your voter fraud fantasies. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and start your own social media company.

              You have been brainwashed by right wing media; perhaps some introspection is in order.

              • Alpheus says:

                The most obvious one that comes to mind was when a Georgia county had paused their voting, claiming that it was necessary due to a major water line breaking. A Freedom of Information request demonstrated it was nothing more than an overflowing urinal that didn’t justify closing anything down and was fixed in about an hour.

                As for Facebook and Twitter being allowed to remove any content — and I fail to see how content discussing potential election fraud would violate their terms of service — even if they are welcome to do what they want, what they are doing is installing a government that will be friendly to them, in exchange for helping out that government. And they are doing everything in their power to destroy any potential competition out there.

                When private corporations and government combine together to rule over the people, we have a special term for that. Do you know what that term is? Fascism.

                You are literally defending Fascism. Let that sink in.

                • Andy B. says:

                  “A Freedom of Information request demonstrated it was nothing more than an overflowing urinal that didn’t justify closing anything down and was fixed in about an hour.”

                  Think what you’d be saying if some of the ballots got flooded.

                  Then think what other people would be saying if there had been a major Covid outbreak following a sanitation faux pas.

                  Last, we’ve seen every day for five years who the professing fascists support.

                  • Alpheus says:

                    If there were flooded ballots, or even an actual risk of flooded ballots, fears of stolen elections would have been abated a little bit.

                    And as for “professing fascists” offering support, we’ve seen avowed communists inciting riots across the country, and we know who they support.

                    And I really couldn’t care less who “professing fascists” support, if they have no hope of actually getting power. White Supremacist Richard Spencer supported and endorsed Trump four years ago, and supported and endorsed Biden this last year. Why should I care, either way? But the Technocrats support Biden this year, and they are the ones destroying liberty.

                • Andy B. says:

                  This addresses the urinal/watermain story. Maybe it “proves” nothing but neither did the existence of the original story prove anything.

                  I noticed the article mentioned the vote count being “paused”, not “shut down.”

                • Alex says:

                  Surveillance video of the incident you described shows the urinal leak had no effect on vote counting and no one was asked to leave. You have your lips lovingly wrapped around the teat/anus of extreme right-wing propaganda, and you literally don’t know what fascism is; let that sink in. Your life is based on lies and hate; you’re in a cult and your beloved leader will gladly sacrifice you and many others if it means he can stay in office. Stop letting who hate your guts to pull your strings and trick you into thinking you’re on the side of freedom.

                  • Alpheus says:

                    Yes, the urinal incident I described had no effect on the counting. That is literally the point.

                    It was the only incident that could be found that even remotely could be tied to the alleged “a water main broke” on election night — the night where it was reported that everyone had to be sent home for the night due to a “water main break”.

                    You say that my life is based on lies and hate, yet who was it that was burning down American businesses this past summer? Who promised more of the same if President Trump won re-election? When businesses boarded up their windows in anticipation of election, against whose supporters were they protecting their businesses from?

                    You say I’m against liberty because I want poeple to be able to freely discuss things, because you insist that Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, et al have the right to limit any content they want — but it’s rich to hear someone who clearly loves government regulation of businesses to suddenly defend “freedom”.

                    But what’s worse, even if they have the “right” to do these things, what they are doing to “ease tensions” is actually making it worse: it’s forcing half the country to find entirely different platforms to air their grievances. These policies are forcing Conservatives into echo-chambers, and they are leaving Leftists in their own echo chambers. If this isn’t forcing us into Civil War, then I don’t know what would.

                    I’m sick and tired of the gaslighting, the lies, and the abuse from the Media and from people like you. Do you know why I don’t trust the Media? Because they have spent four years lying about President Trump, often with lies that can be debunked watching a short video. Now they are trying to convince us there was nothing wrong with the election? Yeah, right!

                    It’s funny how, after four years of #NotMyPresident and #Resist, you want us to unite! We’ll, we won’t. And. we learned it from you.

                    • alex says:

                      No one was “sent home” and no part of your video supports that lie.

                      When capitol police barricaded congress, who was it they were trying to keep out?

                      It’s equally rich to hear someone who opposes regulation suddenly love it as long it will benefit conservatives.

                      “If this isn’t forcing us into Civil War, then I don’t know what would.”

                      One thing that might force us into civil war is you people fighting tooth and nail to undo a national election because the outcome made you cry.

                      You’re the ones gaslighting, pretending to be victims because the rest of the country is tired of your hatred and hypocrisy and we’re showing you the door.

                      You don’t trust the media because reality doesn’t mesh well with the conservative narrative.

                      Time and demographics are not on your side; you’re an increasingly shrinking segment of society and the good news we don’t need you in order to unite. We are the future whether you like it or not. Enjoy the next 4 years, because I sure will!

  7. Andy B. says:

    “The election was stolen. Gun laws are coming.”

    I will take this opportunity to say “I told you so”, four years ago, though I honestly don’t remember if I said so here, at the time.

    I knew that if Trump won, there was going to develop a massive backlash to his BS, that seemed to have something to offend almost everyone who wasn’t a lame-brain or an overtly Nazi bonehead. When the NRA threw in with him, I knew our gun rights were likely doomed by that association. If I really were a Great Conspiracy thinker, I could formulate a theory that installing Trump as POTUS was a brilliant plot by the left. (I’m remembering that Putin made his bones in the Soviet Union’s KGB, and who’s Trump’s loving daddy?)

    Beginning as early as 2017 I observed that in areas of high population density (like our Bucks County) Democrats were winning the local “dog-catcher” seats, by which I mean the offices where “ideology” really doesn’t make any difference. They were winning by not being in the same party with Trump. The trend never stopped, and Ds pretty much took over the county government in 2019. (Your local results may have differed, but nationally, I’m talking about the high-population-concentration centers and “suburbs” that turned the 2020 election in the swing states.) No “stealing” at all was necessary; just the continuation of a predictable trend.

    When Trump was elected in 2020 and most gun rights activists were giddy, I borrowed Admiral Yamamoto’s Pearl Harbor quote, roughly “I fear we have but awakened a slumbering giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve.” That slumbering giant in Georgia just handed the U.S. Senate to the Democrats, and the Occupation of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday did not do a thing to advance the cause of gun rights.

    Enjoy what you asked for, and don’t blame anyone or anything but your own gullibility and short-sightedness.

    • Divemedic says:

      So the Democrats were not looking to pass gun control or take over the government until Trump was elected? HAHAHAHA

      • Andy B. says:

        That’s not at all what I said. What I said was, my fellow gun rights advocates delivered them an opportunity to succeed, on a platter.

        An objective fact is that barring some event approximating a comet hitting Washington, DC, on J20 Democrats will control both the Executive and Legislative branches of the government. Meanwhile, the SCOTUS Justices we were promised would be our salvation have turned out to be somewhat less than “activist”, and the Republican Party is in shambles. So is the NRA.

        While “what might have been” is unknowable, I think little of that would have been possible or as complete without Donald Trump.

        • Bombloader says:

          IMHO, most of the NRA’s current troubles are mostly in regards to getting in bed with sleazy characters and nothing to do with Trump. And the NRA had no good choices for the 2016 election. Endorsing no one would for president would be the only thing that might make sense, but I don’t know if it’s every been done. Endorsing Hillary would make no sense as she put further gun control in her platform, and endorsing Gary Johnson meant endorsing someone with near zero chance of winning. So I’m willing to think we’re dealing with least bad options back then.

          • Andy B. says:

            “NRA’s current troubles are mostly in regards to getting in bed with sleazy characters and nothing to do with Trump.”

            Who has been a bigger sleazy-character-magnet than Trump? Who has emboldened more sleazy characters than Trump? I would argue that the NRA’s sleazy-character-eruptions were almost all traceable to that emboldening.

            “Endorsing no one would for president would be the only thing that might make sense, but I don’t know if it’s every been done.”

            Only for the first 109 year of the NRA’s existence. Reagan was the first. In my mind’s eye I can very clearly see him on the cover of my October, 1980 American Rifleman.

            Even though I was an adamant Reagan supporter, I recall thinking “Uh-oh — trouble brewing.” I don’t know if waiting forty years to be right, counts as being right, but I think in broad principle I saw what was coming.

            Seriously: I think there are times when the best thing for the broader gun rights movement to do is to sit on its hands, with the absence of an endorsement speaking much more loudly than any endorsement. But there seems to be a prevailing attitude that we will lose relevance unless we are on the playing field making noise.

            • Alpheus says:

              I’m not entirely convinced that the NRA was sleazy because of Trump. For this to be the case, Wayne LaPierre’s corruption would have to have started in 2016, but it’s pretty clear that his corruption has been going back well before then.

            • Bombloader says:

              I don’t think Ackerman McQueen had anything to do with Trump, although they definitely wasted NRA time and money on stupid and counterproductive things. As far is sitting out goes, first I should have prefaced that by stating the NRA had been endorsing someone as long as I’ve been aware. Second, maybe absence would say something useful, but it also may convince politicians that there’s little point in trying to please you because you’ll just rage quit if you don’t get what you want. Also, if the argument is that he’s more on our side than the other guy but sucks in other ways, you’re now starting to step out of being single issue. So I think I can see either way on that subject which is damned complex.

              • Andy B. says:

                I’ll provide an example: In 1995 a huge portion of the gun rights community in PA (including me) was pissed off with the NRA for supporting the gun control bill that governor Tom Ridge insisted be part of his Special Session on Crime. Over the next several years they remained pissed off not only at Ridge, but at Ridge’s AG Mike Fisher, who served as Ridge’s hatchet-man, fighting any changes in his pet gun control bill. Fisher fought ever curative amendments, i.e., amendments to fix parts of the law that contradicted each other.

                I heard many foul words spoken about Fisher. He had come to many of our local groups for support when he first ran for office. I remember meeting with him and a small delegation of locals in a restaurant along Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia. Several years later we were incensed at his double-crosses.

                Nonetheless when he ran for governor, the people who were loathing him in 1998 got back on his bandwagon and endorsed him, because, you know, the usual. My local group didn’t, and everyone else told us we were crazy, because if we weren’t endorsing, we weren’t “players”. We didn’t “understand politics.” I said, the Republicans now understood them, perfectly.

            • Jim says:

              Who has been a bigger sleazy-character-magnet than Trump?

              Bill Clinton obviously, but he was no friend of gun rights.

              • Andy B. says:

                I guess we’re both drifting into WhatAboutism, but I need to point out, it depends what you mean by “sleaze.” It’s hard to quantify.

                I also need to point out that among the power-elite there are no “friends of gun rights”, though there are plenty who manipulate us and our populism to pretend they are. They have the power; why would they risk allowing us to have any way to challenge it?

    • ad-lib says:

      “I knew that if Trump won, there was going to develop a massive backlash to his BS, that seemed to have something to offend almost everyone who wasn’t a lame-brain or an overtly Nazi bonehead. When the NRA threw in with him, I knew our gun rights were likely doomed by that association.”

      been saying this. and we’ve had four years of counter-productive Trump nonsense combined with a mysterious amount of inaction* by Trump on the issue of gun rights that he was supposedly a righteous defender of.

      *yes, yes, justices were appointed. convince me Trump a) made the selections and didn’t sign off on recommendations and b) he made them on the grounds of gun rights.

    • Scott in Phx says:

      Yeah, and electing the rabidly anti-gun Hillary would have been better than Trump.

      Trump was far from perfect but other than “bump stocks” there wasn’t any push for gun control during the 4 years out of the administration.

      I’m pretty sure that would not have been the case with Hillary’s admin.

  8. Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

    This is all proceeded as how I feared it would be.

    Part of the right is descending into weird theories (though that’s not a majority).

    Another part is cheering on Trump being gone.

    And the left is clamping down on all forms of dissent now.

    This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.

    • Andy B. says:

      “This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.”

      We actually are lucky that Wednesday didn’t provide a “Lexington Green” scenario with more bodies to translate into martyrs and mythology. I would theorize that’s why the Capitol Police provided so little resistance — other than cops being on Trump’s side.

      If more shooting had started, the people not in full kit probably would have provided more bodies, and the myths would be circulating right now.

      • Divemedic says:

        Have you SEEN the video where the Capitol police literally opened a fire door and invited the protesters into the building?

        https://twitter.com/christina_bobb/status/1347596278583197698

      • RAH says:

        There was no Lexington Green because the crowd never planned on that. They were just there to support Trump. The message they were angry at the fraud and wanted Congress to do something. Yet the message received is that Congress is not safe and Trump voters are crazy loons

        Major screw up. Trump wanted the Congress to throw out the electors . By encouraging people to march, he lost even more support in Congress

        • Andy B. says:

          “…the crowd never planned on that. They were just there to support Trump.”

          See my comment above about “agents provocateur”. Every demonstration has them in its spectrum of attendees. So will the counter-demonstrators. Their opponents will always use the most extreme faction to characterize everyone who participated. It’s just a fact of life that needs to be anticipated.

      • Matt says:

        I don’t know if they to prevent a galvanizing martyr event or to encourage a damning Rhichstag event.

        Regardless, there is are a few weird things with tye whole event.

        The antifa mixed in with the crowd

        The video of cops seemingly guiding them through the building -seamingly towards the press.

        The shooting.

        The near perfect timing to disrupt debate. Their is a good chance that they would have voted for the audit. The incident stopped that cold.

        Their have been a lot of odd happenings the last 4 years

        • Andy B. says:

          “The antifa mixed in with the crowd”

          Here in Bucks County, a liberals’ demonstration at our Republican congressman’s district offices was attended by the Proud Boys, who mixed in the crowd. They appeared to be there to buttonhole media who might be sympathetic to them, but they were there.

          My only point is — everyone does it, and their opponents will always use it to prove or suggest something damning.

          • Andy B. says:

            “…a liberals’ demonstration at our Republican congressman’s district offices was attended by the Proud Boys…”

            Here’s the story. I have reason to believe the Proud Boy meeting with the columnist was prearranged; otherwise that columnist never would have been there.

      • Horatius says:

        What we observed is probably more akin to a Boston Massacre than Lexington.

        The way the script plays out is:
        – Govt overreacts and creates hatred and smoldering discontent.
        – Extreme fringe of the political opposition (Sons of Liberty) commit actual terrorist acts to continue goading the govt into further overreactions, while the more respectable wing of the organization spin spin spins to generate sympathy.
        – Some areas under local authorities challenge state control and become ungovernable; state is forced to accept erosion of authority, accommodate grievances and share power, or crack down violently.
        – Govt continues to overreacts and you eventually get a Lexington Green style event with larger body count.
        – Full fledged insurgency erupts.
        – The insurgents will probably eventually lose unless they get outside foreign assistance but it will take a long time and probably significantly alter the society.

        Mao literally wrote the book on this pattern. The govt needs to act with restraint, and a good mix of carrots and sticks while addressing some of the grievances to avoid the script playing out.

        For reference, Lexington was five years after the Boston Massacre. It’s tough to put an exact timeline on things but a significant change in the situation in the first year of Pres Harris’ tenure seems reasonable enough if we’re projecting into the future.

        • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

          Some really good points here. We definitely aren’t at the Lexington Green part of the story yet. Boston Massacre – maybe, with just less deaths.

          The govt needs to act with restraint, and a good mix of carrots and sticks while addressing some of the grievances to avoid the script playing out.

          This this this. Its how we avoid the more deaths. I don’t expect that to happen however.

        • Richard says:

          Metternich had a large organization devoted to reading everyone’s mail. He would get detailed reports. A few people got arrested for stuff like plotting to assassinate the Emperor but mostly what happened was the grievances were investigated and dealt with. No democracy or 4A but still a government that was responsive to the people. As opposed to what we have now which is a non-responsive government with the media et al tying down the pressure release valve.

          • Andy B. says:

            Wow. Talk about putting the best possible face on something!

            Metternich hated classical liberalism, or what we today refer to as the values of the Enlightenment. He brutally crushed nationalist movements in the Italian region controlled by the Austrian empire.

            “No democracy or 4A but still a government that was responsive to the people.”

            There was another Germanic government roughly a century later that was nothing but “responsive to the people” — until it had consolidated its power to control them. Not to mention, it was responsive to their worst instincts in the process. Now we Americans are dealing with that.

          • Andy B. says:

            “No democracy or 4A but still a government that was responsive to the people.”

            Not being a professional academic I of course thought I should brush up on Metternich a bit before commenting more.

            I encountered him compared to the Chinese Communists, doling out just enough reform to forestall revolution. Otherwise, being in every way “conservative.”

            Certainly “no democracy.”

  9. Andy B. says:

    “Lexington was five years after the Boston Massacre…”

    All your points are very astute.

    On the point of, this stuff doesn’t happen overnight, I’ve frequently cited that it was more than five years between Hitler becoming chancellor and Kristallnacht.

    Mao was arguably one of the most brilliant guerrilla strategists of all time. I forget who I’m quoting, but someone once wrote “with a ragtag army of never more than about five thousand, he conquered the vastness of China. . .”

  10. RAH says:

    With the shut down on social media it reminds more of Mao “Cultural Revolution”

  11. Chad C. Mulligan says:

    If not Trump, then who? Who could have / would have pressed immigration reform and building the Wall? Who would have taken on the Chinese? Who would have rolled back stifling regulations? Etc., etc., etc.

    • Jim says:

      No one, and that’s why he’s hated by both sides of the aisle.

      • Jim says:

        Lest we forget, he slayed 15 or 16 other GOP’ers and kept the pro illegals GOP’ers from going anywhere.

    • Scott in Phx says:

      Agreed, my choice was Cruz but I don’t think Cruz would have tried to do what Trump tried to do.

      Cruz would have been better than Rubio or Jeb! of course but he would likely have played “nice” too.

      The biggest problem of the last 4 years is that the Republicans didn’t try to help implement the agenda the Republican voters asked for.

      If they had then he might have been far more successful. But as the Covid monstrosity show the Reps aren’t any better than the Dems.

  12. Chad C. Mulligan says:

    I’m not understanding all the hate for Trump from people who would approve of the things he accomplished.

    • Alpheus says:

      I couldn’t bring myself to vote for President Trump the first time around in no small part because I thought he was going to stab us in the back the first opportunity he got. I’m still not entirely convinced he wouldn’t have (or didn’t, because I’m willing to consider bump stocks as part of this equation, although so much weird stuff has happened since then that it’s easy to forget). I suspect that the biggest reason President Trump didn’t stab us in the back was because of irrational Democratic Party hatred of him.

      I voted for him this time around because I was amazed at how much effort he put in to fulfilling his campaign promises, and I was irritated by how much effort was put into casting a reasonable President who I sometimes disagreed with on issues that were reasonable to have disagreements on as Literally Hitler.

      And now, this “Literally Hitler” is being ousted through voter fraud, and cut out of public life (along with all his supporters, as much as is possible) using a “violent” protest as the excuse. For all the hate that has been directed at Trump, it’s odd that his successor’s rise to power is more like Hitler’s than “Literally Hitler” himself.

      • Andy B. says:

        It was clever the way them Democrats managed to persuade Trump supporters to wear “6MWE” T-shirts.

        • Alpheus says:

          I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, or why it would be relevant.

          • Alpheus says:

            I have since looked up the phrase, and now know what you’re trying to get at. You’re still trying to make Trump be “Literally Hitler” because some anti-Semites support him.

            Now show me how much influence those anti-Semites have on President Trump, and the Republican Party in general. Then compare how much support these people have in the Republican Party to how much support Antifa and BLM have in the Democratic Party.

            Indeed, one of the interesting things about the Capitol Building riots is how everyone condemns them … but only Republicans consistently condemned the riots that happened during the summer. One of the great ironic twists is how one can quote sitting Democratic Senators and Representatives to explain this riot.
            And above all, you’re deflecting from a very important issue. You’re ignoring that Biden’s rise to power is far more like Hitler’s than President Trump’s was. And to make this rise to power more troubling, prominent Democrats have already been requesting “re-education camps” for Trump supporters.

      • Scott in Phx says:

        Oh, the effort to “cleanse” society of Trump supporters was in full swing before the “riot”.

        The violence didn’t help of course but the left wasn’t serious about healing before the “riot”.

  13. Andy B. says:

    “… people who would approve of the things he accomplished.”

    And the things he accomplished that met our approval were. . .?

    (Anybody? Anybody? Buehler?)

    As I learned from “pro-gun” Republicans, there is a world of difference between “pressing” things (aka, “knowing the rap”) and delivering anything worthwhile.

    Which reminds me, since this a gun blog: Exactly what gun issues did Trump “press”, other than perhaps “2A solutions” to his other policies going nowhere and him losing the 2020 election?

    And why does support for gun rights mean I would support, for example, “reforming” immigrant children away from their parents? To think it does is an insult to our entire Movement.

    • ad-lib says:

      Yeah, if Trump wants credit for what he did in defense of gun rights … let’s hear it.

      And if you want me to praise a president as a gun-rights voter… why are you citing immigration reform/wall-building*/taking on the Chinese/rolling back regulations? None of this is about gun rights and I’m not obligated to co-sign all of that because I personally care about gun rights.

      *Love that we’re pretending he got this done.

      • RAH says:

        The biggest boon to gun rights was the appointment of Amy Comey Barrett. He did not pursue an gun control, other than a weak bump stock regulation. Now compare that to Joe Biden.

        • ad-lib says:

          Joe Biden isn’t touted as a savior of gun rights; Trump is. I don’t need to be convinced Biden is bad on guns; that’s known. I need to be convinced Trump is GOOD on them.

          • Alpheus says:

            I would much rather have a limp-wristed 2nd Amendment “supporter” that doesn’t do anything in power, than I would to have someone outright hostile to the 2nd Amendment in power.

            Yes, I want to have our rights advanced, but I’m satisfied with our rights being static absent that. We got “mostly static” with President Trump (and let’s not forget the Republicans in general in all this, when they had control of the House) — I’m not at all happy with Fraudulent Biden with control of Congress (however tenuous that may be).

            • Andy B. says:

              I guarantee you are going to see as many limp-wristed Democrats while they have the majorities as there were limp-wristed Republicans when they held the reins.

              Once a hot-button issue is settled, it’s not useful for campaigning anymore. But boy, do those limp wrists wave some terrible swift swords come campaign time.

              The greatest energy and even brutality I ever witnessed on the part of the NRA was in support of an anti-gun Republican.

          • 432 says:

            Trump was mediocre on gun rights… but he was better than any President in many decades on the issue.

            Compare Trump to the actual presidents we have had, rather than those we wish we had.

            Going back to Johnson-

            Johnson was a responsible for the odious GCA of 1968. He wanted nationwide gun owner licensing and registration.

            Nixon wanted to ban handguns, and hated guns (wasn’t able to do anything about it though).

            Ford endorsed an assault weapon ban.

            Carter endorsed an assault weapon ban also.

            Reagan was a gun collecting Fudd. He endorsed an assault weapon ban. He banned open carry of guns in CA as a governor.

            Bush the Elder endorsed an assault weapon ban, as well as banned a large number of gun imports.

            Clinton is responsible for the 1994 ban.

            Bush the younger supported the assault weapon ban, though he didn’t do anything about it in office.

            Obama endorsed another assault weapon ban, as well as a federal ban on concealed carry among other things.

            Trump opposed an assault weapon ban… something dramatically different than Presidents for decades.

            As mediocre as Trump was, he was “better” at gun rights than the previous nine presidents (at least!)

  14. Andy B. says:

    “The biggest boon to gun rights was the appointment of Amy Comey Barrett.”

    As my ma used to say, “time will tell; time will tell…”

    Do you believe she was appointed for her dedication to gun rights?

    That said/asked, I hope you are right, but I’ve experienced nothing in life to convince me you are.

  15. Hank Archer says:

    During the Civil Rights struggle in the 1950s and 1960s did people say, “If you don’t want to sit in the back of the bus use another transportation service?”
    Did anyone say, “Didn’t you read Woolworth’s Terms of Service? If Woolworth’s doesn’t want to serve you at their lunch counter just go somewhere else?”
    Build your own lunch counter, create your own bus lines, use your own drinking fountains.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top