Agreed. The feral Commies continue to escalate if Trump wins, but if Crazy Uncle Joe wins, he gets pushed out of the way by the far left ASAP as his cognitive faculties have been AWOL for decades already, and those same feral Commies gain the full backing and capabilities of the US Gov. Like Trump or not, there's never been an election cycle this critical.Originally Posted by blues
I was just about to post Jack Donovan, but you did it far more eloquently!
Great minds and all.
Been in 2 riots .. the only thing that works on Mobs.. is to smash and beat them into the ground.
I’d really like to know how many people are truly actively participating in these riot/protests, and of them how many are truly actively participating in any sort of anarchy.
Even in the CHOP it mostly looked to me like all of Seattle’s thousands of degenerate homeless POS dirtbags just Moved their tents into a more concentrated area. Once the police decided to actually move them all out, how much resistance did they actually face? And from how many? And even before that, what was the total population of CHAZ and of that population how many were actively destroying shit, shooting people, etc.?
My point is, this all seems to be like everything else in the media, which is to say over blown and over hyped. It’s all horrible and tragic and bodes I’ll for the republic and all that, but at least in my reality everyone I know is just carrying on going to work, drinking beer, trying to stay healthy... I bet the real number of violent or potentially violent is damn near statistically insignificant, and doubly so when/if anyone actually grows a pair and pushes back.
Chaz fell in what, a morning? Everyone was either dispersed or arrested by brunch?
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
Something I would like to add to the discussion, is a mention of emotion/anger vs logic/reasoning. In a sweeping generalization, one side in this struggle responds to emotional motivation, the other to reasoning and rationale. If the anger side feels that “orange man bad” Or “police bad” or whatever, then you cannot appease or appeal to them with logic/reasoning. Similarly, if the logic side comes to a deductive conclusion, no amount of emotion/anger is going to sway their conviction in their conclusions.
We are at that point now. Whether the line is drawn urban/rural, racially, along sexual lines, or economic success; one side is angry and talking past the other’s logic. They just do not speak the same language, or value the same priorities.
Right now we’ve seen the anger side riot in various cities, spewing hate and invective. The logics (Vulcans?) view the riots with disbelief and discussion. Discussion of protests vs riots, of valid grievances, of reparations, of appeasement.
I think in there is no reasoning with the angry. My answer to Blues’ post is that this will continue, and get worse. But the breaking point will happen when the logics realize that logic/reasoning/appeasement cannot/will not work. Since the emotional/angry side only understands a response in their language, it will get openly violent at that point. I would hope that the angry could hear the language of the logics and listen, but I fear they will only understand answers in their own language of force and violence.
I wish to avoid the coming storm, but we must prepare for it nonetheless.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master"
I think this is a really important point. This group is relatively small and feckless at “actions”. IMO what makes them such a threat isn’t their lack of respect for the legitimacy of the law, it’s their ability to use law as a shield.
These groups are receiving the full protection of those charged with enforcing the law. Regularly being allowed to commit violence and destruction while police look on and even when arrested, largely released without punishment. How tough and large do you have to be to win if your protected from the law and those opposing you are heavily charged, even for self defense?
To rob_s point, the CHAZ people were largely helpless wimps with a few violent actors mixed in. Yet, rather than fail by being easily cleared out they WON. The city council voted in a veto proof majority to cut police by 50%. So they got EXACTLY what they wanted. We can laugh and scorn them all we want but they won and continue to win regularly.
Our belief in the rule of law makes us morally superior. Moral superiority gives you exactly zero advantages in a violent conflict. Graveyards and battlefields are littered with the bones of the morally superior losers of history.
If these agitators get what they claim to want and remove the protection of law completely, I have no doubt they will be swept aside with ease. They should hope that never happens because, to paraphrase Paul Sharp’s comments on sport martial arts, “the rules protect you from me”.
At this point they are using the “law” and government to their advantage. As long as they walk that tightrope we are in trouble.
Last edited by EPF; 07-11-2020 at 09:37 AM.
But only once the "leadership" (what a joke) mustered the intestinal fortitude to actually send the troops in and do something about it. That is the big problem as I see it, much of the big city leadership is sympathetic to the goals of these groups or at the very least incompetent snowflakes who lack the ability to protect their cities.
The Dems are desperate to win the upcoming elections...presidential and congressional...and in their zeal to not offend anyone who might strengthen their chances, are unwilling to enforce any laws that they feel might cost them votes. Whether alienating BLM, statue pullers, antifa low lives or anyone else.
Not to say that they stood for law and order beforehand, but this unwillingness to take a stand in defense of the public, (lives and property), they are supposed to serve demonstrates just how feckless they truly are.
All that said, underestimate the foe at your peril. (For want of a nail...)
There's nothing civil about this war.
I believe that if even small groups can ignore the law without penalty their example will inspire and embolden others to do the same. So the number is immaterial. What is material is that the State does nothing to enforce the laws.
And this is being done on both sides of the political spectrum. Ignoring laws because they are believed to be unconstitutional is not how the system is meant to function. We have states passing laws that they know are in direct conflict to federal laws, such as legalizing marijuana or allowing machine guns to be built if the gun does not cross a state line. While one or both may be a good idea, our rule of law said both are covered as part of interstate commerce and can be regulated by fed.gov. So any changes or challenges should be at the federal level. Instead states are trying to do end runs around the federal laws and depending upon the law determines which side supports the end run.
Last edited by farscott; 07-11-2020 at 10:57 AM.
It will be interesting to see how this next election turns out. There are A LOT of people who have been silently watching the more extreme faction of the left throw a continuous national temper tantrum, starting with the breath holding and stomping feet of the Kavanaugh hearing and impeachment and then progressing through the outright screaming, flailing, kicking and biting of the rioters—both amateur and paid professional.
This election will be a national autoreferendum; a vote on the question of ourselves. Both candidates suck enough to be primarily totems against the other tribe; the lines will be drawn not so much between the old men on their merits, but rather between the tantrum throwers and their enabling parents on one side, and the silently disapproving fans of peace and quiet on the other. In many ways, this election will be about pure data: how much of the country is found on either side.
Once we have that data, all sides can then decide on what’s next. JMO.
Reply With Quote