Like I said, the problem isn’t the Senate. It isn’t the laws. And it isn’t American politics. The problem is specifically the Republicans. Even more specifically it’s the right wingers who have taken over the Republican Party.
We vote the Republicans out and the problems fade away. Ideally, the Republicans would learn their lesson and reform themselves back into a responsible party.
I figured anyone who was calling him Shroomdick wasn’t a fan. But a lot of people really do act like Trump represents some kind of majority. He doesn’t and he never has. America is better than Donald Trump. We just need to take our country back from him.
It’s a question that deserves a better answer. Which, IMO, is something like “It depends on what you mean by ‘non-violent’.”
Effective resistance must be confrontational; that’s the very nature of resistance isn’t it? Confrontation very often sparks reactive violence from the entities being confronted, particularly if civil, governmental power rests with them. This was true in the Civil Rights era of MLK, and it’s just as true now. So, protests and civil disobedience can be effective without its actors propagating violent rhetoric or fomenting riots, but no one should fool themselves that an effective counter to any political power structure can be free of violence.
Well, at least this time we can tell them to go back to Russia!
Kinda slow, compared to what? The argument put forth was that “violence could be effective, given the right target”. I could not disagree more strongly. It would not be effective. It would make things worse. So no, violence would not work. You don’t save the village by destroying the village. That’s one thing you and both lived through once already.
And… I’m not so old that I don’t have time to prefer the non-violent route. YMMV.
I’m happy to let BPC explain more fully what he means, but it’s hard to parse this as some violent reaction by those in power to Civil Disobedience from the opposition:
Emphasis added. Not endorsing violence, but it “can be effective, given the right target”. That’s not Trump cracking down violently on peaceful protestors.
I take your criticism to heart, and will try to restrain my atavistic and bloodthirsty cravings.
Absolutely agreed, John. I’m late to the thread, and I wasn’t really responding to BPC’s statements, just the little exchange between you and luc’.
And I don’t want to endorse any talk of “tak[ing] a shot” at political targets as anything other than very bad, horrible, not acceptable options.
I just wanted to remind folks that push inevitably comes to shove. Honestly, I should’ve paid heed to the full context of the discussion before posting.
Maybe he means something like the WTO riots back in '99.
Something I still don’t understand - the lefties are all upset because the righties have too many guns, and the power structure is on our side, and the police are all violent sociopaths who will shoot people at the drop of a hat, and the 1% has all the money and the political influence. So violence sounds like a good idea to them. Me? Not so much.
If you wanna rally or protest or march and wallow in your moral indignation, knock yourself out; it’s your right under the Constitution. Cross the line into violence, and you will find out that real life isn’t a college campus. Moral suasion is one thing, and it sometimes even works. Intimidation? Nope, won’t happen.
If someone wants to go all Maxine Waters on me and scream in my face in public, my reaction is not going to be soberly to consider the strength of your position. Laughing at you when the veins stick out in your forehead, more like.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re probably not morally 'suadable by the lefties in any case, regards Shodan. So you are not really the target audience for protests and rallies, but your response is definitely a reinforcing part of the intended suasion. So thanks for that, I guess.
Aww, you mean *we *don’t get to start hoarding firearms and shouting out aphorisms like “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” this time? Why is that strictly a right-wing thing?
No worries. As you phrase it now, I’m 100% in agreement.
Frankly, I’m not really worried too much about left wing violence, despite some talk of it here now and then. Right wing violence is a much big problem for the country these days, made worse by reckless rhetoric from Trump. And no (before someone jumps in), I’m not saying the threat of left-wing violence is zero.
I just thought it was odd that BPC said the only option once the election is over is violence. Maybe kids these days are too far removed from the massive civil disobedience protest of the 50s and 60s. And, as an example, how the violence by groups like The Weather Underground did not help.
There seems to be a mythology about the era that glosses over the incredible civil unrest and uncertainty, and quite oversimplifies the mix of issues the country was dealing with at the time (most of which we’re still dealing with). I think it’s viewed by Americans born in the 70’s or later as a kind of black and white isolated moral situation where the factions working toward equal rights and all that good stuff were more or less in lockstep, as were their opponents in and out of government.
Reminds me of Dick Gregory, responding to the “go slow” factions.
“Take your foot off my grandmother’s neck! Now, Goddammit, not one toe at a time!”
I’d be delighted if you’d start hoarding firearms. Please be sure to tell your elected officials that you’re doing so.
I don’t blame anyone for contemplating any solution to the problems we have. It means they’re human and they seem to be responding to excessive trolling and gaslighting by the right.
Whether anyone noticed or not the demeanor and attitude from the rw politicians in washington is very close to the anonymous posters on threads like this here.
The double standards and propaganda style messages are overwhelming to democracy. If you are participating in it you are bringing the whole house down for your own purposes. And if that purpose is only to “own the libs” then libs may have an answer for you.
It seems like an urgent situatiuon to me. When people are thinking about it or brainstorming solutions, you should not piss on them and gaslight it. You are in favor of violence for your own purposes. If you don’t admit it you are just a liar.
Who is the “you” that you refer to here? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Assuming the “you” was intended in the general sense, I think there’s not much gaslighting going on simply by insisting political violence is not typically productive as a counter to oppressive policies or authoritarian regimes. Leading as it usually does to pushback and further oppression.
Normally I’d agree. But let’s wait a minute. Until he actually does something, it’s just locker room talk. You know, a little verbal diarrhea fueled by his god-given masculine testosterone.
I mean, if we start getting upset at every time someone just off-hand threatens violence, where would that leave us? I ask you, where would that leave us?
Budget Player Cadet obviously wouldn’t actually do anything violent. He’s just talking like menfolk talk. So lighten up, Francis!
The righties in the US are launching a full on war against democracy because it includes liberals, and the requirement to treat them as fellow citizens. They want to troll democracy until it doesn’t have any liberals in it. Of course then it wont be a democracy. That’s a culture war declared by the right on democracy. The endless gaslighting of reality (climate most of all) is an act of war on your own country. Just keep lodging some opposing fantasy to keep the balls of delusion and unreality in the air.
That is war and war is violent one way or the other.
Dems have been behind on underhanded tactics. They need to catch up. Or else we won’t have whataboutism to fall back on.