He did. He thought that a nail gun would break the bulletproof glass.
I’m not saying he thought it through well.
Well, a few months… and a few indictments… later and it looks like I called it, even to the occasional stochastic terrorist.
Rachel Maddow had a bit about this last week, noting that the Defendant called for massive protests in March but, seeing them fail, has been rather silent in calling for mass protests and uprisings (but still doing “will no one rid me of this troublesome priest” bits, which are effective… on occasion).
Spotify link to entire Maddow episode:
YouTube excerpt:
Headed back here this weekend w/ Inna, will let y’all know if any changes, lol:
I think most of the ones willing to actually get up off the couch, and even risk their lives, for Trump, were weeded out on Jan 6th, and most of the remaining will have been cowed by the strong response and prosecutions to the Jan 6th offenders. There may be a few crazy lone wolves out there that are still willing to take violent action, and they can cause death and mayhem, but I don’t think they’ll be able to actually disrupt the workings of government in any sort of significant way.
I’m afraid of both sides. They are authoritarian. conformist, and moralistic by nature, they both like to coerce compliance to their (not so different!) standards when they have the power, and both sides would love to see dissenters and dissent itself eradicated, or at least erased from public view.
No so different? Really?
If antifa didn’t exist, fascists would be stringing up black people and gay people in the streets.
If fascists didn’t exist, antifa would be reading books to children and out doing good.
I’m not afraid of anyone in politics really, but I am incredibly fatigued and exhausted of them. Annoyance is more the emotion than fear.
That’s an exceptionally naive or propagandized viewpoint.
It’s a bit of an exaggeration perhaps. But “Those who don’t study history, are doomed to repeat it” Sound familiar?
Right. These guys are very fine people.
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9038815/6.jpg)
I have said or suggested nothing of the sort and I resent your implication that I did. You’re trying to make me out as adjacent to torch wielding mobs just because I pointed out that authoritarian, moralistic, coercive practices and beliefs are common to both sides and I don’t like those practices and beliefs whichever side of the street you bought them on.
The US has centuries of history right wing violence that has killed and harmed millions. Left wing violence has hurt orders of magnitude fewer people. What has the left wing in the US done that compares to slavery and genocide?
If your side doesn’t have the track record wrt oppressive tendencies and behaviors oif the competition, it is only because your side lacks the physical and political power to do so. If you think the will to punish nonconformity isn’t part of your side’s agenda, like I said to someone else upstream, you’re either naive or propagandized. While that might not qualify as an answer by your lights, it does cut to the heart of the discussion of the two sides’ similArity and difference. Whether the whip is held in the left hand or the right makes no difference to the whippee.
Or maybe you’re just wrong, which seems more likely considering that you haven’t actually made an argument other than ‘this is how it is and if you disagree than you’re naive or propagandized’.
I don’t subscribe to the theory that there is this magical barrier that stops one side from being much worse than the other, thus I automatically dismiss any “both sides do it!!” arguments.
But you in no way justified that claim.
Agree on no magical barrier. No barrier at all. And one side is currently much worse.
But some “both sides do it” arguments are correct. And even if they weren’t, automatic dismissal is a mistake. It would prevent one from ever changing one’s views.
Not sure I should go here, but isn’t it a debating mistake to give the appearance of admitting close-mindedness?
“Both sides do it” as most or all of a response is either ignorant or deceptive. When used to dismiss most (if not all) criticism of one side but (not surprisingly) the other, I see no reason to waste my time.
I thought you were on both sides.
I think you are wrong unless you think that not being allowed to discriminate is somehow discriminatory, and if that is what you think I can’t help you. As much as Fox news would try to convince you otherwise, folks on the left are not anti-Christian, anti-Christmas, anti-white, or anti-anything except maybe anti-bigot or anti-fascist. They are not going to force you to do yoga but they may force you to sell gay folks or Muslims ice cream if that is what you do for a living. They are fine with you putting stupid bumper stickers on your car and yelling let’s go Biden but they may have a problem with you unvaccinated crotch monkeys spreading easily avoided diseases because you don’t believe in science (they don’t care about the beliefs, just the diseases).
Now you may view this as oppression, but to me this is a far cry from the government deciding who you can marry or what you can wear. I think government oppression if limiting what your children can learn about. I think government oppression is punishing you as a private citizen for boycotting a foreign country you believe is an aprarthied state. I believe government oppression is making it illegal to talk about climate change as a scientist. Or to talk about the dangers of guns as a medical professional. Or how about the government threatening to take away your son because you didn’t punish them when he said he wanted to wear a dress. This to me is oppression.
I suppose the hippy libtards might oppress if they gained power, but I have never seen any evidence of it. Got any?