IMO Rubio is being disingenuously narrow. Sure, he says he’s in favor of prosecuting the bozos who stole lecturns, shat on floors and killed cops. But “on Jan 6th” leaves out – and yes, I know I’m repeating myself – the plotters in Trump’s circle and Congress who provoked the events. And those are the targets of the committee the GOP calls illegitimate.
And there’s a difference about a mile wide between burning a flag and directing people on how to invade the capitol and overthrow an election. For what it’s worth, I’ll agree the committee should not investigate any instances of flag burning on January 6th. They should investigate the other stuff thoroughly, though.
Does the difference involve violence?
I have no idea what point you even think you’re making anymore, so I’ll leave you to it.
Equivocation? Trump, and the mob that is his supporters tried to overthrow the government of the United States. That’s it. That’s a fact.
Attempting to overthrow the US government is not codified directly in the constitution. The founders of this country assumed that well, yeah, that’s treason. We don’t have to write that down.
Burning a flag in protest, or marching down the streets is not the same as having the President of the United States attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.
But we all know that.
That’s exactly my point: marching down a street, even while burning a flag and shouting in protest, sometimes gets referred to in terms of subversiveness — and I don’t want to say something that could be interpreted as me condemning that, since I’m in favor of it. But since violently storming the Capitol also gets referred to in terms of subversiveness, I’d rather clarify: are you talking about criminal violence? I’m in favor of prosecution. Are you talking about, uh, non-criminal non-violence? Wait a minute; maybe I’m not in favor of prosecution. Are you talking about subversiveness? Give me a specific.
Who is prosecuting “non-criminal non-violence”? I mean, what would the charge even be?
Heh. I wasn’t sure, but I decided to play it safe instead of bulldozing ahead with that sentence to stake out an absolutist position; are there jurisdictions where, say, traffic offenses are neither felonies nor misdemeanors, but get prosecuted all the same?
Are we still talking about the insurrection?
Heck, I thought we could get back to discussing whether the Republicans are destined to fail. (Remember when this was a thread about why they’re destined to fail? Good times.)
As long as they continue to be the party of white guys, if they don’t let that go, then they are destined to ultimately fail. The damage they’ll do before the failure? Hurts to think about.
I’m also guessing he’s splitting hairs between those aforementioned bozos, and “peaceful protesters” who merely stormed the Capitol, but who didn’t actually steal anything, shit on anything, or do anything overtly or personally violent to a cop.
Which is absolute BS- if you were there, you are complicit. And those who directed the thing OR who were in positions of power and didn’t do anything to stop it ought to be up for treason/sedition or whatever sort of felony they can throw at them and make it stick
Part of me wonders if this is sort of the death throes of that sort of benighted, racist, jingoist, backward, religion trumps everything mentality that has been predominant in the US until the past few decades, but seems to now be primarily centered in economically distressed and undereducated rural areas.
I hope this is the case, but I’m with you- they can do a lot of damage while they flail around.
Yeah, and refusing to hire or do business with obnoxious assholes sometimes gets referred to in terms of censorship, and insisting on standard public health measures sometimes gets referred to in terms of tyranny. None of these three diversions from the relevant point have any bearing on the respective subjects.
Yep. And this is something that does not stop and turn on a dime even in the best of times.
–
Meanwhile…
As one of the Brown Peoples, may I take this opportunity to repeat my apparently vain plead to in Og’s name stop counting on demographic predestination.
Come on, I have been hearing that “the new generations” will bring about the new enlightenment since back when I was part of the next new generation, and I’m still waiting…
And now that you mention that, unsaid there is that the Boomers that did give us the Summer of Love were not the only Boomers or even a majority thereof. At a minimum half the Boomers once out of school kept their hair neat and their shirts pressed and got a regular job and the most radical change they went for was when the 70s came around they bought some really bad polyester knits and a waterbed. It took 4 more decades to get even marijuana legalization really going.
So I’ve grown very skeptical of the idea that becoming a “rainbow nation” will by itself drive the Right in general, or the Republicans as a brand, into permanent insignificance. Not if someone is smart enough to pivot the “values” message while the other side’s portrayed as just “but…but…but… they are racists and hate you!”
The oldest Millennials are now over 40 and showing little sign of becoming more politically conservative.
There are trends like racial diversity, growing secularism and higher levels of college education that simply weren’t in play in 1970. The youngest generations are nothing like the boomers.
Heck, don’t believe an old hippie like me. Listen to Republican strategists, who are scared shitless.
Speaking from some mid Gen-X experience (born in early 70s), we’re more liberal than people give us credit for as well.
We’re the first generation to grow up outside of segregation, for example. Most of us who grew up in places with black people went to school with black people, and interacted with them in everyday life, unlike our parents’ generation.
I wouldn’t say that the wingnut hyper-conservative crew is insignificant in Gen-X, but they’re certainly more limited to the rural and religious suburbanite crowds, which don’t necessarily reflect the generation as a whole at all.
Let me explain the reasons: telling people they are not welcome someplace because of their political views is not political violence.
I know I’ve been disagreeing with you, but you know what – I don’t really disagree with what you’re saying. I don’t expect Millennials and younger voters to become significantly “more conservative” over time. As time goes on and they become the largest part of the voting electorate, both parties will try to adjust their policies and messages to appeal to their values.
But I do push back on the notion that this necessarily means that Democrats will become politically ascendant unless Republicans significantly moderate their positions and rhetoric, for a couple reasons. First, in a two-party system, neither party is going to precisely match the values of an entire generation. Of course, not all younger voters share the same values to begin with. But even voters whose values are squarely “liberal” have different interpretations of what that means and how they apply in different contexts. And any individual voter has multiple values that he or she may perceive to be in conflict in a given scenario and he or she may prioritize one value over another (e.g. security over freedom). This creates a lot of room for Republicans to use wedge issues where they can appeal to more liberally-minded voters without having to fundamentally change their stripes.
The other reason I push back on the Democratic demographic destiny argument is I fucking hate the psychology of it. It breeds complacency and drains the urgency out of today’s election. It creates an “oh well, we’ll get 'em next time” mentality. It becomes an excuse for not doing the hard, unglamorous grunt work of electioneering and to avoid making difficult decisions about targeting resources.
Say what you will about Republicans, but they absolutely bust their asses on identifying and turning out their voters. I’m sure part of the reason for that is because they feel the need to compensate for the pressure of demographics. Maybe they’re just delaying the inevitable, but the future can change in unexpected ways and each election they can stave off the demographic Democratic ascendancy is another chance for them to alter the playing field in their favor.
Mobs of threatening goons intimidating people in public or at their homes for political reasons is actually political violence. As is burning businesses, smashing cars, and looting. And no, it’s not right wing people masquerading as Antifa either. That’s Q-anon level delusional thinking.
If that intimidation is physical, and involves threats of violence, sure.
If people are holding up signs that say things you like, or are chanting things you don’t like, no it’s not.