A Deeply Fractured US
- Thread starter BeyondTheNow
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 1,826
- Points
- 1,090
With all the chaos, violence, and unrest, I predict that many moderate, and some not so moderate Democrats may abstain, or cast votes for Republican candidates. The next 100 days are going to be very telling indeed, but I truly fear for what comes after the election.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,361
- Points
- 1,010
mariomike said:
Then at noon on January 20th, 2021, Biden becomes POTUS, or more importantly his VP becomes POTUS in short order after inauguration when Biden is forced to step down for health reasons. The violent protests go away, COVID-19 becomes less of a problem, AG Barr is immediately replaced, pardons all around for the orchestrators of the Russia collusion hoax, and significant corruption resumes. More devastating than even that will be the potential for a socialist agenda by the radical left getting a foot hold in the DNC, open borders which will stress everything from health care to elections, a war somewhere, expanding the supreme court to appoint more leftist judges for more left wing favourable decisions, potential constitutional amendments like limiting 2a, back to appeasing Iran, Russia, China... off the top of my head those could be potential outcomes.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,653
- Points
- 1,160
If the USA did not fall apart in the 60s and 70s, I don't see that happening now.
Compared to the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam protests, today's skirmishes are a tiny blip on the radar screen. Social media just makes it seem bigger...
Compared to the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam protests, today's skirmishes are a tiny blip on the radar screen. Social media just makes it seem bigger...
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,847
- Points
- 1,040
What will happen depends on the scope of victory. If Biden becomes president but Republicans retain the Senate and/or win the House, then nothing much moves legislatively and Democrats are back in their "champions of executive authority" chair.
If Democrats win the presidency, House, and Senate, it's unlikely they would win the last with a super-majority. They will need to decide whether to remove the legislative filibuster. If they do, I predict essentially a rehash of the track followed by the Obama administration. Two years of more or less doing what they want, bedeviled by their own internal demands for pork, followed by midterm losses. The more they cater to the demands of their activist sub-factions, the stronger the rebuke will be. So back to the "executive authority" pattern. But unlike Obama, whom polls consistently found more popular than his (or Democrats') policies, Biden I doubt would win re-election. A solid VP taking over from Biden during Biden's first term might win re-election.
If Democrats win the presidency, House, and Senate, it's unlikely they would win the last with a super-majority. They will need to decide whether to remove the legislative filibuster. If they do, I predict essentially a rehash of the track followed by the Obama administration. Two years of more or less doing what they want, bedeviled by their own internal demands for pork, followed by midterm losses. The more they cater to the demands of their activist sub-factions, the stronger the rebuke will be. So back to the "executive authority" pattern. But unlike Obama, whom polls consistently found more popular than his (or Democrats') policies, Biden I doubt would win re-election. A solid VP taking over from Biden during Biden's first term might win re-election.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,898
- Points
- 1,160
QV said:
What is the continuing "overt socialism" of which he speaks? Does he honestly know what 'socialism'means or is this just a continuation of the political right's tossing of the word to scare people (remember, that to them we are a socialist country).
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,847
- Points
- 1,040
"Socialism", like "racism", and sometimes "sexism", means whatever the speaker thinks it means or wants it to mean. But in the context provided, I can guess that he refers to whatever it is that those who use the word to refer to themselves and their policies - which they talk about openly - mean. He's using their own chosen descriptor. For example, some of the Sanders sub-faction call themselves or their ideas "socialist". Anyone who objects to the misuse of the word will have to take it up with them. And it's not up to the "buyer" to convince himself that the product isn't "scary" - that job lies with the "seller".
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,248
- Points
- 1,160
daftandbarmy said:
Testify, Brother!
As one of the old folks on this forum who lived through those times I do get quite a chuckle out of the angst coming from the right about what's happening in the streets below the border. This is truly a minor blip compared to those days.
I must admit, the gangs of assault rifle armed militia on both sides are new touch. Back in the 60s and 70s those were confined to the National Guard. But I guess that's what you get when you have a runaway 2nd Amendment and really stupid open carry laws.
:stirpot:
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,847
- Points
- 1,040
Back in the 60s and 70s they did at least use the NG, or local police forces, to deal with unrest. Isolated and overblown by social media the rioters may be, but it's a novelty to see some politicians trying to downplay or deny what is well-publicized in the internet age and basically siding with the hooligans for political advantage. Clips of Nadler's informal street interview and some of the speeches Barr was summoned to Congress to hear today are comedy gold.
The absence of enforcement doesn't lead to anarchy; it leads to vigilantism. That is to be expected: if an elected government abdicates its proper responsibility, the authority ceded to it reverts to the people.
I suppose Democratic strategists believe all of this somehow makes their party look more attractive to the undecided middle, who of course have nothing to lose and no stake in whatever passed for a stable and prosperous America a few months ago. But I can't see what they do.
The absence of enforcement doesn't lead to anarchy; it leads to vigilantism. That is to be expected: if an elected government abdicates its proper responsibility, the authority ceded to it reverts to the people.
I suppose Democratic strategists believe all of this somehow makes their party look more attractive to the undecided middle, who of course have nothing to lose and no stake in whatever passed for a stable and prosperous America a few months ago. But I can't see what they do.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 16,130
- Points
- 1,260
Brad Sallows said:
All good points.
At some point an adult will have to draw the line in the sand and tell the miscreants that its not wise to cross it.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,248
- Points
- 1,160
I find it interesting that there is a conservative myth circulating with wide acceptance that the US cities are being governed by a slew of Democrats who are gleefully sitting back and sipping Chardonnay all the while preventing their police from dealing appropriately with a) protesters and b) looters and rioters.
I fully expect that this fiction is being driven by the usual rabble-rousers on the right who have nothing better to do then vent their spleen.
I expect that the reality of the situation is that different administrations, in conjunction with their police forces and local governors are in fact working on these issues on a daily basis developing and executing what they consider to be the appropriate strategies for their communities that will defuse, apprehend or slowly burn out the violent elements involved while allowing legitimate protesters to execute their 1st Amendment rights. It's not an easy job and along the way mistakes may be made and corrected. It's a job that takes patience.
One can't stamp out legitimate protests in the US with boots on the ground. It's not only illegal but it's also counterproductive as it simply fosters more protest.
It's certainly also right and proper to arrest the looters and arsonists and vandals and run them through the justice system. The trouble is that's harder to do then most of the critics understand or are willing to admit. First you have to get to the site of the incident and control it enough to make apprehensions. Most police departments simply aren't set up or trained to work on numerous wide-spread, large-scale actions like this. It requires lengthy overtime deployments that takes police away from other more routine policing and quickly wears out the force. National Guard troops are even less prepared to handle such tasks and frequently become the target of further protests.
Much of the problem here is that you have opportunists at work who are lashing out with the knowledge that the chances of actually being apprehended are low. In addition there is a large percentage of the US population which simply has no respect for authority to the point of despising authority. This is not restricted to one particular segment of US society but widespread. What other country in the world has a political movement that advocates that the average citizen needs to bear arms to protect itself from an oppressive government?
Yup. I know something has to be done. But it's really silly to sit in your comfy living rooms venting at the "Dems" on TV or the internet for letting the world go to hell in a handbasket. One thing that's guaranteed from watching a twenty second video strip of window smashing or car burning is that you really have no idea what is actually going on.
Long story short. Take a pill. This too shall pass.
I fully expect that this fiction is being driven by the usual rabble-rousers on the right who have nothing better to do then vent their spleen.
I expect that the reality of the situation is that different administrations, in conjunction with their police forces and local governors are in fact working on these issues on a daily basis developing and executing what they consider to be the appropriate strategies for their communities that will defuse, apprehend or slowly burn out the violent elements involved while allowing legitimate protesters to execute their 1st Amendment rights. It's not an easy job and along the way mistakes may be made and corrected. It's a job that takes patience.
One can't stamp out legitimate protests in the US with boots on the ground. It's not only illegal but it's also counterproductive as it simply fosters more protest.
It's certainly also right and proper to arrest the looters and arsonists and vandals and run them through the justice system. The trouble is that's harder to do then most of the critics understand or are willing to admit. First you have to get to the site of the incident and control it enough to make apprehensions. Most police departments simply aren't set up or trained to work on numerous wide-spread, large-scale actions like this. It requires lengthy overtime deployments that takes police away from other more routine policing and quickly wears out the force. National Guard troops are even less prepared to handle such tasks and frequently become the target of further protests.
Much of the problem here is that you have opportunists at work who are lashing out with the knowledge that the chances of actually being apprehended are low. In addition there is a large percentage of the US population which simply has no respect for authority to the point of despising authority. This is not restricted to one particular segment of US society but widespread. What other country in the world has a political movement that advocates that the average citizen needs to bear arms to protect itself from an oppressive government?
Yup. I know something has to be done. But it's really silly to sit in your comfy living rooms venting at the "Dems" on TV or the internet for letting the world go to hell in a handbasket. One thing that's guaranteed from watching a twenty second video strip of window smashing or car burning is that you really have no idea what is actually going on.
Long story short. Take a pill. This too shall pass.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,847
- Points
- 1,040
>I find it interesting that there is a conservative myth circulating with wide acceptance that the US cities are being governed by a slew of Democrats who are gleefully sitting back and sipping Chardonnay all the while preventing their police from dealing appropriately with a) protesters and b) looters and rioters.
I read a few conservative blogs and sites, and haven't come across that particular straw man. If only it were true, because it's so easy to make light of.
Conservatives do frequently point out which major cities have predominantly Democratic administrations and/or mayors, and the lengths of time for which they have had them. The same happens with respect to states that have been "blue", or predominantly "blue", for a long time. Governed by a slew of Democrats, yes; that's a matter of fact, not myth. The bit about Chardonnay I haven't come across. Perhaps someone added it in to whatever you read. The conservative characterization of long-serving Democrat governments, rather, is usually "corrupt" and "entitled" - they've been there a long time, haven't been kicked out, haven't fixed the problems they claim they are good at solving, and take their voters for granted.
Conservatives also point out the cases in which administrations basically let the burners burn. About allowing peaceful protests to continue there isn't much disagreement. There's not really (a) and (b), there's mostly just (b). Conservatives understand the distinction. There is disagreement over whether apprehending the hooligans will pinch the violence off while peaceful assembly continues, or whether it is better to give "those who wished to destroy, space to do that as well", but "dealing appropriately with" is a matter of opinion, not fact.
What I "expect" is that since it is a presidential election year and the Democrats are not the incumbents, they're using unrest and the pandemic and consequent economic disruption to gain political advantage. They play hardball politics and cheat and lie and foment discord contrary to the interests of the US in pursuit of what is good for the Democratic party.
What's unfolding tends to show that places that won't put up with rioting have less rioting to put up with. Every bully prefers the weak target to the strong one. "opportunists at work who are lashing out with the knowledge that the chances of actually being apprehended are low" is a trivially obvious consequence of not making much effort to apprehend.
There are pretty clear divisions between those who cleave to "defund the police" and those who cleave to "support the police". No-one should be confused that there is some widespread disrespect for authority, although there may be widespread disrespect of some politicians. Most conservatives still revere their soldiery and respect their constabulary.
I read a few conservative blogs and sites, and haven't come across that particular straw man. If only it were true, because it's so easy to make light of.
Conservatives do frequently point out which major cities have predominantly Democratic administrations and/or mayors, and the lengths of time for which they have had them. The same happens with respect to states that have been "blue", or predominantly "blue", for a long time. Governed by a slew of Democrats, yes; that's a matter of fact, not myth. The bit about Chardonnay I haven't come across. Perhaps someone added it in to whatever you read. The conservative characterization of long-serving Democrat governments, rather, is usually "corrupt" and "entitled" - they've been there a long time, haven't been kicked out, haven't fixed the problems they claim they are good at solving, and take their voters for granted.
Conservatives also point out the cases in which administrations basically let the burners burn. About allowing peaceful protests to continue there isn't much disagreement. There's not really (a) and (b), there's mostly just (b). Conservatives understand the distinction. There is disagreement over whether apprehending the hooligans will pinch the violence off while peaceful assembly continues, or whether it is better to give "those who wished to destroy, space to do that as well", but "dealing appropriately with" is a matter of opinion, not fact.
What I "expect" is that since it is a presidential election year and the Democrats are not the incumbents, they're using unrest and the pandemic and consequent economic disruption to gain political advantage. They play hardball politics and cheat and lie and foment discord contrary to the interests of the US in pursuit of what is good for the Democratic party.
What's unfolding tends to show that places that won't put up with rioting have less rioting to put up with. Every bully prefers the weak target to the strong one. "opportunists at work who are lashing out with the knowledge that the chances of actually being apprehended are low" is a trivially obvious consequence of not making much effort to apprehend.
There are pretty clear divisions between those who cleave to "defund the police" and those who cleave to "support the police". No-one should be confused that there is some widespread disrespect for authority, although there may be widespread disrespect of some politicians. Most conservatives still revere their soldiery and respect their constabulary.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,361
- Points
- 1,010
Seattle is a fairly glaring example of your myth. Seattle city council unanimously voted to bar police from using tear gas, pepper spray and several other crowd control devices. The basis for this was the council alleges police had used these against mostly peaceful demonstrators. There are mechanisms in place to deal with incidents of excessive use of force by police so the motivation for widespread prohibition of crowd control measures while these violent riots go on is suspect.
Secondly, just have a look at the over two month siege on the federal court house in
None of this is "blip on the radar". What time has there every been a situation where a group of armed people seized city blocks inside the US and claimed autonomy from the government like the manner they did at the CHAZ? When was the last time armed people have been able to lay siege to a federal institution for this long this violently?
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,847
- Points
- 1,040
>Secondly, just have a look at the over two month siege on the federal court house in Seattle.
Portland.
Portland.
- Status
Similar threads
