How The Insurrection Attempt of January 6 Might Have Succeeded
That Donald Trump, the American president, inspired this revolt, there can be no doubt: he was the main speaker at the rally of his supporters that came shortly before, and he told them both that they must fight against the injustice about to occur, if they wished “to save their country”, and that he would accompany them to the Capitol.
Now, the first thing he said had the desired effect of causing them to storm the institution, but his failure to keep his word of the second utterance forced him to lose the cause, for there is nothing like a general at the head of his troops to inspire them. Had Trump lead his supporters to the Capitol instead of watching from afar, they would have gained access much more quickly and less violently...
...for, wherever he decides to go, his Secret Service must accompany him, to guard him; and if he had decided to go into the Capitol bldg that day, he would not only have brought his army in with him, but would have caused a great hesitation in the minds of the Capitol Police, as they decided whether to protect the bldg against his able bodyguards, or instead yield to The President of The United States of America. For this reason the mob would have gotten in more quickly, and been able to arrest the legislators before their guards could escort them to safety.
Once arrested, they would have been brought back into the Senate, and ordered by the insurrection to resume ratification of the electoral votes. Pence would have taken his place at the podium, and the process begun again from the beginning, but now, instead of being the puppet of the electorate, he would be that of the president and his mob, which now fills the gallery, the balconies, hangs from the rafters and blocks every exit; and whenever a state declares its electors for Biden there is an uproar, and Hawley and Cruz and the other sycophants jump up and protest in long speeches, and the moderate Republicans sit in silence, and the Democrats are booed off the stage or threatened into submission, and The President of the Senate, fearing for his life, changes his edict in favor of Trump...
Thusly by force and fear, courage and leadership, Donald J. Trump would have ratified his victory in the election; which thing, once ratified, by whatever means, is difficult to annul.
If I am correct, our republic, the longest-standing extant, did not survive this insurrection because of the durability of its institutions, but rather because of the lack of virtue or prudence in the man who plotted its overthrow.
For, to his own detriment, he was not a martially-minded man, not willing to put himself into the fray, too protective of his life and person to risk putting his neck out there. Only witness his opinion of the “suckers” that died at Normandy.
If he had been Julius Caesar instead of the boss of The Apprentice, we would have seen the end of our state.
Now, the first thing he said had the desired effect of causing them to storm the institution, but his failure to keep his word of the second utterance forced him to lose the cause, for there is nothing like a general at the head of his troops to inspire them. Had Trump lead his supporters to the Capitol instead of watching from afar, they would have gained access much more quickly and less violently...
...for, wherever he decides to go, his Secret Service must accompany him, to guard him; and if he had decided to go into the Capitol bldg that day, he would not only have brought his army in with him, but would have caused a great hesitation in the minds of the Capitol Police, as they decided whether to protect the bldg against his able bodyguards, or instead yield to The President of The United States of America. For this reason the mob would have gotten in more quickly, and been able to arrest the legislators before their guards could escort them to safety.
Once arrested, they would have been brought back into the Senate, and ordered by the insurrection to resume ratification of the electoral votes. Pence would have taken his place at the podium, and the process begun again from the beginning, but now, instead of being the puppet of the electorate, he would be that of the president and his mob, which now fills the gallery, the balconies, hangs from the rafters and blocks every exit; and whenever a state declares its electors for Biden there is an uproar, and Hawley and Cruz and the other sycophants jump up and protest in long speeches, and the moderate Republicans sit in silence, and the Democrats are booed off the stage or threatened into submission, and The President of the Senate, fearing for his life, changes his edict in favor of Trump...
Thusly by force and fear, courage and leadership, Donald J. Trump would have ratified his victory in the election; which thing, once ratified, by whatever means, is difficult to annul.
If I am correct, our republic, the longest-standing extant, did not survive this insurrection because of the durability of its institutions, but rather because of the lack of virtue or prudence in the man who plotted its overthrow.
For, to his own detriment, he was not a martially-minded man, not willing to put himself into the fray, too protective of his life and person to risk putting his neck out there. Only witness his opinion of the “suckers” that died at Normandy.
If he had been Julius Caesar instead of the boss of The Apprentice, we would have seen the end of our state.
Comments (93)
:100:
To add to fishfry's post, there's a popular narrative that is pushed that an officer was killed when defending against the rioters. This narrative was first that he was bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher which turned out to be wrong and quietly changed to ] he might've died from exposure to bear spray but actually have no evidence to back this up, including an autopsy. This officer is the only officer to have died in the riots, and there is an obvious bias to push the idea that he was murdered.
You know, considering that the capitol police were hopelessly outnumbered in a horrific, violent insurrection, only 1 police officer getting killed (maybe) is a pretty amazing feat. I guess it was the right call that a request for backup was denied. Who cares if there's a possibility for a new civil war starting at the capitol on an announced day?
Let's remember that Trump was in charge of the executive branch and the commander of the military, hence this would have been a self-coup.
Donald Trump lives is to be at heart a media personality, who absolutely enjoys the idol worship by his supporters. And that's what this extremely narcissistic person wants, not much else (and of course more money). He doesn't have a zeal and a mission like dictators usually do. He simply isn't a man that would make a coup, or in this case a self-coup.
The scary thing is that there were people who indeed were totally capable of going through this and would have committed. Forget the MyPillow-guy, general Flynn, ex-national security advisor and ex-leader of an intelligence service pardoned by Trump advised Trump to use the military and would be a person that would have gone through with a self-coup. He (Flynn) likely totally understood that there was no turning back once committed, either you get all the power or you go to jail for the rest of your life. That incentive, either everything or prison (or death) is a mighty incentive for people once committed to not turn back at anything. People can in this kind of situation start to believe in their own lies.
(The pardoned Flynn would have been a loyal Trump man, who could have pulled a coup off.)
(How about Giuliani as the Attorney General or leading the election fraud investigation, that might go on for years.)
The obvious obstacle was the military. It repeatedly, and this Americans want to forget, repeatedly had to officially announce that it would do nothing and that the US military protected the constitution. Hence the Trump administration would had have to fire a lot of generals until they would have gotten military servicemen that thought that "protecting the constitution" would mean to halt the election process.
(These guys would have been an obstacle for Trump, but perhaps others...)
But Trump is no Hitler, no Stalin, nobody that can truly lead people to go through with a self-coup. He surely would have had the support at least to make it seem popular. Just think about the reaction of the crowd at January 6th if military or secret service personnel would have detained Democrat politicians and brought them out in handcuffs charged with election fraud to the crowd. The Trump mob would have been ecstatic. The hallucination that this was all done to protect the Constitution would have spread like wildfire. And, unfortunately as the vast majority of people are fearful and just want to mind their own business, it could have easily gone through. The counter protest would have naturally sprang up everywhere and naturally the police would do what the police does when demonstration without permit happen. And with an instant, I believe that a huge number of people, many also here at PF, would have assumed that the police, military and the establishment are all behind the Trump self-coup and would hurl their vitriol at any government official they see. Their inability to see that the vast majority of the government would not be on the side of the Trump putsch would be beneficial for the coup plotters. Then the counter protests would be the reason for curfews, lock downs etc. which people already are used to thanks to the coronavirus. Knowing the polarization in the US, any kind of large passive resistance and an widespread consensus that this is a coup would not have been reached. In fact, Americans would have been at each others throat even more viciously than now: the anti-Trumpists would be full of hatred against anyone that had voted for Trump, which would simply pushed a lot of Americans being in favor of Trump's actions.
The ugliest thing is that the World would have adapted to the new situation. A lot of Americans would have just minded their own business. The coup plotters would think that they would truly be on a mission to protect the Constitution. Other countries would just express their concern about the situation, but do nothing. We'd hope that the US would find it's way again back from these troubled times. That's it. Life goes on.
But Trump was not that man, in reality, so this is very hypothetical.
His popularity gets people to attach to him like flies to push their own agenda. Trump simply isn't a man that would have the ability and the balls to go through with something like overthrowing the Constitution. The real issue is that there does exist those, who could go through, if they would get into power.
Todd!
Can you elaborate on those concepts viz your thesis?
Frankly, he wasn’t a great leader in this instance. His idea that the crowd would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”, to “cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women” wasn’t followed. In fact, the violence had started before he finished speaking, both on the same day and the night before. The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event. No charge of insurrection has been levied; probably the worst charge was assault. On top of that, the defence in the impeachment trial was a sufficient refutation of the insurrection theory.
America did survive the insurrection for the simple reason there wasn’t one.
What was his intended purpose?
Forcibly entering the chambers of congress with the intent of overturning the results of a free and fair election. That’s not insurrection?
Can you (also) elaborate a bit more on those concepts viz your thesis?
No one has yet to be charged with the crime of insurrection, let alone convicted of it. So according to those with the authority to make such judgements, the answer is no.
You can't think for yourself?
I can and do think for myself. The authorities have, at least so far, confirmed my view. If you'll note, the insurrection theory was the prevailing view in the press and in congress. Curiously enough, you seem to share the same view. So what did you base your insurrection theory on, if not someone else's thinking?
The actions of those who stormed the capital and the meaning of insurrection.
So if you can think for yourself, how was it not an insurrection?
Trump himself, by duping his supporters, and lawyers. And there is no theory to the fact that he watched it happen and let it happen for 90 minutes, just ask Kevin McCarthy LOL.
I feel so sorry for all those supporters who gave him donations LOL
The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2
What was his intended purpose?
The actions of those who broke into the capitol, the definition of insurrection, legal precedent and history. What occurred simply doesn't resemble an insurrection.
"Condemned mostly by Republicans" but "No outrage."
Hmmm.
The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2
What was his intended purpose?
I don't see an argument, naturally.
Indeed. Crickets LOL
"After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I used your argument.
What was the right thing?
The actions of those who broke into the capitol, the definition of insurrection, legal precedent and history. What occurred simply doesn't resemble an insurrection.
— NOS4A2
The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2
What was his intended purpose?
"only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated"
You are arguing that it was not violent and not against the government?
They did, and he lost. LOL
The actions of those who broke into the capitol, the definition of insurrection, legal precedent and history. What occurred simply doesn't resemble an insurrection.
— NOS4A2
The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2
What was his intended purpose?
I'm arguing it isn't an uprising or rebellion.
Are you sure, it wasn't LOL
The actions of those who broke into the capitol, the definition of insurrection, legal precedent and history. What occurred simply doesn't resemble an insurrection.
— NOS4A2
The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2
I'm arguing it isn't an uprising or rebellion.
__NOS4A2
What was his intended purpose?
Looks violent to me.
And they sought to overturn the election, so not only were they against the government but against the will of the people.
Irrational of course, but then recently the lawyer for Sidney Powell, one of the most prominent instigators of the BIG LIE, stated in court recently that “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.”
Also, many of the rioters have been charged with conspiracy, so not just people getting carried away in the moment.
People rioted outside Trump's inauguration. People rioted outside the Whitehouse. People overtook entire blocks of some cities. Since they were violent and were aimed at government, were these insurrections to you?
...and the voting machine companies are suing the lawyers and FOX for defamations associated with Dumper Trumper's lie.
I forgot to add that a donatoer wants his 2 million back and is suing for his donation...Trump dupped him... .
Trump plays games with peoples lives. Thankfully the majority of Americans saw through it. He wants to be percieved as a victom rather than a loser so he can raise money. Another fraudulent scheme-- much like the defunct Trump University, the bankrupt Casino's, racist convictions of his rental props, and other shady deals, ad nauseum...
We saw through it, thank God!
What were their intented purpose?
The actions of those who broke into the capitol, the definition of insurrection, legal precedent and history. What occurred simply doesn't resemble an insurrection.
— NOS4A2
The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2
I'm arguing it isn't an uprising or rebellion.
__NOS4A2
Since they were violent and were aimed at government, were these insurrections to you?
— NOS4A2
What was his intended purpose?
I suppose the difference is that they were violent protests with the aim of making a statement or venting frustrations, whereas those who stormed the capital sought to force congress to reelect Trump. For instance, none of the rioters that you refer to were charged with conspiracy, were they?
One added letter, a “y” right after “horn”, would have made this a perfect post, Mr. Praxis.
Quoting ssu
Not really. Though technically speaking he was still all those things, his command was about to be removed by the swearing-in of his replacement. By forcing his ratification as the next president he would have guaranteed that he kept the command.
Quoting ssu
And for four years he ran the American government like it was four seasons of the Apprentice!
Quoting ssu
In my scenario the military are absent (as they were on Jan 6). Once he had been certified President Elect by the electoral ratification process, Trump would only have had to quell all and any anti-coup movements until Jan 21, after which he would remain commander-in-chief.
Quoting ssu
Yes. Had Trump succeeded in taking over the government, all the Bolsonaros and Putins and Xis would have been emboldened to do the same all around the world. The autocratic spirit in world politics that has been breathed fresh air over the last few decades would have ignited a general flame.
Quoting ssu
Yes: just go about day-to-day business, getting their kids to school, going to work, reclining to watch their favorite tv shows...like The Apprentice (!)
Quoting ssu
It needs to be one of the blood-line. The blood of the prince has power over the ppl like nothing else. If his dad wasn’t bold enough, Donald Jr might be. What is he doing right now? Do you think he isn’t salivating over wet-dreams of 2024?
@3017amen”
#comment-517333" class="quote-link">Quoting 3017amen
I think so: the courage to lead his mob/army into the Capitol in order to gain control of electoral ratification. That is what I meant.
Quoting 3017amen
By force I meant the entering of the Capitol accompanied by his Secret Service and backed by the mob. By fear I meant what Pence would have felt, and every Democrat and moderate Republican, whenever the gallery shouted its disapproval of the regularly listed electoral votes. In such a circumstance (literally), everyone against him would have feared for her life.
Quoting NOS4A2
There wasn’t one, rather, because it didn’t succeed. There can be no doubt about the intention of the insurrectionist: they were ready to hang Pence and Pelosi and any other politician who smelled of anti-Trumpism, including McConnell.
The division b/w those who see no coup attempt here, and those who do, is the difference b/w literal and subliminal message. Someone can insert a statement that is contrary to their overall message; but to take that statement as proof that their alleged intention is a fantasy, is itself the actual fantasy.
When a mob boss tells his crew "It would be a shame if something were to happen to Louie" I don't think he thinks that. Nevertheless, it was a shame what then happened to Louie, eh?
Second, just because certain charges are not brought does not mean the crime was not committed.
Third, the jury is still out (i.e. the prosecution is not done). That does not mean the crime was not committed.
Literally? You're insane. And what's happened to liberals, one of which I used to be, is a tragedy.
Super violent
This actually has a lot in here but still very sparse with anything close to violent. Barbaric, maybe, on account of the property destruction. These people, walking at the police, need to be arrested, convicted, tortured and lynched on the spot, obviously.
Quoting Todd Martin
Woops wrong protest. That one was peaceful, with gunshots of peace in the background.
Carrying doubt about the insurrection is not the equivalent of rejecting it. If you feel so then your view on the topic is too simplistic. Perhaps you should hold literal messages the same amount of doubt you hold subliminal messages.
Another Kool-Aid guzzler, I guess.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/us/politics/capitol-riot-police-officer-injuries.html
Todd!
Of course, you are not an advocate of 'Presidential Leadership' skills that encourage domestic violence and law breaking and disorder, in order to perpetuate a falsehood/lie. (The lie being he can't admit he lost so he fakes people out/tries to convince them, and cries foul making them think it was rigged so he can raise money and live for another day.)
And if somehow one is dupped, for emotional/partisan reasons to, in this case, think the election(s) are/was rigged, how does one square the republican victories in same (states/electoral victories, etc.)?
How does one reconcile those kinds of belief systems, I wonder? Is it all emotion? Is it power? Is it greed? Don't mean to sound naive. I mean, common sense say's 'this is a guy who is out for himself, needs power and has a larger personal agenda/problem, and justifies his words/actions through partisan politics'. In other words, the public saw through it; the experiment failed. If the reader is unclear, just rewind the GOP primary tapes from 2016; many of his GOP opponents called him "a Fake" among other things. If you want names I can provide (Ted Cruise, Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, etc..).
Bottom line I suppose is that if one can provide for any legal argument to support 'the lie', it would have made the scenario more likely than not. Gotta give the majority of American's credit, they saw through the bull$$it. Dumper Trumper's Bull$$it.
I would say Trump was unsuccessful in carrying out this take-over because he underestimated the wisdom of the masses. Frankly, he was not perceptive or smart enough to know people's expectation levels for such a high office, carrying such a higher responsibility to serve the republic and its citizens. (Not to mention our wonderful system of checks and balances... .) Like you said, he thought it was just a reality show or one of his private sector failed businesses. (Okay to be fair he's had 'some' success, but you gotta wonder how... .)
If nothing else, it was a lesson of how not to get re-elected. We demand a little bit more from our leaders, and words, character and integrity do matter. It's a shame, cause he did do 'some' good things... .
He's his own worst enemy. Kinda like Tony Montana in Scareface :)
This insurgency work was built upon previous, less focused work.
So loyal to our system are these people that they would stand back, stand down and do nothing if Americans failed to exercise the franchise, or if Trump had indeed won. They are not going to jump in if the system they have sworn to uphold wants to shit on itself.
Anyway, I hate to use the term "Deep State" because, while it actually exists, it is not the nefarious, anti-democratic, plutocratic, un-American beast that some people think it is. It is a giant, relatively lethargic and disinterested professional bureaucracy and cadre of civil servants and military folks who aren't going to turn the ship on a dime no matter what happens up in the wheelhouse. They are not homogeneous in thought, either. But they keep their oath instead of saying they are oath keepers; much as the predator lives in grace with his pray, rather than simply saying grace before he eats.
Suffice it to say, there was some "wall-to-wall counseling" going on behind the scenes. If Trump himself had not been schooled (it may not work on a delusional narcissist), it was well known in advance to folks like Flynn, et al. who may have had asperations to take a bite. The one thing Flynn and his ilk knew, however, is that when one striketh the King, strike not to wound. They had to roll their eyes at the chumps who had taken the objective and then walked out. DOH! But the fact Flynn and crew were not there is a testament to their intelligence. They knew the best they could do would be to wound, and then they would die for naught. No martyrs or true believers in his bunch. They knew the gray men would have killed them because they were told as much.
In regards to the false equivalence of 1/6/21 to the civil unrest the previous summer, I'd just like to know what the 1/6/21 folks would like to have seen in response had their opposition tried to take the Capital. That, I think, should be their fate. From belt-fed, crew-served automatic weapons, to a round-up and public execution of traitors? Naw, I guess not. It was good to let them blow their wad, see what a loser they were backing, and go home defeated. On the other hand, they did strike the king, so . . .? Then again, the left is nothing if not magnanimous in victory.
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
Was it by wisdom that the masses voted him in in the first place? We let the wolf in the door...and he wasn’t even dressed in sheep’s clothing! We all knew what he was when, through our wisdom, we voted for him in 2016. Why then did we vote for him?
It’s, of course, complicated...very very complicated, and I haven’t the time to go into it all right now. I only want to make the point that, if we were so wise to resist the take-over attempt, yet we weren’t so wise to put that man in power who would inspire it.
Quoting James Riley
Clever; accolades from me...and especially for the spelling “pray” rather than the expected and proper “prey”...even if unintended...but especially if intended.
Quoting 3017amen
So wonderful was it, that it was a wonder anyone wondered why Trump put Bill Barr in as Attorney General; that wonder wonderfully dissipated as soon as Barr gave his public summary of the Russia Collusion Investigation.
Quoting 3017amen
I am not an advocate of either side here. As @NOS4A2, @fishfry and @FlaccidDoor might agree, “domestic violence and lawbreaking and disorder” might apply also to last year’s racial riots.
All I am saying is that Trump was in a position, on January 6, that he could have led his army, instead of just trusting in them to do it all for him, to the Capitol, put all his chips in, and, not just gambled (which activity I suppose he is familiar with, especially on the golf-course) in the contest, but participated in it...and not just participated, but could have been the main character, the chief, the general, THE MAN...and either won or lost his cause, to remain perpetual leader of the greatest country in the world, by his own merits...
...but he didn’t have the balls to do what was needed to insure that bet. By withdrawing, he insured his safety at the cost of the cause. He still hoped the cause would be achieved, but because he valued his own personal safety more, he risked less, and, though hoping for more, nevertheless got exactly what he risked.
I think he thought he had to hole it in from the fairway, so he wasn’t willing to bet on it...
...but maybe he just had to sink a 15 foot putt.
HA! I have to confess it was not intentional. Damn!
In the unimaginable event that Trump had a successful coup d'état on January 6th, I wonder if he would have made horn guy the Secretary of Agriculture. I assume he has penchant for animal husbandry.
Actually it was the opposite. It was a lack of wisdom, through ignorance, and naivety. Many thought he was the holy Grail The outsider businessman who could save the day. As it turned out not only couldn't he drain the swamp, he was the swamp.
And of course much like this election, 2016 was a protest vote against Hillary. Moderate's on both sides didn't want the guy in there. That combined with the numbers from the extreme left tipped the scales. The GOP of course needs to redefine itself... .
Quoting Todd Martin
It certainly backfired on Trump that's for sure.
Quoting Todd Martin
The problem is he was a coward not to lead his supporters and put boots on the ground with them, nor did he have enough merits to support his cause on a broader scale.
Quoting Todd Martin
Yep. He miscalculated. This is what happens when you focus solely on yourself. Not very perceptive at all and certainly not a virtuous characteristic of leadership.
Quoting James Riley
I appreciate your honesty, James, and it says a lot about your character that you confess the truth. But I already suspected it was unintentional judging by other occasional misspellings you made in your posts.
You seem, however, to be a rather sharp intellect. My advice to you is to be more careful about details, like spelling: though one’s misspellings almost always become clear through context, nevertheless, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details” (and the angel too maybe).
Quoting praxis
I think Trump should have (secretly, of course) recommended horny guy to Melania, to satisfy her mid-life urgings. I doubt Donald can or does still satisfy them.
Quoting 3017amen
That’s my point, Mr. Amen: how do we extol the wisdom of a ppl in rejecting an unfit president when it was the same ppl who voted him in in the first place? Did the American ppl suddenly become wise after four years? If we were truly wise, would we have elected him to start with? Isn’t wisdom a permanent and timeless virtue? As I pointed out, he was a wolf in wolf’s clothing, so we weren’t fooled that way; for some reason we thought it better to let a wolf in than another milquetoast politician. What virtue, then, of a wolf, were we seeking as the primary quality in a leader?
Quoting 3017amen
Au contraire, Mr. Amen: Barr stuck by his client (he was really Trump’s attorney, wasn’t he?) to (almost) the very end, helping him navigate two impeachment’s. He only got fired after he had to admit that the election was lost...
...which dove-tails into my thesis: that the election was not lost until the electorate had been ratified. Barr was jettisoned after his usefulness ran out, but he had been very useful up until that point...
...I just wonder—and maybe your superior knowledge might shed light on this—if Trump failed to properly groom/purge the military for the coming insurrection. In other words, might he had fired and hired top brass so as to install his minions, in the wake of the coup attempt, so that, after it had succeeded, he could trust in them to support him?
As one poster has already noted,
Quoting ssu
Yes. In a coup one must have the support of the military above all else. But the top brass weren’t with him, so I begin to doubt my thesis: I think, on Jan 6, the critical moment, Trump had to hole it out from the fairway were he to succeed in leading the insurrection to its logical conclusion, a precarious (literally) scenario, rather than just sink a medium-range putt.
Another consideration is, the "top brass" aren't as on top as they might like to think. And the troops aren't inclined to follow all orders. There is a limit. That limit would be found had the top brass followed Tump. But again, it's all academic, because the top brass wouldn't do that.
Y E S
My point was that the integrity of news sources are to be questioned, and holding skepticism in said news sources' claims are not the same as rejecting said claims. As in taking headlines like, "Insurrection by orange man almost wipes America out" with a grain of salt, is not the same as saying the insurrection did not happen.
What gives me doubts that the insurrection isn't as impressive as it's made out to be is that, while being made out to sound like the most terrible thing in modern history, no one on the law enforcement side was killed. As I mentioned before, 1 officer was purported to be killed by blunt trauma but now it might've just been bear spray exposure, which both rioters and the police had. The only confirmed murders were by the police to the rioters.
Todd!
Through elections occurring every 4 years. In this case the masses determined he should be fired, and of course, he was fired. In other words, he lost.
Quoting Todd Martin
Yes.
Quoting Todd Martin
Take a look at Jimmy Carter, or any other one term President's, they all were one hit wonders, as well.
Quoting Todd Martin
Wisdom much like logic, is a priori and a posteriori. With respect to the latter wisdom changes based on empirical analysis.
Quoting Todd Martin
The masses were looking for someone who could improve some of the political paradigms (among other things). Unfortunately his approach didn't work on many levels. For instance, his communication skills proved to be his downfall.
Quoting Todd Martin
And that speaks to his narcissistic tendencies.
Quoting Todd Martin
Useful to the narcissism, or should I say fascism...
Quoting Todd Martin
Our democracy of checks and balances would have precluded that from happening.
Todd, just an observation, your thesis reminds me of the book from OJ Simpson, 'If I Did It"; dishonorable, discreditable and unscrupulous, to say the least.
My recommendation would to take this same intellectual energy and focus on something more virtuous (vs. violence, selfishness and greed) , also to say the least... .
I don't think the police had bear spray. I have bear spray. It's called "Counter Assault" and it will knock a charging Kodiak Coastal Brown Bear for a loop. It says right on the bottle that it is not to be used on humans. It shoots a cloud about four feet wide and thirty feet long. If you are down wind of your own spray, it will f you up. I've sprayed several bears and on one occasion, spraying two bears on my porch, my son, sleeping with two walls between him and the spray, woke up coughing with sore eyes.
I have never been able to understand for the life of me, how any of those unmasked traitors or cops could function in that mess at all! I once sprayed a big aggressive dog with it and he spent the next day hiding under an RV crying and spewing a metric shit ton of snot and slobber and tears all over the ground.
When I was in boot camp, I went through "the gas chamber" and actually got to the point where I could function in the chamber. I also know what self defense spray is (the kind cops use). Bear spray is on a whole 'nother level. If you have asthma, allergy or any pre-existing condition, it could kill you. And, as we used to say in the law, you take your victim as you find him. You don't get defend yourself on the basis that you didn't know your victim couldn't handle whatever it is you did to him if you shouldn't have been doing it.
The New York Times and their ridiculously hyperbolic headlines, whaddya gonna do. :brow:
Quoting FlaccidDoor
In the Trumpian value system they would be classified as losers and suckers.
I have no idea what the established protocols were, if they were implemented, or not. My greatest fear is this: Some of the defenders wanted to implement the protocols, but some didn't. Those who did may have sufferer from hesitancy due to peer pressure from those who did not want to implement the protocols. Those guys still work together. That is scary, to me.
I think that is why the old maxim about striking the king is important. If you strike, and you fail, and you are not brought to your knees in humble defeat, having the defiance (Churchill) forever removed from your soul, then you will grow stronger. You will fester. And your peers, seeing nothing happen to you, will think their inclinations, hesitant or not, were and are not worth defending.
Imagine being the only guy to implement a protocol, shoot and kill a traitor. On the other hand, had the defenders opened up on the traitors, we'd have a pile of martyrs on the floor. As it is, they are all home licking their wounds, getting called Antifa, and the world is moving on. That is a good thing.
But I can't help but wonder why the Capital is held to a lower standard than the White House. You know damn well their would have been a blood bath had the left or the right tried to invade it. Maybe "the People's House" gets to be a punching bag because, well, it's the people's house.
All this is just speculation. I don't know the truth of anything.
I'm fascinated by the interpersonal dynamics on the ground. I find the movie "Platoon" to be very inciteful in this regard. So many layers that seem simplistic from 10,000 feet.
That you believe such a thing occurred is a testament to your own value system, one easily moved to conclusion by gossip and palace intrigue.
I must have a similar value system then. I sincerely believe that Trump views those who attacked the Capital as losers and suckers. As an analogy, notwithstanding all of his policy "positions" and any substantive steps he took which hindered abortion, I sincerely believe that he could give less than a rats ass for any baby. I don't think I'm confused by gossip and palace intrigue. I take my opinion from personal observation of the man, and not what others have said about him.
I’m fairly certain you have not met the man, have zero personal observations, and like the rest of us derive your opinion from news stories and commentators.
He had some choice words for those who participated in the incursion, so I think it can be said he was not a fan of them.
You would be wrong, then. While I never saw a single minute of "The Apprentice", and had never really considered the man before the elevator, I have watched *him* and I have seen *his* mouth move and I have heard *his* words come out of it. I have read *his* tweets. And I have observed *his* demeanor. I have considered his executive efforts. My opinion is based upon what I have seen of *him*.
Quoting NOS4A2
That may not be the flex you think it is. He is not a fan of losers and suckers. But taking your point as I think you intended, for you to find sincerity in those words he spoke, and not in others, could be testament to your own value system. I'm not sure because I have not been following you like I did Trump.
Edited to add: Maybe I actually didn't hear or see any of that. Maybe the Deep State Conspiracy generated a bunch of Deep Fake and fooled me in to thinking the idiot I saw was actually the POTUS. Go Q!
Of course I could be wrong.
You sincerely believe he doesn’t like babies, yet there are countless pictures and videos of him kissing babies, picking them up, bringing them up on stage at his rallies, displaying behavior opposite and contrary to your sincere beliefs. So forgive me if I do not immediately agree with them.
I do have a bad habit of giving people the benefit of the doubt, and do so at my own peril. But so far I have not yet felt deceived by the man.
Politicians love you, I'm sure. But where we are alike, I think, is, like a jury, we utilize our life experience to discern whether one is being honest or not (we are "finders of fact"). But some folks will see and hear Trump tell the crowd he'd like to punch someone in the face, and he'd pay the legal fees of anyone charged with assault while evicting someone from a rally. Or how he likes to grab pussy. That is all hyperbole and locker room and whatnot. Not to be taken as sincere. But kiss one baby and you're good to go.
I think I know the difference sarcasm, hyperbole and sincerity.
I hate to say it but I knew it wouldn’t be long before a few sensationalized statements plucked from the vast sea of his rhetoric would occupy your opinion of the man. That’s how contextamy is supposed to work, after all.
You make the mistake of thinking it was a few, just because I used a few. I've got five years worth. Yet you pick a baby kiss, and an admonition of the Capital raiders and run with it? I'm sure you've got your own five years of things you find admirable. That is what makes us finders of fact. The jury. America ruled. And it wasn't all based on spin. Most of it was based on personal observation of how the man held himself out to the public. Most people think he's a dishonorable coward and a liar. All politicians want you to see them kiss babies. And it works. You are a case in point. But it does not always work, hence he is a loser.
You mentioned he doesn’t like babies, and ran with it. But there is evidence contrary to your claim. I choose the evidence, you choose...what exactly?
There isn’t a strand of chewing gum connecting the premise to your conclusion, but that’s how the internal logic of anti-Trumpism usually works.
I didn't say he didn't like them. I said he could give less than a rat's ass for them. There is a difference. My evidence is his turning toward whatever direction provides him with props. Those who dote on him can turn him in their direction. If the left had even a rudimentary understanding of child psychology, they could have turned him left. But alas, the left is like herding cats, and they are ill-inclined to sell their souls to the devil or compromise their values to obtain a goal. The Christian right, however, will say "Look, I don't care what the guy's personal feelings are, as long as he protects the unborn. If he does that, I'll suck his dick on national T.V. He can cheat on wives, grab pussy, worship idols and gold, or whatever. He's better than the godless left." My evidence is Trump's turn to the right when the national spot light came on the screen and all the lead rolls had already been taken. He found his niche (knuckle-draggers who wanted the apple cart tipped so bad they would hitch themselves to the likes of Trump).
I, like you, tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. While I did not vote him (I'm anti-party so I wrote myself in), I did wait for the longest time, hoping he was the guy to finally set the plutocracy back on it's heels. No joy. So I continued to watch him prove his interest in himself and nothing else. His failure to go to the Capital is but one example, but it is the icing on the cake. That is my evidence.
Quoting NOS4A2
Those who have partaken of the Kool-Aid would not know logic (which has it's own skeletons) if it jumped up and slapped them in the face. So pardon me if I don't take your snipe as as inciteful about my argument.
I might appreciate upsetting the apple cart. I just wish a leader could have done it, and for reasons that aligned with Liberal or Radical Democratic Theory. Our loss. And so the pendulum swings and the right will have brought upon itself the boogey man it said was coming. They should thank their lucky stars they got Biden instead. But we shall see.
It was my understanding that bear spray is a less debilitating nonlethal method compared to pepper spray because of comparing descriptions like from this site. I've been exposed to pepper spray before indirectly but I have no experience with bear spray. "[Bear spray] isn’t supposed to inflict a level of pain and incapacitation on par with what pepper spray does, which is why it contains only 1 to 2% OC but has a Capsaicin and Related Capsaicinoid concentration of 2%." On top of causing less pain, "pepper sprays are specifically designed to bring down human adversaries – their OC concentration and their precise stream spray pattern (typically) makes them ideal for close quarter self-defense." As in the typical use coats the victims' skin, eyes and clothes.
I'm completely ignorant of the self defense spray you mentioned and maybe bear sprays have other ingredients I haven't considered. But I thought that the police are to be exposed to pepper sprays during training, and so the idea of an officer dying from a weaker version of it, that isn't delivered to the same capacity seems dubious to me.
Sounds like you know more about this stuff than I do. My can of spray says "NOT FOR USE ON HUMANS". Active ingredients are Capsaicin and related capsaicinoids (Derived from Oleoresin of Capsicum) 2%, with 98% other ingredients.
I have no idea what that means, but I'd much rather run back into the Gas Chamber in boot camp and hang out for a half hour than get sprayed once with this stuff for a nanosecond. Maybe I just got weak in my old age.
I'm somewhat confused by your post though, and ask you to clarify:
Quoting FlaccidDoor
That sounds like bear spray is not supposed to be as bad as pepper spray. But compare with:
Quoting FlaccidDoor
Which seems contrary to the first quote. I'm not sure how to read your findings. Thanks.
Considering that the previous line to the one you quote suggested that the NYT published a headline that read "Insurrection by orange man almost wipes America out," any half-wit might have at least suspected that I was speaking rather tongue-in-cheek. It suits your tedious (and now largely irrelevant) narrative that anti-Trumpers are irrational, I realize, by making the claim that I essentially don't value truth and will swallow whatever story is published by the 'fake news media'.
You are basically claiming that I share your and Trumps values or that I don't value truth. I do value truth and that's one reason I'm anti-Trump.
Recently the lawyer for Sidney Powell, one of the most prominent instigators of the BIG LIE, stated in court recently that “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.” In other words, Trump and gang were fully aware that his base is comprised of suckers and were speaking directly to them and not 'reasonable people'.
Of course he regards them as losers and suckers.
I'm not sure, but I think that is an argument that was previously used by Tucker Carlson in defense of a law suit brought against him. Some wag said it should hence forth be known as the "Tucker Carlson Defense." (Or maybe it was Hannity, I can't recall.) Nevertheless, I like it. Whichever clown it was, the name should be recorded in the canons of law so we have a ready short-hand for the future. Maybe Faux News can use it against Dominion. Had that been done, Sidney Powell could have saved herself having it spelled out, and her sycophants, incapable of reading the pleadings, would be faced with less cognitive dissonance.
I know that at it's essence it's just really spicy. Like they literally take the same things that make chili spicy in a concentrated form most of the time (Read: Capsaicin), but I'm not sure if there aren't other ingredients that are included in bear sprays and pepper sprays.
The entire quote goes
Apparently the OC content makes the burn here but I'm ignorant of what it is, where capsaicin is the spicy component I just mentioned.
Quoting FlaccidDoor
This 2nd quote was misleading, sorry. It should of been "On top of bear spray causing less pain, 'pepper sprays are specifically designed to bring down human adversaries" being a concentrated stream.
https://www.bushcraftpro.com/bear-spray-vs-pepper-spray/
I agree. There is bias in all reporting of news, whether it comes from the left or the right. For example, when CNN headlines “Firey But Mostly Peaceful Protests After Police Shooting”, then we know FOX will say something like “‘Peaceful Protests’ Break Out Into Rampant Destruction Of Property”. Both are literally true; both also reflect a bias.
Quoting FlaccidDoor
Indeed, what was so terrible about it was not loss of life, or even injury (though there was a lot of that, some permanent). It was rather the intent. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their lives in wars to protect our freedom. If dozens of Capitol officers had lost their lives, I think you and I and they and the whole nation would have considered their sacrifice just and noble and honorable and necessary for the same reason.
Quoting 3017amen
Here, in my opinion, is more evidence of the American ppl’s lack of wisdom. Carter was a discreet mixture of traditional and progressive values; his successor was a precursor of Trump, a Hollywood celebrity who steered the country into materialism, away from buckskin and into Brooks Brothers. Carter probably fell out of favor only after the long Iran hostage crisis ended rather unsatisfactorily...which was not his fault.
Quoting 3017amen
For my part, if I meet wisdom, in a man or group or institution, I consider it a permanent quality they possess that can be generally counted on. When Solomon was said to be wise there was no implication that he would someday become foolish—aren’t lifetime appointments for judges based on this idea?— after all, it was a wish granted by God...though one might suspect his promiscuity and choices with regard to women.
Quoting 3017amen
You mean these same checks and balances that Trump undermined during his administration? The ones Biden is struggling to reinstate?
I used to think that the President of the United States of America was a puppet role; that he had no real power. After Trump, I am much less sure. His only failure in the exercise of his powers for his personal ends seems to be that he was too impetuous: he said and did things, through his power, that inspired him at the moment. Had he exercised more foresight, calculated more than just reacted, he might have gained himself a successful ride on that hobby-horse our founders feared our future leader might.
Quoting 3017amen
My apologies, Mr. Amen: this thesis was just a fantasy I had while reading Machiavelli. Down here in my cave I have no one with whom to share my fantasies, so I was compelled (against my will) to share them in TPF.
Quoting praxis
Clever thinking. Accolades from me.
Quoting James Riley
And it should be scary to us all: we are a divided nation. In all our institutions men and women work together who have polar opposite notions of how the world should be. This has been hidden beneath an administrative cloak of “protocols” and rules and regulations; but that is an uncertain standard, because it is the spirit, not the letter of those rules, that was sought when they were established...and it is just that spirit that has now come into question.
:100:
As for pussy, I don’t like to grab it unless I am sure it wants to be grabbed.
No exceptions taken (except BB probably had more integrity).
Quoting Todd Martin
Nice. What do you consider wisdom, in this context of politics? Do you think, like a priori mathematical truth's, there is perfect wisdom in politics? That seems like what you're implying.
I think subjective truth's, or Subjectivity, is more in line with what you are arguing there. Otherwise, we have to concede that general wisdom evolves, changes, gets better or worse with time.
Quoting Todd Martin
No, I mean the checks and balances that lost him re-election.
Quoting Todd Martin
Our system of democracy precluded that. He lost.
However, perhaps your thesis is more of a fascist pipe-dream for those who seemingly have narcissistic tendencies, not really sure there...or is it the other way around...
Donald Jr or anybody of Trump's family has his or her chance if daddy isn't around anymore. You see, it is still Trump himself that has the delusional ideas that he can win again the GOP nomination and win again the Presidency. However the thing is that the media isn't anymore fixated in him. When has Trump been news lately? When is the last time he has said something that has gotten everybody commenting it?
I think it might be a totally different kind of person that overthrows the Constitution, if that happens. An American version of Vladimir Putin, the no-nonsense leader who doesn't take bullshit and the masses love him and the liberals just whine about something bogus like "overthrowing the Constitution".
Quoting James Riley
It really still is hypothetical. But then again, remember how delusional and afraid people were after 9/11? And let's think about it if every major city in the US started to look and feel like Portland? Have enough polarization, ineffiecient governance, violence and riots and then people might in the end be too tired just about everything. In that kind of situation to say that emergency powers are there to protect the Constitution might sound totally logical and correct to enough people.
Luckily the US isn't there yet. And so isn't the armed forces either:
I agree. Who could be the heir apparent? Who has Trump's faith in the brand? He is the brand, and he rose to that position because of a narcissism that has been refined down to a level so pure that it has rarely (if ever) been seen in the annals of man. This is not hyperbole. Don Jr. and the daughter don't have it. Neither does Cruz or any other idiot. The new Republican leader will have to forge his/her own identity. You just can't copy that shit. The man was a one off.
Most thinking General Officers were too conservative to hitch their wagon to that star, and conservatives aren't all stupid.
And what actually comes of the Trump brand? You see, the era of social media has made us even more short sighted than ever. We lose focus even more quicker than before. People might remember the Tea Party or the Occupy Wall Street movement, but do the follow these movements now? Are they making the waves here? The next Presidential election is years ahead.
Trump's comeback on social media might take a bit time:
Let's see how completely it "redefines the game"...
Regarding Trump's new venue, if you are dishonorable, if you are a coward, if you are a liar, if you are a petulant, whiny little bitch, then you might find yourself relegated to obscure, isolated little echo chambers full of confirmation bias, compounding stupidity based on spin. If there are enough people who like what you do, willing to sell their souls to get it, notwithstanding your shortcomings, then you will thrive in isolation. But it will be in isolation nonetheless. We just need to make sure law enforcement is keeping tabs on his followers, just in case someone with more courage and less brains than Trump decides to attack the Union.
More courage and less brains? Hmm.
If you look at the reality, the American security apparatus has kept tabs on every kind of domestic group there is that can possible adhere to violence, from right-wing militias to animal rights activists and everything in between. I'm sure both the events of last year and of last January have increased emphasis on domestic terrorism in many departments.
And of course, let's not forget that it was a vote of 81 million to 74 million, so the smartest thing isn't to call those 74 million followers that have to be kept tabs on.
Yet the real issue is that Trump truly performed a huge train wreck during the last days of his Presidency, and this really has likely had a lot of consequences. Nothing alienates conservatives and authoritarian right-wingers more than mob attacking and killing policemen.
And yet it happened. I suspect it happened, not because the apparatus wasn't looking, but because so many within it "stood back and stood by" while it happened. I personally remember the chatter a week in advance, and I remember the simmering months in advance. Any idiot knew it was coming. And had it been BLM, there would have been a response more akin to what we saw in the summer.
Quoting ssu
I hope so. And they need to look within their own ranks while they are at it. We will always have these folks, but they need to stay under fridge when the lights are on. Lately they've been brave and getting braver.
Quoting ssu
Most of those 74m were smarter and stayed home. It doesn't take a whole lot to be smarter than Trump, or to have more courage.
Quoting ssu
I refuse to cede that ground to them. I think they pick and choose which mob and which cop will get their interest or alienation.
The Trump crowd hadn't been violent before. And of course, Trump didn't respond to the riot, obviously, but just looked at how events unfolded. Simple as that, actually.
Quoting James Riley
And most of those 81 million weren't rioting in the streets last summer either. They stayed home too.
Quoting James Riley
Well, you go with the polarization of your country then, if you want. I've lost hope that Americans could be capable of consensus or calming down and doing away with the polarization. If a pandemic cannot get Americans together, what could do that? Think of your fellow citizens as the enemy then, if you like it. Some seen to do so.
The Trump crowd doesn't need to be violent when they sport AR-15s and the cops don't give them shit (Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.). But the chatter was all about rolling over resistance. And they did exactly that. Had it been BLM, now way.
Quoting ssu
I'm one of those who stayed home too. That doesn't stop me from having an opinion.
This is probably not fair of me, because I should refine my argument first, before using it, especially when calling upon analogy. But I liken this situation to the movie Platoon. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. If you are not inclined, then that is my fault for leaving it at that, without first finishing the argument in support of the analogy. But if you are inclined, or familiar, my outline is this:
Cop who shot woman = Chris
Women who got shot = S.Sgt Barnes
Cop who was killed = Sgt. Elias
Traitors at large = Sgt. O’Neill
Cops who were confused = Big Harold
Putin = NVA
United States = United States
Trump = one off. I can’t recall anyone in history so far off the rails. Even Trump's followers have morals. I may not agree them, but they at least have them.
It is evidence of the fragility of democracy when Sgt. Elias is killed, leaving it to an airstrike on our own positions to create an opening for Chris to shoot Barnes. I’m just naïve enough to think our ranks are full of Sgt. Elias types. And that they all recognize the Barnes’ of the world as the Blue Falcons that they are. Perhaps I am like Big Harold in that regard.
But polarization? Yeah. Blue Falcons are the heroes of the right, all while they stupidly think Sgt. Elias was the Blue Falcon. He wasn't. We lucked out that the NVA and the U.S. got together and created an opening for Chris. Barnes was off the rails and leadership failed to line him out.
The lesson is to correct this shit now. When you strike the King and fail, you need to burn. If the right wants to bury the hatchet, they need to confess the error of their ways first. They brought this shit on themselves. They are back under the fridge for now. But we have to assume they are planning. And they may be hiding in an among our intelligence, law enforcement and military communities. If all they do is drag their feet we'll be lucky.
Quoting James Riley
Just replace the word "the right" with "the left": "If the left wants to bury the hatchet, they need to confess the error of their ways first. They brought this shit on themselves, etc. etc." How does that sound?
I'm just trying to point out how hollow this is. "The Right" just as "The Left" depicted as a single actor isn't credible here. Q-anon followers, the Proud Boys, Oath Takers, the Bugaloo-movement and other aren't those 74 million voters. There are up to 6 000 Proud Boys at best, perhaps several thousand Oath Takers and so on. Less than four hundred people were charged on the assault on the Capitol. In a country of well over 300 million that is not much, but naturally these fringe people can have a big impact. Yet one should call them out with their own name. I wouldn't say they portray all the people in "the right" in a republic. Yet this is very common on both sides. On the right the left, the liberals and especially the progressives are depicted as staunch enthusiastic supporters of the leftist rioters. That simply isn't true, even if there are those who give the thumbs up for rioting.
Radicalization of the extremes can turn ugly and there are historical examples of this. Italy had a big problem from the end of the 1960's to the start of the 1980's with a crisis now called the Years of Lead. The history from Italy is a good example of what happened when radical elements start fighting their "war" on the streets and this goes on, even if the economy of the country is doing rather OK. I hope it doesn't get to something like that in the US, but that tempers calm down.
You are correct. I am embarrassed about that post and I regret posting it. Sad thing is, I knew I shouldn't post it as I was doing so.
My point was this: The left is naïve if they think there is a hero out there who going to save them from the right. The left is naïve if they think those *few* people you refer to on the right don't pose a substantial, credible threat. The absolute trust that is required in intelligence, the military and law enforcement creates a culture where one bad apple can spread and ruin the barrel.
The blue line is wonderful. It's the blue wall that I worry about. We can only hope the right is equally naïve in thinking they will find a leader with the courage and commitment and skill sets of their ideal fantasy. (Remember Trump spun out as Rambo?)
I am fully aware of how the right can look at the left in the same light that the left can look at the right. That is a false equivalence, akin to the media giving time to both sides and then patting themselves on the back for being neutral. That's BS. Lies are not facts. But there are fundamental principles of our form of government that are reduced to writing in our organic documents. America has what I call a tone, and Trump, as a leader, had the wrong tone.
There is someone at the top of every organization. It is incumbent upon them to appreciate the extreme difficulty faced by those below when it comes to interpersonal loyalty. So difficult can that issue be, peers will pretend there is no difficulty at all, capitulating to blind loyalty itself. They will do this regardless of any differences which might otherwise exist.
Every institution has a wall. Law enforcement has a blue wall of silence. Another wall springs from the shared experience of military service. Such a wall is equally as compelling, if not more so. Who is going to care if the man who has your six, or who saved your life, or shared your tribulations, is also a criminal, a racist, a bigot, a fascist, a communist, a misogynist or any other ist? He is your brother, regardless, right? If he slows his roll in response to an incident because he supports the people involved in that incident, then he needs to burn. Otherwise, his peer, who may be ready to go to the incident and do his job will lose faith in the institution he is a part of, and will have every incentive to side with the peer who stood down. Bad apple effect.
It is the job of the person at the top to make sure such difficulty never exists, or is at least allayed. Leadership must honor our tone, and defend to the death all those who abide that tone. Leadership must create an environment where a whistleblower doesn’t need protection, but is, instead, a hero. A virtue must be made of necessity; for the tone itself is a virtue.
Leadership must allow a person to maintain a distance, and vet a peer, prior to developing a friendship or a trust with that peer. And during this period, leadership must itself vet and weed out any who might run afoul of the tone. And leadership must do this weeding before friendships are made; before unimpeachable loyalty is allowed to develop.
This is the difficulty of leadership, because many a vetting process is specifically designed to create a trust and dependence among peers. In boot camp, men are encouraged to help each other without there first having been a determination of an individual’s attitude toward others, or toward the tone. Indeed, this can be a good thing, helping to break down barriers that subvert the tone. But the difficulty of leadership is further exacerbated by the fact the leader himself has risen through that process, and may have, due to a lack of good leadership above, “looked the other way” along the road. One General my give a pass to another, simply because they are in the same clique, attending the same venues. The same vetting process that will allow a black man to trust a white man, and vice versa, is also a process that will allow a hater to slip through. The process of vetting must not only engender trust between peers; it must weed out the untrustworthy threats to the tone.
And the peer, too, has responsibility. You simply cannot be a Blue Falcon if the guy you falcon was never your blue in the first place. Get to know a man before he becomes your buddy. Get to know the tone that an institution aspires to. If it is your tone, then defend it. And sleep well at night after having done so.
If it is not your tone, then find another institution. Let yourself know where you stand, in advance of taking an oath. If you instead try to slip through, spinning tone to your own understanding, selling yourself on an interpretation after the fact, obtaining the benefits of the institution, then you are dishonorable. You are a traitor. Falcon you. And falcon those who whine about the Power Point presentations and other BS designed to weed them out.
If, in the spirit of America and the First Amendment, you want to debate the meaning of the tone, or what this tone is of which I speak, then by all means, join an institution designed for that purpose. Go to a university or elsewhere, and hone your edge upon the best. Or scream alone in the darkness. Run for office. Whatever. But if an institutional understanding of the tone is not your understanding, then don’t join. And if you are not sure if your understanding is in accord, ask the institution itself. But don’t dishonor your understanding of the tone, lest you be dishonorable.
As for the salvageable person, test them, and don’t let them through until they pass. For who knows now who we can trust at the higher echelons? Who knows the extent of the insidious creep of the traitor? Which superior is it safe to blow the whistle to?
Leadership starts at the top. Leadership sets the tone that springs from our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Enforce. Find men and women of leadership and character and spine who, with due process of law, can vet and weed out the traitor. And back their hand when they do it. For, ultimately, the institution is subordinate to the tone.
We are damn lucky Trump was no leader and lacked the convictions in which to have a courage that he also lacked. We may not be so lucky next time.
A tiny cabal of people or even single persons that adhere to violence can have huge in consequences if they are successful. The most successful terrorists are those who by their actions create a response that they actually want. Best example that comes to mind is Al Qaeda, an organization that hoped that the US would respond by invading Muslim countries. An organization that had less than 200 people has become quite popular franchise. Luckily sometimes the intensions of terrorists backfire.
Quoting James Riley
"Both sideism" can indeed lead to propaganda and mis- or disinformation being successful. However it's always better to read what actually the people say, judge their views yourself and not just follow the people who criticize the other side. The current polarization is based upon of us being in our own echo chambers.
Quoting James Riley
Those in leadership positions that disregard what our democracies stand for and can and will resort to violence can never turn back on the path they have chosen. They will change the system and if violence and breaking the rules is tolerated, the politicians that succeed in that environment will be far more uglier than the one's we have now.
:up:
All I can say is that I am more honorableor than I deserve that my thesis has resulted in such ongoing discussion...I only wish I had the time to participate in it.