Are Republicans Preparing to Militarize?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, May 30, 2017.

  1. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    How do we know a bear craps in the woods? I guess we don't know for sure.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    More info from your guardian link:

    "The main reason Buchal gave for his attraction to the militia groups was the cancellation of the Avenue of the Roses Parade, an annual Portland community event scheduled for 29 April, after organisers received an anonymously emailed threat of disruption."

    “There is definitely something wrong if criminal gangs are essentially allowed to shut down normal and traditional activities of Republicans. With that climate arising, the question becomes: what do you do? A lot of the rank and file party members are old and frail people. They are intimidated by what’s going on.”

    At the end of the day this isn't my problem to fix. A left-wing nut-job cancelled the parade, and a right wing nut-job killed the Muslims.

    Maybe I should just step out of it.
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Did you read the text and quoted passage in the OP?
    Who says that they do not? There is a famous video of Obama speaking at a rally and a Trump supporter started screaming at him and disrupting his speech and he was quite fine with it and even defended his right to protest.

    I mean, you missed those who rocked up to Clinton events screaming "lock her up"? Or selective memory?

    The issue raised in the OP is that the GOP in Portland, in response to a right winger murdering two people for defending two young women because they looked Muslim, who had attended a right wing white supremacist rally, are now saying that they intend to have right wing white supremacist groups providing security for their future events, because one of their events that was meant to happen in the coming days, was canceled due to the murder that occurred and the fact that these events incite violence and hate. In a way, it is an attempt by the GOP to militarise by having armed right wing white supremacist militia groups provide their "security". These are the same groups that have been harassing and committing acts of violence against minorities in Portland for a very long time. But the GOP in Portland are hinting at having a sort of armed wing in the party, which is exceptionally dangerous, especially in light of the events that occurred recently.

    Do you understand what the subject is now?
    I think what got Trump/Pence into the White House is a combination of factors. Racism and bigotry being just one of the response to the support for Trump.
    Now you are delving into the realm of individual State rights over Federal rights. The sheriffs also act and work under their local laws and orders from their superiors, such as the Governors, Mayor's of their districts.

    Trump's executive orders could very well be unconstitutional.

    And once again, you are completely off topic.
    But you are complaining about sanctuary cities and what you deem to be sheriffs who fail to adhere to Trump's executive orders, that bypassed existing laws passed through Congress and which is now under an injunction to halt it because of the questions regarding whether it was constitutional or not. And once more, you are off topic.
    Oookay. Now consider that only certain few are allowed to protest and will have armed right wing white supremacist militia providing "security".. I think laws against protests are unconstitutional.. Something something about your Bill of Rights go here.
    You are still off topic.
    Why are you so intent on trolling to stop them from doing so?

    I have attempted to discuss the thread's topic with you and you seem intent on discussing everything but the thread's topic. What gives?
    Well you are off topic and you are forcing me to go off topic to address your off topic points and trying to steer you back to the subject in the OP. You have done the same with everyone else.
    The GOP in Portland is proposing using white supremacist militia to "put out the fire".. What do you think of that? What do you think could go wrong? Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea? Do you think it is appropriate for the GOP in Portland to look at literally having a form of military wing to provide support for their public events and protests?
    The issue with Facebook and other forms of social media is that it is rife with trolls. It is online, faceless, with zero consequences. You will not get unbiased opinions on Facebook. On the contrary, you will get the absolute opposite.
    I did not say you should not read it. I said that people who rely on social media for that kind of information are naive.
    What we see, and we have seen that from you many times in this thread, is this repeat of ridiculous talking points and falsehoods as though they are true and factual. You do not appear to be getting any of your information from any reliable source and you have every appearance of being the type of mouthpiece that, to be blunt, spouts absolute rubbish and conspiracies. You are a prime example of why politics and Facebook should never mix.
    Groups that engage in illegal activity, such as inciting violence and hatred, can land their followers and those who delve into their social media pages for information or opinions, into trouble. Unless I am working on research, I would not delve or visit their Facebook page on my home computer. For legal reasons as I do not want my digital footprint anywhere near them, as it is something that could damage my reputation and seeing that I use my actual name on Facebook, I don't want to even visit their page or any page associated with them from my account and on my home computer. You will only see what they want you to see on their pages. There is no accountability because these people feel comfortable spouting their hatred and inciting violence amongst themselves, with no opposition and lack of accountability because everyone who is there, believes as they do.
    This wasn't just a GOP rally. This was a white supremacist and right wing rally that was canceled, after what happened in Portland. You might share the right to public property, but if someone uses said public property in a way that endangers others, the Mayor and the Governor have every right to cancel that event. Which is essentially what happened in Portland. The GOP there are now demanding that they will hold it anyway, and use white supremacist militia groups for security, possibly against law enforcement and others who do not believe as they do or do not look like they do. Understand now?
    Again, as abhorrent as they are, their speech is protected. They know to stop short of inciting violence. The right wing rally attended by the murderer, incited violence. The rally itself was problematic. And inciting violence is not protected under your Constitution. So the State has every right to cancel that event.
    Are you suggesting that anyone not white, male and heterosexual should just stay home? Because white supremacist rallies incite violence against others not like them. You do get this, yes?
    joepistole likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Trump is not a patrician? Trump was born into of America’s richest families if not the richest and Trump is not a patrician? I guess that’s another of those famous right wing “alternate facts”. Pretty soon he will be playing tennis with Jesus Christ.

    Trump is a scam artist, a fraudster. He’s a narcissist, but he isn’t a great deal maker nor is he a plebeian as you are representing him to be.

    Trump’s in an uncomfortable position on many fronts. He has made outlandish promises to his constituents. He has made promises that are entirely unrealistic and impossible even if he were able to fully implement his policies. He cannot deliver the 4% economic growth he promised. He can’t deliver the fiscal stimulus he promised. He cannot bring back the coal industry as promised. He cannot even slow its demise. It’s kind of like trying to protect the horse carriage industry when automobiles first came to market.

    Trump has no choice but to flipflop on most of his promises or make excuses for his failures, because he has made impossible promises. Trump’s a shyster extraordinaire. He isn't a master negotiator. That was clear to me when he first published his book, "The Art of the Deal" back in the 80s. Trump is a snake oil salesman. He has and always will be a snake oil salesman.

    Which is it? Trump wasn't a patrician and now he is? That was fast.

    Compromise isn’t flip-flopping compromising comrade. It’s compromising. That’s why we have different words for each with different definitions. This just another attempt by folks like you to rewrite the dictionary in an attempt to advance your political ideology.

    Democrats have consistently stated they will negotiate in good faith with Trump or any and all Republicans. But Republicans and Trump in particular have yet to taken them up on their offer.

    In her photo Griffin made a political statement. She isn’t pretending to be an ISIS fighter. She wasn't dressed as a Muslim fighter. By the way ISIS beheads innocent and guilty alike. Griffin’s photo was a political protest and very similar to what folks like you have been doing to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the last 8 years. And now when you have a Republican who is the brunt of those protests you suddenly become sensitive and offended? Hypocrite is thy name.
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
  8. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    The point is that the crowd-size was about average at the Trump inauguration contrary to exaggerations that say otherwise. I get the feeling that you just want to argue. Since everything I say is wrong in your opinion, how about we just ignore each other? Works for me.
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Seems like you are quickly going to be ignoring most of the forum membership at this rate... makes one wonder what the point of even having you around is, since you are obviously not interested in honest or factual discussion.

    This site is not your personal soap box, after all... maybe Twitter would be a better fit?
  10. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Did any of them have to cancel speeches because of it? To tell you the truth, this left-right thing is turning my stomach. I don't think I can read much more.

    I read the guardian article and it says this:

    "The main reason Buchal gave for his attraction to the militia groups was the cancellation of the Avenue of the Roses Parade, an annual Portland community event scheduled for 29 April, after organisers received an anonymously emailed threat of disruption."

    “There is definitely something wrong if criminal gangs are essentially allowed to shut down normal and traditional activities of Republicans. With that climate arising, the question becomes: what do you do? A lot of the rank and file party members are old and frail people. They are intimidated by what’s going on.”

    That's the left's rally cry for sure.

    I'm talking about the laws on the books before Trump became the president.


    Actually you went the wrong direction on this. The immigration laws I'm talking about predate Obama, Bush, and possibly even Clinton. In addition, there is a nationally recognized need to update our law enforcement to the current environment especially regarding mental health issues:

    huh? I already said it was a terrible idea. You aren't even listening.

    They are easy to spot, unlike here. You just go to their home page. Over here we know nothing about each other.

    Bravo. You are starting to get it (I think). Maybe not. I take it you have never facilitated a meeting with strong opposing viewpoints.

    That's your opinion. My opinion is people that can't think through the bias are naive.

    Well I try to say I could be wrong and ask other people's input. I'm not getting anything specific, just like now. You should point out examples that will help me improve.

    Do you or any one else have a reliable sources of unbiased factual information? I'm all ears. In a world that is less than perfect, I have to do my own thinking. That's what it should be anyway.

    Yeah. Those types shouldn't be there to start with. I'm not that crazy about Facebook, but the conversations seem to be more civil than virtual forums.

    Whereas I'm networked with a broad spectrum of liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats, and people from all over the world. We try to look out for each other.

    My brother is a lawyer and he's on facebook. Both of my brothers voted for Obama in both of his elections, and they voted for Trump in this one. Do you now anybody like that?

    No, I'm saying the whole scenario makes me want to puke. I think I've had about all I can stomach.
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Except it wasn't, and the proof is in the pictures.
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Truly pathetic argument. "I would get stressed out if Trump speaks publicly, and my blood pressure would go up - therefore he must be silenced by court order."
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The only initial comparison I saw was to Obama's crowds. Not the average.
    And the main instigation was Trump's claim that his was the biggest ever - a claim he repeated, even long after. The absurdity of that was the motive behind all the mockery and extended comparisons.
  14. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    So I'm going to get an honest, factual, balanced discussion on a forum with nothing but die-hard lefties to talk to, and it's going to fairly represent all viewpoints. Then you tell me what I think instead of asking me like a genuine person would do. That's a true left-winger I tell you.
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    There's nothing unfair about the way your viewpoint is represented here. You don't know any facts, you post nothing but wingnut stereotypes about people, and saying so is simply being honest with you. What's the problem with that?
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    I find most rightwingers are very uncomfortable in open forums; they prefer forums where their egos are stroked by large numbers of fellow supporters.
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    #factionalism | #WhatTheyVotedFor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Click for something entirely irrelevant.

    Personally, I don't think he's confused. That is to say, the otherwise astonishing naïveté we hope he merely pretends depicts conservatives as dangerously uninformed.

    To wit:

    The Republic has survived since Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot. Some members of Congress are hiding behind her:

    "I was shot on a Saturday morning," Giffords wrote in a statement. "By Monday morning, my offices were open to the public. Ron Barber—at my side that Saturday, who was shot multiple times, then elected to Congress in my stead—held town halls. It's what the people deserve in a representative."

    "To the politicians who have abandoned their civic obligations, I say this: Have some courage," she continued. "Face your constituents. Hold town halls."

    The sharp words were a direct response to a controversial statement released earlier by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), in which he invoked Giffords' shooting to defend his decision not to meet with his constituents.


    Mr.Gohmert's response, incidentally, was to front some machismo to say he's received threats before, so, whatever, and what he's really worried about is that his constitutents are too angry with him for their own safety:

    "Threats are nothing new to me, and I have gotten my share as a felony judge," Gohmert said. "However, the House Sergeant at Arms advised us after former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot at a public appearance, that civilian attendees at Congressional public events stand the most chance of being harmed or killed—just as happened there."

    An "anonymously emailed threat of disruption"? If that was the American standard you could shut down our society every day:

    The anonymous message claimed “Trump supporters and 3% militia” were encouraging people to “bring hateful rhetoric” to East Portland. “Two hundred or more people”, the email said, would “rush into the middle and drag and push those people out”.

    When the parade was called off, Buchal issued a statement in which he bemoaned a “criminal conspiracy to commit crimes of riot” and a letter to Mayor Wheeler in which he lamented “rising lawlessness” in Portland.

    In response to the cancellation, a local far-right organizer, Joey Gibson, organized a “free speech rally”—the event at which Christian, the suspect in Friday’s double murder, was filmed throwing fascist salutes and yelling racial epithets, and where he approached antifascist counter-protesters armed with a baseball bat.


    In the end, Mr. Buchal, the county GOP chair, makes his point, claiming that "there has been a closing of the mind" by which "people feel justified" trying to silence each other by force. He also blames anti-fascists, and would have everyone believe Republicans are old and frail people and thus need known anti-American insurgents for a private security force.

    Democrats didn't go out and hire armed insurgents after a right-winger tried to bomb a parade in Spokane. Nor after Rep. Giffords was shot.

    Neither the conspiracy theorist Buchal nor the white supremacists he admires and would hire can afford attention to history if they intend to stand on this narrative.

    Just like our neighbor needs to pretend what Buchal's histrionics respond to anything new. As Frank Rich↱ wrote in 2010, after a conservative campaign of threats, menacing, and violence at political events failed to forestall the PPACA:

    If Obama's first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House―topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman―would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It's not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver―none of them major Democratic players in the health care push―received a major share of last weekend's abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

    It would be a lot easier to leave our sentiments toward white supremacism out of our assessment of Republicans and conservatives if they should allow us that luxury. Because, really, as I understand it, the talk about conservatives being a bunch of white supremacists really annoys them, and it's not even a threshold of why should they have to show they aren't supremacists, as they generally fail to achieve the basic threshold of not making a point of their supremacism. Over the last seven years, Republicans have evolved from spitting on minorities and uttering bigoted threats over health care to openly musing about hiring supremacists as a paramilitary security force.

    Meanwhile, check this out:

    His general pretense relies on exaggerating a circumstance in order to accuse city police, a county sheriff's office, and a state patrol of dereliction.

    To the other—

    —he is perfectly willing to acknowledge the other side of a proverbial coin as part of his running effort to justify. And while there is or isn't something to be said about hypocrisy or insincerity, and also the idea that many voices who complain loudly about police-bashing rhetoric tend to let it pass—or, perhaps, even approve—when it comes from the right wing, it seems rather quite important to point out the actual argumentative result.

    Because, well, we might wonder who remembers the bit from other political contexts about the degradation of a society resulting in a civilized notion of us falling into the sort of warring, factional barbarism we frequently accuse of them. Americans now verge on their own context of an answer. They have political power, yet want to arm up like factions abroad we Americans frequently complain about. How far does the society degrade before ... er ... wait ... uh ... are we about to enter that cycle about why did they work so hard to wreck the place, and wondering what to do about the obvious answer staring us in the face?

    There are plenty among American conservatives who have spent years seeking—virtually begging—an excuse to arm up. It's like a new Wild West fantasy, with life so dangerous that the wannabe virtuous have no choice but to strap on. I mean, we're talking about American conservatives; they want adventurous gunplay really, really badly. They used to raise bills in state legislatures trying to oblige households to possess guns. They pass local ordinances so people can wander around with guns strapped on because the only way to maintain order is under the threat that anyone can start shooting at any time. They just spent eight years trying to invent a pretense of being forced to revolt. They perpetually demand society become more dangerous in hopes of justifying their own dangerous, antisocial sentiments as some manner of virtuous and even heroic identity complex. The degree to which American conservatives must disdain history in order to pretend to have an argument is, in general principle, disqualifying, but that is the thing about democracy; as long as they have the numbers they can pretend to have a point.

    But what we're dealing with is an argumentative position with no apparent regard for itself: Why is it so important to reframe the question as the one when we are, in another moment, to acknowledge its futility?

    It makes a certain amount of sense if the point is simply to distract people until they weary of it all.


    Oh, Inae. "Gabby Giffords Shuts Down Congressman Who Used Her 2011 Shooting as Excuse to Ditch Town Hall". Mother Jones. 23 February 2017. 1 June 2017.

    Rich, Frank. "The Rage Is Not About Health Care". The New York Times. 28 March 2010. 1 June 2017.

    Wilson, Jason. "Portland Republican says party should use militia groups after racial attack". The Guardian. 29 May 2017. 1 June 2017.
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Plenty of conservatives detest Trump for legitimate conservative reasons. And liberals aren't all Democrats, especially with the DNC's ties to big business.

    The fact is anger is rising against Trump, and Republicans can't answer for their craven theft and greed. They would prefer all dissent be squashed, and the media replaced by state media, as in Russia and various dictatorships. Of course violence is wrong, but Republican rhetoric isn't peaceful either. You want respect when you steal from the poor and give to the rich? When you rob our children of a stable climate? When, in ignorance, you contradict scientific truths? When you encourage our adversaries to undermine our elections? Why would you think you deserve it?
  19. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  20. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I have to ask... why do you find it "sick"? Is it because Trumps kids have to see it?

    In that case... how did you respond to:

    Or what about:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm going to guess that the burning of Obama effigies was "OK" to you because he "was a black man", right?

    *shakes head* That is the typical conservative reply I've heard so... yeah. Get off your high horse.

    Here's the thing - Kathy Griffin apologized... she is still getting death threats. She was fired. Her life has been turned upside down...

    Meanwhile, Ted Nugent repeatedly called for the lynching of Obama... and yet Trump invited him to the White House, where this gem of a picture happened:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
    So, Woody, perhaps you should save your "moral outrage" since its obvious it is quite selective.

    You are disgusting.
  22. Woody1 Registered Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Because it is sick. Both sides of it. Wake up before you kill each other.
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  23. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    The right embraces white supremacy, white nationalism, religious intolerance, and the whole shebang... at least the left has the stones to condemn such bigotry.

    I'm not claiming the left side is perfect (far from it), but of the two, I think I'd prefer the group that doesn't openly advocate going around and deporting/beating/murdering anyone of a different skin tone or religion, much less demeaning and demonizing our military veterans, abuse victims, and women in general...
    Sorry Woody... but given your apparent defense of his activities, this is YOUR "president", and you are on the line for his actions, the damage he is doing to this country, and the bigotry he is actively and openly promoting.

Share This Page