Are Republicans Preparing to Militarize?

[joepistole]

LOL

The Armchair Psychology aside, WaPo: Corrected research paper finds liberals more likely to exhibit behaviors linked to psychoticism, such as authoritarianism. Social liberals the authors concluded, might be genetically hardwired to exhibit psychotic behaviors.

As for me and my lolz regarding you and your Statist beliefs, you may want to get used to it because, with God dead, there's only one religion left to mock: The Authoritarian State. Something you may want to reflect on

Speaking of religion, I would encourage any Christian who found CNN's recent 'News' / Art piece of dipping a mask of Trump into fake blood to be revolting, you should determine who their advertisers are and let them know that if they continue to buy ads on CNN, then you will not be purchasing their products. Ever. The fact is, conservatives spend much more money relative to liberals. Significantly more. Those who are a strong atheist, like me, who still cherish cultural-Christianity, you may want to concider doing likewise.

Hey - that's a little trick the Left came up with and used against PewDiePie, effectively red pilling him.

How fitting!
LOLZ

Here is the irony Michael, you support they guy who hates the free press and refers to the free press as "the enemy of the people". You support the man who attempts to politicize law enforcement and the military. You support the man who demands personal oaths of allegiance. You support the man who advocates torture as a legitimate interrogation tool. You support the ideology and the man which supports nationalism.

And you accuse "liberals" of being fascists?

 

[Woody1]

Which has what to do with the OP? Did you read the opening post at all?

What do Republicans suggesting they may use militia groups for security instead of police officers for public events, have to do with sanctuary cities and their police forces?

I have to research it some more. My initial guess is that the current police force is incompetent, untrustworthy or both. As I tried to explain (and perhaps I failed to), a law enforcement agency has been compromised when it chooses to operate outside of federal laws that were already on the books before the election. We elected people in the government to take care of the laws (and some of them are pretty bad).

Don't Americans vote for their sheriff's and police chiefs? Who then set the tone for how their respective departments are run and managed?

Yes, and likewise the same people voted for their representatives to do the job of fixing the law. I find it unacceptable when one department usurps the authority of another vested in them by the voting public. Does that bother you? Maybe not.

And yet, you have been told multiple times to please stop changing the subject, and you are still to actually make any argument whatsoever on the subject matter of the thread.

Well I am trying to stay on subject but we have a few issues to clear up:

1) Where do you find unbiased input?
2) When we look at the same input (such as a video), how different is our perception of it? I apologize that I can't find a video without bias on the subject matter. I don't see anyone else trying. Hence all we can offer is our opinions. This is not good. Do you have a better suggestion?

Your inability to stay on topic?

Umm.. ban you from the thread? Issue you with an infraction for trolling?

I don't see the possibility of a two-sided conversation unless the previous issues are addressed in some fashion. If you just want to pat each other on the back, then I should leave. I don't think that was the intent of this forum. I might just leave anyway, and leave you feeling safe and protected. I'm o.k. with that and you're o.k. with that. We both win.

Tell me, Woody1, what do you think about Republicans having the militia serve as security for public events instead of police officers or actual security guards who have training to work at such events?

It sounds risky. They better know what they are doing, and respect the rights of individuals at the same time. Security guards are kind of a joke, and police officers have a bad public relations problem with the african american community. Take the Charlotte riots for example. I come from there and I know the place well. A black police officer shot a black suspect with an illegal handgun, and the police chief is black. BLM came in and started a riot, and bullied white people. A black bystander shot and killed a black protester. Now as a reality check -- let's hear your version of the Keith Scott shooting, to make sure we're on the same page.

Take for example, their suggestion that they could use the militia group Oath Keepers as security for public events:

The Oath Keepers are described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “one of the largest radical antigovernment groups in the US”, recruiting current and former military and law enforcement personnel. They have recently appeared at rallies from Berkeley, California, to Boston, standing with activists from the far right, activists holding what were once fringe positions who have recently risen to national prominence.

The Three Percenters are described by Political Research Associates as “a paramilitary group that pledges armed resistance against attempts to restrict private gun ownership”. They were a highly visible presence in Burns, Oregon, before and during the occupation of the Malheur wildlife refuge by rightwing militia early in 2016.

[...]

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.

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. ​

​

If that is indeed the unbiased account of events, then I am indeed opposed to it. I usually start with Facebook because every fringe niche of humanity is in there and I'll get a taste of all views. So I put Trump and oath keepers in the search bar, but only find one entry which obviously favors oathkeepers. If you can look beyond that, you'll find a complete list of what they want to do. Some of it is pretty appalling IMHO, but it is the best list of 50 oathkeeper proposals I've seen. Now my question is this: Why haven't any liberals voiced their concern over it on Facebook? Could it be that it isn't a realistic possibility, do they not care, or are they perhaps unaware? There is another option -- I didn't search the right words. If you see a better explanation, or if you can do better with your search engine then please share your results.

Addition: After reviewing more material, I'm beginning to see the OP as a subset of a bigger question regarding the riots at Trump events. Does a candidate have a right to free speech or is it perfectly fine for disruptors to shout him down? Well if it was armed oath keepers shouting down a liberal candidate -- what would you think?

Do you think groups who partake in activities that point towards overthrowing the Government, should be working as "security" for Republican public events.

Wait a minute, you just made a paradigm shift in the intended question. This only apples to republican events you say. Now that demands a different response, like what happened in Chicago. The police officers just stood by and let gangsters shut down the Trump rally. I believe a candidate should have the right to speak. The riot was so bad that ambulances couldn't even get through. I'll show a video. The police were worthless. See for yourself, and recall there is someone in that ambulance that needs to see a doctor:

I'll have to talk to the rest of your points later. I have other things to do you know. Take care.

 

[Tiassa]

Just Another Conservative

And you accuse "liberals" of being fascists?

In the face of actual behavior, he turns to an exaggerated assertion of potentials because he's just not smart enough to do anything else.

And he's a fucking liar, too:

The Armchair Psychology aside, WaPo: Corrected research paper finds liberals more likely to exhibit behaviors linked to psychoticism, such as authoritarianism. Social liberals the authors concluded, might be genetically hardwired to exhibit psychotic behaviors.

And when the guy needs to try to lie about where he's getting this stuff, we can rest assured he has no real confidence in what he's saying.

As it is, the guy who wants human disaster for the sake of his own amusement needs to lie about his armchair psychology. It's not like it hides his exposure, either, but, you know, whatever: That's a conservative, for you.

 

[joepistole]

I have to research it some more. My initial guess is that the current police force is incompetent, untrustworthy or both. As I tried to explain (and perhaps I failed to), a law enforcement agency has been compromised when it chooses to operate outside of federal laws that were already on the books before the election. We elected people in the government to take care of the laws (and some of them are pretty bad).



Yes, and likewise the same people voted for their representatives to do the job of fixing the law. I find it unacceptable when one department usurps the authority of another vested in them by the voting public. Does that bother you? Maybe not.



Well I am trying to stay on subject but we have a few issues to clear up:

1) Where do you find unbiased input?
2) When we look at the same input (such as a video), how different is our perception of it? I apologize that I can't find a video without bias on the subject matter. I don't see anyone else trying. Hence all we can offer is our opinions. This is not good. Do you have a better suggestion?

I don't see the possibility of a two-sided conversation unless the previous issues are addressed in some fashion. If you just want to pat each other on the back, then I should leave. I don't think that was the intent of this forum. I might just leave anyway, and leave you feeling safe and protected. I'm o.k. with that and you're o.k. with that. We both win.

It sounds risky. They better know what they are doing, and respect the rights of individuals at the same time. Security guards are kind of a joke, and police officers have a bad public relations problem with the african american community. Take the Charlotte riots for example. I come from there and I know the place well. A black police officer shot a black suspect with an illegal handgun, and the police chief is black. BLM came in and started a riot, and bullied white people. A black bystander shot and killed a black protester. Now as a reality check -- let's hear your version of the Keith Scott shooting, to make sure we're on the same page.

​

If that is indeed the unbiased account of events, then I am indeed opposed to it. I usually start with Facebook because every fringe niche of humanity is in there and I'll get a taste of all views. So I put Trump and oath keepers in the search bar, but only find one entry which obviously favors oathkeepers. If you can look beyond that, you'll find a complete list of what they want to do. Some of it is pretty appalling IMHO, but it is the best list of 50 oathkeeper proposals I've seen. Now my question is this: Why haven't any liberals voiced their concern over it on Facebook? Could it be that it isn't a realistic possibility, do they not care, or are they perhaps unaware? There is another option -- I didn't search the right words. If you see a better explanation, or if you can do better with your search engine then please share your results.

Wait a minute, you just made a paradigm shift in the intended question. This only apples to republican events you say. Now that demands a different response, like what happened in Chicago. The police officers just stood by and let gangsters shut down the Trump rally. I believe a candidate should have the right to speak. The riot was so bad that ambulances couldn't even get thrugh. I'll show a video. The police were worthless. See for yourself, and recall there is someone in that ambulance that needs to see a doctor:

I'll have to talk to the rest of your points later. I have other things to do you know. Take care.

How do you know the people in the video you posted were anti-Trump protesters? Just because some whacked out partisan posts something, it doesn't mean it is in anyway truthful. Most often it is not. But this does demonstrate the gullibility of right wing extremists. That's how you get Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, et al.

 

[billvon]

Hillary could do no wrong, and the major networks were against Trump. Watch the mike cuts, and see for yourself:

Now watch segments that were NOT carefully edited. You will note that the major networks spent far more time covering Clinton's email issues than Trump's problems with basic understanding of government. They were Trump's best (and cheapest) form of campaigning.

 

[Woody1]

Are Republicans Preparing to Militarize

You know, the title really should be a stupid question.​

Multnomah County GOP chair James Buchal, however, told the Guardian that recent street protests had prompted Portland Republicans to consider alternatives to “abandoning the public square”.

“I am sort of evolving to the point where I think that it is appropriate for Republicans to continue to go out there,” he said. “And if they need to have a security force protecting them, that’s an appropriate thing too.”

Asked if this meant Republicans making their own security arrangements rather than relying on city or state police, Buchal said: “Yeah. And there are these people arising, like the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters.”

Asked if he was considering such groups as security providers, Buchal said: “Yeah. We’re thinking about that. Because there are now belligerent, unstable people who are convinced that Republicans are like Nazis.”​

Then again, these are Republicans.

Ask a biased question and get biased answers. How about framing it up this way: When the police won't protect a candidate at their political event, what should be done? Example: What if the oath-keepers showed up with firearms and intimidated a liberal-candidate, shouted down his/her speech, and intimidated the crowd as the police dawdled around?

Then again, we are liberals and we feel privileged and entitled to take matters in our own hands if necessary because we are intellectually and morally superior. We know we are always right, and whatever we do will be right. Any knuckle-dragging, cretan, slope-faced moron that disagrees with us deserves whatever they get especially if they are ultra-conservative.

Now observe how the answers change when it is asked that way, and you'll see who is really biased.

 

[Kittamaru]

Careful Woody1, your confirmation bias is showing

 

[Woody1]

Careful Woody1, your confirmation bias is showing

I think the same of you. Do you have anything intelligent to add? If not then I'd like to open my screen to other people.

 

[karenmansker]

I think the same of you. Do you have anything intelligent to add? If not then I'd like to open my screen to other people.

Hi Woody: Just a warning note: The assumed hierarchy (moderators/admin) and self-appointed hierarchy (senior members) on the Forum may hammer on you for some time. Hang in there!!

 

[billvon]

Ask a biased question and get biased answers. How about framing it up this way: When the police won't protect a candidate at their political event, what should be done? Example: What if the oath-keepers showed up with firearms and intimidated a liberal-candidate, shouted down his/her speech, and intimidated the crowd as the police dawdled around?

Now let's take the opposite approach.

A Republican candidate recently assaulted a reporter; the police did not protect him him. What if armed members of Black Lives Matter started showing up with the press everywhere they went, and used the threat of violence to keep right wing politicians safely restrained while the press asked them questions? You OK with that?

 

[Tiassa]

How about framing it up this way: When the police won't protect a candidate at their political event, what should be done?

The thing is that your definitions are demontrably unreliable. Nonetheless, why not frame it up that way? Because when it comes to "when the police won't protect", take a number, find the back of the line.

Or is this like everything else? You know, the drug war, debtor's prison rackets, police violence, and other such issues where society isn't allowed to address the problem until conservatives say so, and only because conservatives feel the issue somehow threatens them? We see it over and over again; conservatives can vote to make the problem worse, and then finally the problem touches their self-perceived virtue and now, finally, it's time, and it's everybody else's fault things for not magically making everything better yet, and we must necessarily focus on conservatives because anything else is just cheap identity politics.

See, the way it works is that in this case "conservative" derives from "traditional", which in turn describes an "empowerment majority", which in turn distills to "White Christian male".

To wit: When the police won't protect you because you're ...

• ... not white

• ... not male ...

• ... not heterosexual ...

• ... not Christian ...

• ... not a police officer ...​

... I mean ... seriously: When the police won't exacerbate a circumstance according to what history informs by essentially throwing down and going to war with protesters? Apparently this is only a big deal, then, when conservatives say their feelings are hurt?

No, really. Back of the line.

And while you're there, please take some time to remember what society has told everyone else who decided to arm up as an alternative to the police: Vigilantism is inappropriate. This applies to Republicans, too. Just like it applies to empowerment majorities, and while that tends to annoy those traditional powers, those are the rules everyone else had to follow.

Mincing, nail-biting conservative histrionics can certainly have their place in line. This is America; anyone can complain.

Meanwhile, a basic comparison:

• Conservative town hall disruption (anti-ACA) — When intimidation didn't win the day, conservatives faked an injury and tried to blame liberals for bringing violence to town halls.

• Angry bipartisan (albeit largely Democratic) town halls with members of Congress — Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX01), for instance, invoked former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), who survived being shot in the head after conservative rhetoric invoking violence against liberals apparently moved an unstable man to start shooting. Answering his district's voters, in Mr. Gohmert's explanation, is dangerous. When asked about actual white-supremacist terrorism in Portland, the county GOP chairman cites angry voters demanding discourse with their members of Congress and suggests hiring a militia.​

So—

Ask a biased question and get biased answers.

—like I said, your definitions are unreliable. Still, though—

Example: What if the oath-keepers showed up with firearms and intimidated a liberal-candidate, shouted down his/her speech, and intimidated the crowd as the police dawdled around?

—your pretense of ignorance is hardly new.

What do you think would happen if the Democratic candidate used her pulpit to advocate violence against political opposition? My guess is that conservatives and Republicans wouldn't be falling all over themselves to excuse her or righteously portray her as some kind of victim.

Then again, we are liberals and we feel privileged and entitled to take matters in our own hands if necessary because we are intellectually and morally superior. We know we are always right, and whatever we do will be right. Any knuckle-dragging, cretan, slope-faced moron that disagrees with us deserves whatever they get especially if they are ultra-conservative.

I'm sorry, what was that?

How about framing it up this way: It's really rather rude of you to go so far out of your way to change the subject when, even still, having changed the subject, you have nothing to say.

 

[Woody1]

No I didn't changed the subject, I basically changed nouns in your OP. The point of it is to put yourself in the opposing position so you can see where they're coming from. Maybe I gave too little and expected too much from you.

Do you see anything wrong with an armed disruption of a republican rally where the candidates are shouted down and threatened, though the supporters paid to rent the space? It doesn't happen at democratic rallies, but if they were treated the same way, I think you would probably respond differently. Maybe I'm wrong.

Now with that said as a preamble to your OP. Should republicans have the right to hold a rally in Chicago in year 2020 without protesters aggressively threatening public safety? If you don't think so, then I don't think we live in the same country.

Now next question: How should it be done? I agree that a fringe group is a bad way to go, and shows poor judgment. My question is -- show me who proposes it for the next election so I can consider voting them out of office? Also show me your source.

I assume everything we're talking about pertains to the next election which hardly matters now anyway. Your OP wasn't clear on the scope or the timeline.

thank you.

 

[douwd20]

Noam is right.

Noam Chomsky says Republican Party is the 'most dangerous organisation in human history'

 

[spidergoat]

When the police won't protect a candidate at their political event, what should be done?

Who says the police won't do their jobs?

 

[Woody1]

Noam is right.

Noam Chomsky says Republican Party is the 'most dangerous organisation in human history'

The thread isn't about climate change. Maybe you should start a new one.

 

[Woody1]

Who says the police won't do their jobs?

That's the way it came down at Trump's supposed Chicago rally. He had to cancel because of public safety issues. The police couldn't be trusted. They're union and they made the bare minimum effort to help. Some would probably be glad if he was assassinated.

 

[joepistole]

That's the way it came down at Trump's supposed Chicago rally. He had to cancel because of public safety issues. The police couldn't be trusted. They're union and they made the bare minimum effort to help. Some would probably be glad if he was assassinated.

And your unfounded conspiracy grows....

 

[douwd20]

The thread isn't about climate change. Maybe you should start a new one.

You think their danger is limited to climate? Amusing.

 

[spidergoat]

That's the way it came down at Trump's supposed Chicago rally. He had to cancel because of public safety issues. The police couldn't be trusted. They're union and they made the bare minimum effort to help. Some would probably be glad if he was assassinated.

Maybe he should cool it with the hate speech and people won't hate him so much.

 

[billvon]

That's the way it came down at Trump's supposed Chicago rally. He had to cancel because of public safety issues. The police couldn't be trusted.

The actual facts:

A nonviolent vigil began 24 hours before the event. 300 police were on hand to keep the peace. Trump then cancelled the event himself because he was afraid of what might happen. He initially claimed he consulted with the police who advised him to cancel it, but when asked, the Chicago police department said they "were not consulted and had no role in canceling the event." He later changed his story and admitted he made the decision himself.

After the event was cancelled, protesters started chanting "We won!" Several fights then broke out between Trump supporters and protesters, and four people were arrested.

So no "armed disruption of a republican rally where the candidates are shouted down and threatened." A simple decision by a politician to not hold a rally because he was afraid of something. He has every right to do that.

Again, let's take the opposite case. Let's say a peaceful protest of a thousand republicans gathered outside a planned Pelosi speech. She, fearing what might happen, cancels the speech. Whose rights have been violated? What crime has occurred?