1. For some reason, I think that Trump is going to win tomorrow.
2. I think that the % of black voters that vote for Trump, as well as the pro-life democrats who either stay home or vote Trump will play a significant role.
3. If Trump wins, I won't be surprised to see rioting and destruction.
4. If Trump loses, and there is any rioting or destruction, I predict that it will be quelled relatively quickly and condemned by Trump.
Obviously these are predictions, and there is no reason to attack them or me. If you have additional predictions, they'll get posted in the comments.
40 comments:
I was thinking back to my childhood and I would go vote with my parents. I'd ask who they voted for and they'd always tell me that a person's vote is a private thing and that it should stay that way.
While I certainly don't expect this family approach to be adopted by anyone else but me, I have decided that there's a reason why we don't vote publicly and that I'll respectfully remain silent on my vote.
I voted for Trump.
I’m shocked.
I’m headed out to the garage to load up the Jeep with full gas cans, make sure all my magazines are topped off and that the 16 gauge is ready so I can head downtown if Biden wins.
It hilarious how much effort is going into assuring people that it might take a day or so to count all the votes, but we all know that the networks are going to call the election by midnight eastern anyway.
Bunch of racist DFL voters in MN CD3 chose the rich, white, playboy, over the up from the trailer park black man.
So, if Trump's racist/race-baiting/anti-gov't rhetoric combines with the milita boys' crazy and it ends up that a bunch of white boys are gunning up in Michigan and other places and it leads to people being harmed or killed, THEN do you think that the sort of rhetoric that Trump engages in (and the sort that you all are engaging in with your attacks on BLM) are wrong? Will you condemn that dangerous rhetoric?
Will you condemn white racist/militaboy types trying to intimidate election places while they're doing their job?
For my part, I don't think there will be any violence, in spite of the Trump types who continually slobber over the idea of a civil war. I think most of these gun toters are cowards and idiots who, nontheless, aren't stupid enough to actually trying to engage in the race war/civil war that they shout about. They're mostly all talk and no action (and that's good, when their talk is insane and traitorous). But they ARE being watched by FBI, etc, because this Trump/white nationalist "civil war" rhetoric is incendiary and dangerous.
It's too bad that you idiots don't take it more seriously and condemn it outright, but maybe you secretly admire the militaboys and their big guns.
https://www.adn.com/opinions/national-opinions/2020/10/10/five-myths-about-militias/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Percenters
I present the above to make a point regarding Dan's biased and uniformed opinion of militias in America. You will note that I do this without any statement in support of militias of any kind.
The first is five myths about militias, specifically regarding racism and Trump support that Dan needs to believe is an essential element of militias in order to maintain his extremist, delusional and paranoid attitude with regard to them. It also asserts that groups may share certain beliefs, but are not monolithic and typically are unique unto themselves.
The second is an example of one particular group called the "Three Percenters". This group is made up of former and current law enforcement and military. They also insist they oppose racism, though there have been cases of individuals being racist. The description of this group by Wikipedia indicates that the group stands ready to lend support to various situations, but have willingly stood down when called upon to do so, and often for reasons that should have appeal to even fake Christians like Dan.
There are cases of criminal activity by some who claim a connection to the group...and I believe this is true of other groups...while there is no affirmation by the group itself that these individuals are actually connected or that their actions are supported by the group in any way.
All in all, there is very little that suggests that the typical militia group is either racist or desirous of engaging in violent action. Dan wants to insist they are racist "cowards and idiots" because of his sick need to believe they are. Dan's racist white guilt can't have it any other way. To conflate all militias as being akin to the Klan or nazi, white nationalists is the type of slander Dan pretends to abhor and a far worse degree of it than any he insists has ever been perpetrated by any of us.
In the meantime, Dan says nothing about the cowardice of his cherished BLM/Antifa activists who, only in large groups, attack people and destroy the property of others as they whine on about perceived slights they can't actually prove because they never happened. He defends and enables such cowardly criminal behavior and then has the unmitigated effrontery to disparage those who seek to defend against it. Now, Dan feigns courage by referring to them as "militiaboys", but would cower and whine the moment any one of them put down their weapons to bitch slap him. It's easy to talk tough from one's keyboard. But Dan doesn't have the courage to stand before his BLM/Antifa rioters and rebuke their criminal behavior. He won't even do it from his keyboard. Coward.
"But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard."
It occurred to me that Dan used the above quote from MLK JR. to rationalize the destructive and unjustified rioting of BLM activists in response to the lie of black men being unjustly killed by racist cops. At the same time, he dares calls militia groups cowards, and mocks the notion of a "civil war" by the right who are not simply unheard, but purposely stifled by leftist forces in media, social media and elsewhere. I would suggest that when the right gets so fed up over not being heard, they will be unstoppable, yet won't be destroying property, intimidating restaurant patrons, assaulting those wearing hats with left-leaning messages or burning squad cars. That's leftist, "progressive" behavior.
This comment is purposely posted at another thread.
I agree that the likelihood of the political right responding to being unheard with riots is unlikely.
The “extreme right”, isn’t going to riot no matter what. If they do anything it’ll be much more focused.
I guess if you’re passing booze to celebrate the Biden call, then you’re immune from the Corona. It’s amazing how 2500 people at an event is called a superspreader, but thousands more screaming, yelling, and sharing bottles, is just fine. I’m guessing the Biden spike in Covid cases won’t get much news.
1. The extreme right may or may not riot, it remains to be seen.
2. But you're correct, it's not really their style. They're more likely to agitate with guns and talk about Civil War to "retake" the country because it was "stolen" from them.
3. But even then, I think most of these militia boys are cowards and blowhards, not actually likely to engage in violence. But moreso because they are cowards and know that the nation will not stand with them. I think (because I've heard them say so) they'd love to "take out" a bunch of liberals.
4. But even though most are too cowardly and barely smart enough to know that engaging in violence won't work, there remains a steady, solid bunch of "patriot" boys who think they are a legal "militia" and will engage in plots to overthrow states and cities and state parks (as we've seen they already do) and otherwise, engage continue to engage in lone wolf acts of murder and attempted murder (as we've seen they already do). The question is will these lone wolf attacks increase in the wake of Trump losing? Will they do more plots to "overthrow" local and state entities? Will somewhat rational conservatives talk them down and begin to demonize and stand against such acts and such language in a strong manner?
I really think the latter is key. They've increased their threat over the last few years because they have been emboldened because Trump and Trumpservatives gave them a pass and acted like their cause was legitimate. Will Biden be able to begin to make inroads to bringing the nation together so that these more extreme extremists will return to the shadows and recognize they have no large community support? Will Biden be able to undo what Trump and others before him have encouraged to grow?
Will rational and non-violent conservatives begin to speak out against the militia boy types?
That remains to be seen.
Where does it say in the U.S. Constitution the Associated Press has authority to declare a president has won an election? Isn't supposed to be based purely on vote totals that lead to Electoral College votes? Was I conned about that?
Art,
You’re correct of course.
Dan,
1. I know you have to say this to draw attention away from the fact that the right side of the political aisle virtually never riots.
2. Given your insistence that those types are the greatest threat we face as a country, it seems strange to hear you acknowledge that they are vastly more talk than action.
3. I agree. Which makes your insistence that these “cowards” are the most pressing threat to US security,
4. Wow, plots to take over uninhabited wilderness are really the greatest threat to our country? Or are you really suggesting that random “lone wolf” attacks are a more serious threat than the hundreds killed in Chicago this year alone.
Since your questions are rhetorical,there’s no possible answer. However, I’ll note that if none of those things happen you’ll find some other excuse to inflate the threat from these “cowards” and “blowhards”.
Really, I’m not sure that a bunch of cowards and blowhards being labeled as a significant threat and being arrested for plotting to kidnap Whitmer is quite a pass, maybe they should just round them all up on general principle.
Wouldn’t be the first time a Democrat imprisoned innocent citizens for no reason.
Yeah, they're "cowards" and "blowhards". Real courage involves mass rioting, ganging up on people trying to protect their property and/or the businesses they worked their lives to build up, intimidating diners at restaurants, throwing Molotov cocktails at police, hitting people from behind with skateboards...these are examples of real courage that Dan defends as the "language of the unheard". You see them "peacefully protesting" the deaths of thugs who they've raised up as martyrs of rampant racist police brutality, suffered after breaking the law and violently resisting lawful detainment. You see them violently assaulting people attending speeches and talks by conservative speakers...because they're conservative speakers...justifying their courageous assaults as putting down fascists, because, you see, they're Antifa-cists. You see them as "flash mobs" looting stores in large gangs of punks. These are the courageous ones Dan defends as justified in their courageous assaults and destruction.
Dan allegedly heard "militaboys" say they'd like to take out liberals. I'm sure some actually feel that way. In the meantime, Dan's BLM supporters have murdered cops and freely attacked those who say "ALL lives matter". Dan knows courage and cowardice when he sees it.
I do agree (although I’ve never talked to any) that most of the militia types are more talk than action for a couple of reasons. 1. They seem to be law and order types of people and the contradiction is hard to overcome. 2. I think most would be happiest if they could just be left alone. I suspect that if we gave them a big chunk of Wyoming and told them to do what they wanted, that we wouldn’t hear anything from them.
Finally, I suspect that most of them are anti-government in general, and we’re just as pissed at Trump as they will be at Biden.
What you say in your last paragraph aligns with what I found in researching them. Most galling is Dan’s choice to presume "militia groups" equates to "racists". One would expect after claims to care about reality and truth, Dan wouldn't do that. Then again, lefties like him claim for themselves all sorts of noble qualities they never truly possess.
It’s easier to broad brush those you don’t like. Especially when you have the hubris to broad brush virtually the entire conservative movement based on assumptions about a tiny group.
Does it matter at all to either of you that I have never said that all militia types are racists or vice versa? In fact, I quite distinctly said white supremacists and other anti-government types at least once if not more than once. I made the separate category because not all militia boys are white supremacists. There are some, I think a few, who are anti-government but at least nominally not racist.
So, perhaps you shouldn't speak authoritatively about what I've said if you don't understand what I've said. And y'all rarely do.
The facts:
http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/featured/not-under-siege-dispelling-the-myth-that-black-lives-matter-protesters-have-targeted-police/
After four years of being demonized, divided, and partisan, all of a sudden we’re supposed to believe that the left wants unity with the people they’ve been calling racists and NAZIs?
Indeed. When one thinks of all the qualities of a virtuous person, the left doesn't have any of them.
Maybe you shouldn’t broad brush entire movements, no matter how small, as anything.
You’re just whiny because we’ve pointed out that you’ve called the greatest threat to our country is a bunch of “cowards” and “blowhards”, and that you switch terms at will whenever it suits you.
BLM affiliated protesters literally laid siege to the 2nd police precinct for weeks, complete with Molotov cocktails and other thrown weapons. Burned down the 3rd precinct, and systematically attacked cops trying to clear highway protesters, and BLM affiliated protesters chanting that the “pigs” should be “fried like bacon”. But you’ve proven your case by one article that cherry picks the data.
I’ll give you credit for trying, it’s so rare that you provide anything to prove your claims that we need to affirm you when you make the attempt, no matter how poor the attempt is.
You know what we’re not talking about. We’re not talking about the pro Trump protests getting violent. We’re also not talking about the pro Harris superspreader events with people sharing bottles of champagne. I guess the virus is all fixed now.
Craig, you keep saying, "YOU shouldn't warn us about such a small minority group..." Just to be clear, it's not me. It's the FBI. It's law enforcement agencies. Homeland Security.
They are the ones, these experts, who identify white nationalists and anti-government types as a major threat.
Take it up with the experts. Disagree with the experts, if you wish. But don't expect rational people the pat you on the head and say you're very intelligent.
Please, provide the links to where I have actually said "YOU shouldn't warn us about such a small minority group...". I don't believe that I've aver actually said that, but prepare to be corrected.
What I do remember saying is something like, "you shouldn't broad brush entire movements" or words to that effect. I'm pointing out the reality that you've interchanged multiple terms to describe the same group of people, then you've used your generalizations about that group, to broad brush the entirety/majority of people who might have supported or voted for Trump (regardless of their actual positions or reasons).
I believe that if you'll look at my actual words, that you will see that I'm not disagreeing with "the experts", as much as I'm disagreeing with your broadly applying your interpretations of what "the experts" are saying as a means to tar people with your broad brush who might not fit in your broad generalizations.
Your inference that you are "reasonable people" is suspect, and I don't seek your approval. So, don;t worry.
Dan is acting in his typical way when he presents "sources" that don't really back up his fiction. This latest one chooses to use the Floyd death by illegal drugs as its starting point, which conveniently leaves out those murders that happened previously, such as the five cops shot in Texas a few years back. At his blog, in order to "debunk" the notion of dead people voting, he cites a Stanford study which focuses on Washington state, who has put in place a number of practices to limit illegitimate mail-in ballots since they began using mail-in ballots back in 2011...practices not in place in the many places that rushed to mail out ballots just this year using Covid-19 as the excuse to do so.
He also likes to pretend that his "sources" means that an entire perspective is now debunked, as he does with his election fraud defense. Stanford admits their study doesn't address other states, but Dan's satisfied that despite the many differences between states in terms of policies, as well as culture, there's no way other states would provide the same results. "Cherry-picking" isn't a term that goes far enough to describe the level of dishonesty inherent in Dan's arguments.
His primary trope is that if it’s not officially sanctioned or ordered by the BLM high Command and carried out by a card carrying BLM member, then it doesn’t count. Of course, BLM intentionality avoids this sort of official/centralized structure to hide from this very thing. He thinks that this somehow absolves those who flock to the BLM standard at these protest/riots.
He also forgot the STL captain who was killed last summer as well.
The fact that he’s arguing that a literal siege didn’t happen, even though we watched it live, and that the burning of another police precinct somehow doesn’t count is absurd, intentional, blindness.
I believe he calls it "chosen stupidity", when in his case it's outright, intentional lying...because...you know...embracing grace, and all that.
I like when he says that I’ve repeatedly said something that he quotes, when I haven’t actually said it at all.
HE'S JUST DONE THAT TO ME AT HIS BLOG! He's a trip!
He’s done it to me multiple times.
Of course, he’s also gotten his panties wadded because I accurately quoted him and he thought I was slandering him with his own words.
It seems as though the leader if the Proud Boys has come out and embraced a more openly racist/anti-semetic/NAZIesque positions. Obviously, these views are disgusting, and any violence engaged in to forward those views is also disgusting. What's interesting is that the highest number of "members" according to "experts" is 3000, while that ADL pegs their membership at "several hundred".
While their ideology and tactics are vile, are we really worried about a group with an estimated membership of 3000 in a country of 320,000,000? Is this .00000938% of the population really a grave threat to our democracy? This isn't to suggest that they shouldn't be investigated, prosecuted, and punished for any crimes that they commit, but I'd suspect that a couple of A teams could take care of the lot of them without much effort.
Can you link to whatever you saw that suggests this about the Proud Boys? I'd be very interested in the details. In the meantime, I'll try to find something about it on my own.
I saw something on Twitter, then did some research. The important thing to me is that these guys have the first amendment right to hold and spread their beliefs. As much as many will find them objectionable, their speech is protected. If they go beyond that then they should face consequences.
That, of course, is true. But I seem to recall a person described as a, or the, leader of the PB's is a man of color himself. This doesn't mean he can't hold reprehensible positions...look at BLM leaders. It's simply different than what I've heard from the dude I have in mind.
It appears that the person you mentioned has left the group and someone else has taken his place who is more explicit in his views on these things.
After doing some additional research, there is some question as to whether of not Kyle Chapman has taken over for Enreque Tarrios as the leader of the group. Chapman has been much more open about his views regarding race etc. I think the point remains valid though. If this group that represents a tiny fraction of society, and can't figure out who's in charge or what they stand for, I don't see them as a huge nationwide threat.
Of course, this doesn't mean that they don't represent a localized threat in certain areas or against certain groups, just that there doesn't seem to be a significant general threat. Since the FBI has them on their radar and is keeping tabs on them, that should further minimize the general threat posed by the group.
From what I've been able to find, Chapman has split off more than taken over, even renaming the group to more accurately describe himself and those who follow him...the Proud Goys. I'm not so sure that Tarrios is stepping aside or has been rejected by the larger body of Proud Boys. I haven't found that much detail. As such that would mean the Proud Boys are separate from those racists who sought "membership"...a term used only loosely by this drinking club who simply stands for being unapologetic men of Western culture who refuse to back down from the pansy antifa kids Dan defends.
Post a Comment