October 1, 2016

"The Democratic Party could have blocked the rise of Donald Trump years ago if it had just listened."

The story of Trump’s amazingly successful movement is also the story of how Democrats turned their backs on their working-class roots and sided with the elites on the crucial economic question of our times: Who would win from globalization, and who would lose? The facts are stark...."

So begins Rex Nutting's MarketWatch column, "How Donald Trump hijacked the Democrats’ best issue/Trump’s populist campaign is fueled by working-class anger about unfair trade, an issue the Democrats need to reclaim."

274 comments:

1 – 200 of 274   Newer›   Newest»
HT said...

""How Donald Trump hijacked the Democrats’ best issue/Trump’s populist campaign is fueled by working-class anger about unfair trade, an issue the Democrats need to reclaim.""

Well, yeah. This is rather obvious.

Real American said...

and political correctness. Trump's rise is as much cultural as it is economic.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

I'm too lazy to bother looking for contradictions. And, I'm assuming there aren't any, because that would be quite lame for Nutting. If nothing else, the link below probably helps to describe more of the complexities associated w/ a full picture of reality:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-donald-trump-cant-magically-bring-back-5-million-factory-jobs-2016-08-19?mod=mw_share_twitter

EDH said...

Did Democrats really fail to to adopt the populist mantle, or was it just a case of the passage of time and reality catching up so that no amount of populist rhetoric could continue to disguise the motivating priorities in their quest for power?

Hagar said...

And they could have indicted, prosecuted, and jailed the Clintons.

tcrosse said...

The Democratic Party followed the money to become the party of Limousine Liberals, Champagne Socialists, and Faux-letarians (I'm looking at you, Springsteen). It is a nominally leftist party which is contemptuous of the Workers. The Workers are happy to return the compliment.

Lyle said...

Yep. Trump has triangulated both the Democrat and Republican establishments.

Kathryn51 said...

Interesting premise and perhaps appropriate for states like Ohio, but the author still focuses on Policy over Attitude.

Here in my neck of the woods (Pacific Northwest), it was the radical environmentalists that closed off all US owned forest land to save the spotted owl. Entire communities decimated. The prog/lib response was that a "tourist" industry would flourish and lots of jobs would replace the loggers. Yes, cleaning motel rooms is a wonderful replacement for the logging jobs.

This was Mega-Democrat land 20 years ago and they still vote Democrat for local (state legislature/town council/etc). I recently drove through this part. I saw one Hillary sign on the lawn of an in-town house. And I saw at least 20 Trump signs - many home made, some hanging from logging truck cranes throughout the more rural sections. As for the flourishing tourist industry? Lots of closed up motels and no new Hampton Inns in sight.

And I can assure you that the city elites don't give a damn - they still have their pretty forests to drive through on a day trip. As far as they are concerned, the logging communities are racists (mostly white) or "stupid" - just like HIllary claimed.

John Lynch said...

Why is Trump bad for the Democratic Party? If they win the election he was good for them.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Today's Democrat Party focuses on those who don't have to worry about making a living and supporting themselves, the poor and the upper middle class and above. Their current supporters aren't the working class. Democrats have great disdain for the working class.

SteveR said...

At this point the percentage of the voting public who benefit from the establishment's policies -- in one way or the other -- versus those who don't is the question. Trump may have tapped into that but turnout and all the various GOTV efforts will be key. The people who "benefit" are good at that.

Hagar said...

For today's Democrat leadership, left or right is just a matter of policy to garner votes. Fundamentally what they are is crooks.

Carol said...

When trade with China was opened up in 1994, U.S. businesses expected to sell lots of “phones and electronic gadgets” to the Chinese!

Bwahaha, I remember that. For decades, China was viewed as this huge mass of dumb consumers, if only we could get at 'em. Although I think some of the American CEOs who went on the early trade junkets may have had other ideas all along.

Anyway, what I recall from those days, the 70s and 80s, was that union members hated their own unions, for one, and moreover didn't want their kids going into factory work or trades, two. I was reminded of this by Hillbilly Elegy. It was a thing. "My kid isn't going to do what I did" blah blah. Add to that the longtime liberal intelligentsia's feelings that such "meaningless" work was worse than death.

So with so many potential workers indifferent or even hostile, can you blame factories for looking for a different way of recruiting?

wildswan said...

PB and J alludes in a Delphic way to the fact that in one column Nutting says that one million jobs were lost and in another Nutting says five million were lost. In one column Nutting says trade deals had no influence on loss of manufacturing jobs (the jobs were lost due to automation making workers redundant), In another column Nutting says that trade deals were bad and Hillary Clinton said so at the time and the Democrats have said so all along and so Trump's issue is WHAT THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE SAYING IF THEY CARED ABOUT THE WORKER.

PBJ noticed this set of contradictions but is "too lazy" to look for "contradictions" and assumes they don't exist because that would be "lame". ("I'm too lazy to bother looking for contradictions. And, I'm assuming there aren't any, because that would be quite lame for Nutting.") Possibly, PBJ, your mind was a little too quick for your Hillary blindness and you saw the contradiction - after all you pointed it out and I see it is there too, thanks to you - but now you've gone all fetal and are rolled up in a tight ball denying you saw anything because what you saw is that Trump is right.

Trump is right. The Democrats in this election have deserted the workers and Trump is speaking for them. More - what he is saying is what Democrats used to say - what Hillary Clinton once said. And what they once said is still true - American workers have been harmed, their interests have not been considered in trade deals. But the Clintons have made millions from promoting globalization and so have most Democratic politicians. And so they have dropped the banner which Trump has picked up. And now things Hillary used to say, she says are insane departures from reality because he political oppenent is saying them. She says the workers are a basket of deplorables for wanting jobs, not welfare. The blacks in the Great Lakes region went from 84% employment to 50% employment due to loss of manufacturing jobs due to trade deals and also automation. But what does Hillary want to do about jobs for black and white alike? She wants to increase government handouts. Yet Democratic city and state governments in the Great Lakes region, are on the verge of bankruptcy.

Whoever is elected, the problem will come to a head in the next four years. What will the Democrats do? Take a look at PBJ and his tight fetal roll after he glimpsed the truth. Only a man and a Republican will do anything but whine about discrimination. Only a man will try to be Mr. Fix-It. The gender cruising snowflakes and their elected representatives will just seek a Safe Space for their childish selves. They will damage like children driving a car. They will not fix what they broke; they will not acknowledge they broke it; they will not acknowledge it is broken. Only the electorate is broken and oh so deplorable.

Gaius Gracchus said...

The Democratic Party has been the party of cosmopolitan elites and free trade since the beginning of the country. Until the Republican Party during the Cold War switched sides, opposition to free trade was one of the defining issues separating the Democrats and their opponents, whether it was the Federalists, Whigs, or Republicans.

FDR favored opening trade unilaterally and JFK pushed for the free trade regime of today.

Dick Gephardt had little traction as a presidential candidate in large part because he was in the wrong party to fight against free trade.

Trump on trade is in line with the historical Republican position.

Sebastian said...

"Amazingly successful" Trump? Successful at splitting the GOP, sure. Could Dems have picked a better candidate? No doubt Bill did little to discourage Donald when he called to consult.

Dumping dying white losers in favor of coastal elites plus minorities plus single women is a winning strategy in presidential elections.

damikesc said...

Dumping dying white losers in favor of coastal elites plus minorities plus single women is a winning strategy in presidential elections.

Until the white losers recognize how much the country works against them and decides to stop working for the country.

Just small increases in civil disobedience increases government costs exponentially.

And, hate to remind you, a lot of us have guns and are competent at using them.

gadfly said...

NAFTA is a union-backed issue that Market Watch is spinning with Union statistics. The fact is that liberal government over-regulation of American manufacturing and significant wage differentials that have made it difficult to compete with rising economies in China, India and many third-world countries. As a result, manufacturing operations were moving to cheaper labor states when NAFTA came to the rescue.

Who would ever think that free-trade agreements are good America? Well, they are, according to the Harvard Business Review:

The U.S. has free-trade agreements with 20 countries that account for nearly half of U.S. exports. In the first five years after the U.S. has concluded these agreements, U.S. exports have on average increased three times as rapidly as export growth globally. With these partners, the U.S. runs a trade surplus for manufactured goods. More than 11 million U.S. workers and about 1 million farmers rely on exports. U.S. manufacturing workers whose jobs depend on exports earn on average 18% more than other workers.

On the import side, trade deals assist low and middle income American families by lowering the prices of clothes, food, toys, school supplies, and appliances. Lower-cost imports help companies and workers, too. About 60% of U.S. imports are for intermediate goods that lower the expenses and improve the quality of U.S. manufacturing. For example, lower-cost steel makes U.S. automakers more competitive.

U.S. manufacturing has adapted and grown, not declined. Between 1993-2013, the value of U.S. manufacturing rose about 60%. Most economists believe that technology, innovation, and consumer tastes are more significant sources of change than is trade.

FullMoon said...

Real American said... [hush]​[hide comment]

and political correctness. Trump's rise is as much cultural as it is economic.


Riots. Over reations to trans bathrooms, gay wedding cakes, etc. This stuff is becoming very tiresome to many average people, and not just angry old white men. Riots and commentary paint picture that all blacks and Libs accept violence and are racists.
Over reaction encouraged by media and Libs to Lgtb stuff annoys many people of all races and ages. Most people do not care what you do, but are tired of being called haters, racists, misogynists, transphobic, etc. With Hillary, expect more of the same. With Trump, it may die down eventually.

The Cracker Emcee said...


"On the import side, trade deals assist low and middle income American families by lowering the prices of clothes, food, toys, school supplies, and appliances."

Items that used to be made in America by the fathers and mothers of the people who now use their welfare checks to buy them. I doubt the people at the Harvard Business Review have spent much time at Wal-Mart.

The Vault Dweller said...

Certainly trade is an issue that the mainstream of Democrats and Republicans have basically both sided almost completely with the free trade side since the 90's onward. But I think the author is being willfully ignorant if he thinks trade is the only thing democrats need to change to win these people back.

There is most definitely a cultural divide. The intelligentsia on the left has bought into their own bullshit that lets them feel better about themselves, and mistakenly come to the conclusion that everyone without a college degree is some dumb rube, who will believe whatever is fed to them by talking heads in the media. For some reason they don't think bullshit detectors work on them. And then they are surprised when a once loyal group is no longer so loyal.

Union households have traditionally been democrat households, but they have also been consistently proud of their nationality. It is not uncommon for someone to unironically wear clothing that has an American flag on it. They also tend to believe in the value of hard work pays off. So when the democrats have drifted more an more to the left culturally, bemoaning America as at best a deeply flawed nation that can be fixed with dramatic change, or that all problems of minorities can be blamed on white people, particularly white men it should be no surprise when those same people have their bullshit detectors go off and look for something else.

Trump sensed this and that is why he is running on the platform he is.

Robert Cook said...

"The Democratic Party has been the party of cosmopolitan elites and free trade since the beginning of the country."

The Democratic Party did not exist at the beginning of the country. They came along about 50 years later.

In all important respects, the Democrats today are Republicans.

cyrus83 said...

For Democrats the problem is that they have been far more interested in pursuing the various social justice causes of their oppressed and activist voter blocs rather than the broader concerns of the country. Social justice may sell well among vapid millennials and the party faithful, but it doesn't do much to address the problems of anybody who doesn't fall into a victim bucket. The party doesn't seem to have anything to say to white/straight/employed/male/Christian/productive voters other than that they're oppressors. The more obvious that becomes, the more people in those groups will abandon Democrats.

Tommy Duncan said...

@wildswan

Your statement is well thought out and well said.

The abandonment of the American worker is why Bernie Sanders resonated with the Democrat base. The heavily rigged establishment Democrat primary process made sure Bernie's message died on their side.

Establishment Republicans did their best to kill off the Trump campaign. To his credit, Reince Priebus allowed the Republican primary process to play out.

When American cities and states begin to declare bankruptcy working class Democrats will finally understand why jobs are so important: Jobs generate the taxes that allow government to exist. Hillary conveniently ignores Economics 101.

Jupiter said...

Sebastian said...

"Dumping dying white losers in favor of coastal elites plus minorities plus single women is a winning strategy in presidential elections."

That remains to be seen, but I think it is an accurate description of the Democrats' strategic calculation.

AReasonableMan said...

damikesc said...
And, hate to remind you, a lot of us have guns and are competent at using them.


How did that work out at Waco or Ruby Ridge?

Of all the stupid arguments for guns everywhere this has always been the stupidest. The government has a fucking army. To fight effectively you would have to resort to terrorism, like Timothy McVeigh. I can't see that as a strategy that is going to win the hearts and minds of middle America.

Bruce Hayden said...

It's the money. It has been the money for some time. There is the big money, the centi-millionaires and the billionaires. And the leaders of constituency groups like union bosses and Black community leaders. They are the ones with power (along with some of the MSM and some politicians). The rest are the sheeple. The useful idiots who vote as they are told. Blacks, Hispanics, single mothers, etc. the thing is that with power in politics comes money, and with multi-trillion dollar budgets, and the immense regulatory state, that means huge money. Sure, Republicans also are for sale, but there is a reason that the Tea Party was basically Republican, because it was a middle class revolt. OWS was always an AstroTurf operation, because the left falls much more into leaders and followers, with the leaders not having a reason to revolt as long as they keep getting paid. Which is why effective revolutions tend to be from the middle class. Part of the Dems problem is that they are left with the rich and powerful, and the weak and led, but their shepple these days tend to live more day-to-day, and thus are increasingly hard to motivate, unless it is historic or very cool.

Sure, the original Dem party was elitist, but I would suggest that Andrew Jackson partly put an end to that. And then it became the party of immigrants and labor unions. But most of those immigrants have been assimilated enough by now that they differ little from the mainline Protestants who were the bulk of the Republican Party from its founding. So, outside the govt, union rank and file now tend Republcan, as do a lot of Irish, Italians, etc, at least in their voting patterns, if not their party registrations (yet).

I don't really think that the modern Dem party could have effectively coopted the Trump voters. Even when they knew better, there was just too much frigging money sloshing around to do it. Sure, Bill Clinton was somewhat a populist, but that was before they found their way onto the gravy train. Mansions, private jets, and hanging around with famous people is just so much nicer than visiting union and town halls. Hey - my partner remembers Harry Reid bringing his five kids over growing up, where the fathers talked boxing (both were Golden Gloves and both had 5 kids) Long before he got rich. Money and power corrupts, and the Dems, so often using their political power to get rich, were more vulnerable to the lure.

gadfly said...

@The Cracker Emcee said...

"On the import side, trade deals assist low and middle income American families by lowering the prices of clothes, food, toys, school supplies, and appliances."

Items that used to be made in America by the fathers and mothers of the people who now use their welfare checks to buy them. I doubt the people at the Harvard Business Review have spent much time at Wal-Mart.


So The Cracker doesn't go to Walmart or likes to pay more elsewhere? The fathers and mothers of the welfare checks beneficiaies (and even those who don't get the benefit of such checks) had to settle for farm surplus cheese, powdered milk, flour and butter distributed from the National Guard Armory. They watched leather manufacturing, clothing cut and sew and cloth-making operations, shoe makers, TV's and electronics, lights and light bulbs and on and on move offshore - long before NAFTA. Donald Trump doesn't have a clue about economics.

If we now have found a way to balance out trade while installing new jobs to handle this activity, why wouldn't we do that? Remember that the Great Depreciation began with the passing of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and our economy did not recover fully until the end of WWII and the repatriation of our soldiers into civilian life. "Those that don't recall history are doomed to repeat it."

AReasonableMan said...

gadfly said...
Who would ever think that free-trade agreements are good America?


Not surprisingly, trade agreements are good for trade. That is somewhat different to your claim that they are good for America. Trade agreements probably also increase GDP, at least in the mid term. The question is how do we define America (do we exclude the losers?) and are they a good long term strategy when commerce has become another form of warfare.

coupe said...

What a joke.

All you have to do is look back at the Obama/Pelosi/Reid leadership and you will see why millions of Americans left the Democratic party.

Look at Elijah Cummings today, he's the new face, such as it is. There is no hope for the party.

Voting for Clinton, would be like voting for a dog, as it will accomplish as much. I think the dog will look better in pictures though, even if it coughs-up a bone.

readering said...

Trump has no issues. He has instincts. He follows whatever issue he thinks will work with his targeted demographic. If globalization/trade had not been available, he would simply have pulled a different cupid's arrow out of his quiver for the disaffected working class white vote.

Fabi said...

You can almost hear ARM jerking off when he mentions Waco and Ruby Ridge. He loves the power of the centralized government -- even in two of the most despicable and cowardly acts ever perpetrated.

AReasonableMan said...

Tommy Duncan said...
To his credit, Reince Priebus allowed the Republican primary process to play out.


Priebus has played a weak hand, arguably very bad hand, very well. He has held his party together, so much so that more Republicans are voting for Trump than Democrats for Hillary, although the difference is small. At least from the party's point of view Priebus has been a remarkable success, effectively limiting the damage from the many downsides associated with Trump's ascendancy. There could have been a real split in the party.

Bruce Hayden said...

@ARM - in any spontaneous revolution, you get small, easily squelled instances of insurrection, until, all of a sudden, there is a critical mass. Ruby Ridge was a handful of people, intentionally far out of the mainstream. And the wackos at Waco were, well, wacko religionists. As I have pointed out before, there cannot be a successful disarmament of the American. The bulk of the post-Vietnam military trained, the bulk of those trained to use and/or skilled with firearms, and the bulk of firearms in this country are in the hands of Trump supporters, as well, probably as the bulk of the enlisted ranks of the military, and probably a decent majority of those in government issued firearms (federal, state and local LEOs). Yes, the Crooked Hillary supporters are the ones who hire armed security. But their armed minions probably tend to be Trump supporters too.

traditionalguy said...

The Dems lacked a candidate to run on his/her talent set and spend their own money.

Of course the Bush GOP lacked that person too.

So we will have Crazy Scotsman Trump who had the courage to bring that to the table and risk it all for us

AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
You can almost hear ARM jerking off when he mentions Waco and Ruby Ridge.


No. I think that any government mediated killing, whether police in the mid-west or the ATF in Waco is a failure. A sign of monumental incompetence. Nonetheless, the idea that some Dad's Army, armed with what amounts to pea shooters, is a threat to the power of the government is ridiculous. Terrorism would be a threat, but given the acquiescence of most here to our current surveillance state it would now be almost impossible to mount an effective terrorism campaign.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
damikesc said...
And, hate to remind you, a lot of us have guns and are competent at using them.

How did that work out at Waco or Ruby Ridge?

Of all the stupid arguments for guns everywhere this has always been the stupidest. The government has a fucking army. To fight effectively you would have to resort to terrorism, like Timothy McVeigh. I can't see that as a strategy that is going to win the hearts and minds of middle America.

Of all your stupid assertions the assumtion tht the president is going to call up the army to put down an internal revolution by the middle class is the dumbest. If you think for a munute that any general would obey that illegal order you're delusional.
Second stupid assertion you donn;t have to resort to terrorism against the American people. You simply keep the government from governing effectively.
At last the dumbest. The middle class are going to be the ones revolting. Hence the TEA Party and Trump. The middle class are already revolting against their government elites.

Fabi said...

Ask the Afgans how they did with their "pea shooters" against the two most powerful militaries in world history, ARM. 2 - 0, in case you forgot.

wildswan said...

Bruce Hayden said:
"I don't really think that the modern Dem party could have effectively coopted the Trump voters. Even when they knew better, there was just too much frigging money sloshing around to do it."

This is my opinion too. They could have done better deals just as Trump keeps saying but they saw too much money floating around. Originally the money may have been paid to politicians and former elected officials to help foreigners negotiate America intricacies but soon that was a fig-leaf and then "lobbying fees" and "speeches" and "donations to the Clinton Foundation" became a tool used by foreign powers to get favorable deals at the expense of American workers. Deals like the environment treaty Obama signed where the foreign powers do nothing and Obama promises to restrict American manufacturing by restricting energy and increasing its price. I don't say Obama took money but someone very close to him did. Possibly the most rotten clauses were "negotiated" under Hillary at the State department. Or whatever. You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.

Yes, we needed to globalize but we did not need to sell out the workers and this - as the Democrats used to know - is the net on what happened. And our leaders negotiate jobs away, it is the people at the bottom who get hit the hardest. Everyone moves down a notch; everyone grabs for family first whatever is left. And the bottom is squashed - this is what happened to the blacks in Milwaukee.

And in Milwaukee, the leadership makes a point of saying the rich are going to pay (just as Hillary did in the debate) and then, unexpectedly, more capitalists take their jobs away. Northwestern Mutual announced yesterday that it is moving. More jobs lost. Yet the city leadership is OK with a large group of voters because the leadership met with Black Lives Matter and listened to them. Milwaukee City leadership has no intention of listening to the people who might bring jobs; it really only looks for a way to tax Milwaukee County more. And then the poorest precincts in Milwaukee vote for these job-killing Democrats again.

Fabi said...

**Afghans**

AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
Ask the Afgans how they did with their "pea shooters" against the two most powerful militaries in world history, ARM. 2 - 0, in case you forgot.


You seem very confused. No one in government gives a shit about Afghanistan, they had a very limited stake in maintaining power there. And, the Taliban largely relied on terrorism and intimidation of the local population, not direct confrontation.

glenn said...

If he had real newspapers (Part 33) we'd be reading about how our political establishment, Demican and Republicrat, made themselves rich in the process of selling out the American working class. After all those blue collar guys, you know how they are, they drink domestic beer, fart, sweat, and make crude jokes. And the pickup trucks and deer rifles, sheeshe.

Fabi said...

Seriously, ARM? History is littered with powerful armies defeated by a rag-tag populace. You live in a country thusly founded.

rhhardin said...

Trump's issue is political correctness. The democrats aren't going to take that up.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Trump's issue is broader than political correctness and goes on to include being a voice of the middle class, or at least the middle and lower portions of it, against the wealthy plutocrats milking the public for their own benefit, and for a restoration of a more traditional America, and the ability to live the traditional American Dream. But, PC is clearly a part of it.

cubanbob said...

Fabi said...
Ask the Afgans how they did with their "pea shooters" against the two most powerful militaries in world history, ARM. 2 - 0, in case you forgot.

10/1/16, 1:40 PM"

We could have easily done so, just kill every Afghan. We certainly have that capability. We simply don't have that kind mentality. Thank God. Now as for the Soviets, they too could have killed every Afghan. Considering their history it is a mystery as to why they didn't. Stalin would not have fooled around.

As for the Army putting down a real insurrection in this country by the middle class I find that less believable than the Army surrounding the White House with tanks and giving the president the Ceaușescu treatment.

AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
You live in a country thusly founded.


Explain to me the vast disparity in armaments and communications technology between the two forces in that conflict.

cubanbob said...

rhhardin said...
Trump's issue is political correctness. The democrats aren't going to take that up.

10/1/16, 1:59 PM
Blogger Bruce Hayden said...
I think that Trump's issue is broader than political correctness and goes on to include being a voice of the middle class, or at least the middle and lower portions of it, against the wealthy plutocrats milking the public for their own benefit, and for a restoration of a more traditional America, and the ability to live the traditional American Dream. But, PC is clearly a part of it.

10/1/16, 2:09 PM"

We are all going around in circles. Trump's masterstroke (if he wins) is that he is running as a working-class Democrat against the New Cultural Marxist Democrat Party.
Trump comes across somehow as a working class guy who made it really well but didn't forget where he came from. That that is far, far from the truth is irrelevant. That is the perception of what appears to be for so many Trump supporters. Hillary comes across the New Age Noblesse Oblige, her condescension, her disguised updated White Man's Burden along with the stench her of corruption is why she isn't fifty points ahead in the polls. Other Trump supporters simply can't stomach the idea of a criminal and traitor as president. The Democrats have forgotten that theirs was supposed to be the working class party, not the part of the elites.

damikesc said...

How did that work out at Waco or Ruby Ridge?

Do you think the government can handle a rash of those? One at a time caused issues. Twenty at once? Might be problematic.

Of all the stupid arguments for guns everywhere this has always been the stupidest. The government has a fucking army. To fight effectively you would have to resort to terrorism, like Timothy McVeigh. I can't see that as a strategy that is going to win the hearts and minds of middle America.

Our army dwarfed North Vietnam's. Dwarfed Iraq's. Dwarfs Syria's.

I bet our incursions there were totally successful.

I can't see that as a strategy that is going to win the hearts and minds of middle America.

Middle America happen to be the people the Left is pissing all over.

You seem very confused. No one in government gives a shit about Afghanistan, they had a very limited stake in maintaining power there. And, the Taliban largely relied on terrorism and intimidation of the local population, not direct confrontation.

Check electoral maps. Progressives tend to congregate in cities. Conservatives tend to spread out. Tactically speaking, it is FAR easier to attack a city than to attack a sparsely populated countryside. The possibility of causing mass pain is exponentially higher.

If I drop 10 bombs on NYC and Progressives drop 10 bombs in Montana at random spots --- what will cause more damage and more problems?

Explain to me the vast disparity in armaments and communications technology between the two forces in that conflict.

The vast difference between the colonists and the most powerful military on Earth?

AReasonableMan said...

cubanbob said...
As for the Army putting down a real insurrection in this country by the middle class I find that less believable


What short memories we have.

AReasonableMan said...

damikesc said...
The vast difference between the colonists and the most powerful military on Earth?


You dodged the question with hyperbole.

damikesc said...

What short memories we have.

Know where troops tend to originate from?

Not Progressive families, by and large.

You dodged the question with hyperbole.

I didn't confuse an idiotic utterance with an actual question.

cubanbob said...

AReasonableMan said...
cubanbob said...
As for the Army putting down a real insurrection in this country by the middle class I find that less believable

What short memories we have.

10/1/16, 2:34 PM"

Nice job of cut and paste. But you dodge the point. These were single localized events that didn't have mass support from the general population. Now conceive of a situation in numerous states simultaneously occurring that have a large popular support being put down by largely white working and middle class troops.

Fabi said...

No difference at all between the standing British army and the colonist's ad hoc "army". Good point, ARM. Dumbass.

Comanche Voter said...

Well there is trade; then there is the sneering, condescending lectures from above, whilst shoving political correctness down or up every orifice of the body politic.

All of those are bad habits from the Democrats, and until they can break themselves of those habits, they have a rocky road ahead of them.

grackle said...

I love her. I want to adopt her and leave her my money. That is how much this quote makes me like her – much more than before I read it. Before I just kind of liked her; now I LOVE her. Ah, the siren song of REVOLUTION!

Why, it’s like the old glory days long before I became a university professor. In the late sixties and early seventies we took over the offices of universities and dictated our terms to the establishment pigs. We issued MANIFESTOS of the PEOPLE to the PIGS. It was GLORIOUS!

Those were the days. I want those days back. Thank you Hillary, for taking me back to that old feeling of excitement, danger and POWER. WE STUCK IT TO THA MAN!

She really is a solid, normal person who remained grounded in the middle of all this craziness. And I like to think that when she's President, with her steely nerve, her intelligence, and her groundedness, she'll do the job that must be done.

After Laslo

n.n said...

The Democrat[ic] Party has always been Pro-Choice.

AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
No difference at all between the standing British army and the colonist's ad hoc "army".


Washington trained with the British Army and had essentially the same armament technology. Is this in dispute?

HT said...

Many on the left do live in a bubble, but then so do people on the right as evidenced by this comment: "Middle America happen to be the people the Left is pissing all over." Speaking in such gross generalities is silly and misses the mark.

Anyway, who cares. Where's the blog entry on surely UW's biggest game this year?

Bruce Hayden said...

A quick note - our army didn't dwarf the Iraqi army, but rather our ability to rapidly concentrate its firepower did. My memory was that when we first went to war there (Desert Storm), we had maybe the third largest military, and the Iraqis the fifth or sixth largest. And we couldn't deploy much of ours, given our other commitments.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

I really enjoy it when folks go into detail about what DJT is in to. What a coincidence it must be for y'all to see that your inner thoughts are shared by DJT. And, he doesn't even need to explicitly state these thoughts. But, you know his POV.

Anywho, if Ashley Todd (and the like) is attacked by a black guy (or Mexican, this time) at least "H" will work this time.

Of course, "T" would work too, if there was the equivalent self-frothing for folks on that side.

Fabi said...

A standing army -- one of the powerful in the world -- with virtually unlimited: funding, reserve troops, training, and armaments. Just admit that you're amazingly wrong, ARM.

khesanh0802 said...

@ Gadfly I would be very reluctant to use Harvard Business Review as my go to source. Talk about being in the tank for big business! A surface comparison of Nutting's and HBR's manufacturing states made me think that there still a good % of manufacturing jobs, but they are a larger piece of a smaller pie. Harvard Business School caters to big business. Although they do encourage more entrepreneurial activity than they did when I was there.

I dealt with the Chinese for apparel in the early 80's as they were trying to go direct rather than through Hong Kong. It was immediately apparent that they would make any offer to win a bid, pricing their already low labor at 0 if necessary. If you were foolish enough to go direct you would find out quickly enough that what was offered and what was received were apt to be two very different things. They play by a different set of rules than we do in the West. Anyone negotiating trade with them should have known that unless strictly supervised US -China trade was most apt to be a one way street a it has proven.

Kathy51 hits the nail on the head when she says that that it is Trump's attitude not his policy prescriptions that is attracting those left behind.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"As for the Army putting down a real insurrection in this country by the middle class I find that less believable than the Army surrounding the White House with tanks and giving the president the Ceaușescu treatment"

Exactly and a good historical example. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Solidarity-era Poland. In no instance was the regular army willing to attack the populace. The Commies had to rely on thug-security services and the Soviets. Who are American statists going to call on?

AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
A standing army -- one of the powerful in the world -- with virtually unlimited: funding, reserve troops, training, and armaments. Just admit that you're amazingly wrong, ARM.


No, but you are amazingly stupid if you can't accept how closely matched they were in terms of technology, which was my original point. Something that would not be true in a citizens revolt today.

I happen to live close to the site of one of the decisive battles. The Continental army had an enormous advantage in having the support of the local population, both as spies and providers of material support, which neutralized many of the advantages that the British had.

Fabi said...

No huge difference in actual weapons technology -- but a decisive advantage for the British in the quality and quantity of those arms, ARM. You are stuck on stupid, boy.

khesanh0802 said...

There is a lot of ignorance here about the beginnings of the Democratic party. The Democratic party effectively began with the campaign between Jefferson and John Adams in 1800. The party that Jefferson and Madison established was supposed to represent farmers and mechanics and those who favored a weaker federal government while Adams represented Hamiltonian Federalists who were interested in trade and a stronger federal government. See Democratic-Republican party in Wikipedia.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Hard to remember the Tories when you are one. Another historical verity.

AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
No huge difference in actual weapons technology


OK, we are making progress you have conceded the point I was making.

Bruce Hayden said...

When we are talking the size of our military as a deterrent to armed revolution, keep in mind that it isn't that big anymore, and many of its members are not trigger pullers any more. We are talking maybe several hundred thousand trigger pullers. Definitely fewer than a half a million. Who are mostly legally forbidden to operate against American citizenry CONUS by Posse Comitatus. Which leaves the National Guard, which can operate in CONUS, but are politically controlled at the state level, until their governors agree to nationalization. Which in much of this country just ain't gonna happen. Which leaves armed federal agents, whose ranks have ballooned under Obama to roughly 200k (slightly larger than the entire active duty USMC). Which translates into roughly one armed federal agent per maybe 15,000 civilians in this country. If we (illegally) threw in active military trigger pullers, we would still be at one per maybe 7k civilians. That is best case scenario, and ignores that the bulk of the active duty military, along with probably a distinct majority of the armed federal agents, tend to sympathize with those they would have to disarm. If there were ever a serious armed revolution in this country by the middle and lower middle class, that much of federal law enforcement and active duty military would be paralyzed by desertions, taking, of course, the fully automatic weapons they were trained to operate with them. That is what happens when soldiers desert.

Which is why pointing at Ruby Ridge and Waco is ridiculous here. It is simple and straight forward suppressing the revolt of a tiny, tiny, fraction of the population, as was done there. Far, far harder to do so if the revolt is popular. The big thing that is keeping this from happening is that most Americans still view this as their country and their government. Esp the middle class, who, traditionally, had the most to lose. Which is part of why the election of Crooked Hillary is so scary. With her, there are two Americas - one for the rich and powerful (like her), and one for the rest of us. Two standards of justice. We have to live by laws and rules that she and people like her do not have to. And what makes her so special? Her extreme drive for power? Her willingness to destroy anyone in her way? Her willingness to lie regardless of right or wrong? Her willingness to sell American public interests to the highest bidders, foreign or domestic? The route to a popular revolt is for the middle class to see just that, that it isn't their America any more, that they are merely the ones who have to fund the elites on the one side, and the votes of the lower class on the other side, through welfare, Obamaphones, EDC, etc.

AReasonableMan said...

Bruce Hayden said...
Which is why pointing at Ruby Ridge and Waco is ridiculous here.


We can talk about real things that actually happened or the fevered fantasies of fiction. Your choice.

There have been middle class uprisings in the US, associated with labor disputes, they were brutally suppressed.

Fabi said...

Your point is completely irrelevant, jackass. The Continental "navy" had zero ships of the line. Zero. They had some repurposed ships, but that paled in comparison to the British navy's 100 ships of the line. Quality and quantity. Reading comprehension is fundamental.

Michael K said...

ARM is on a role but I'm not sure where he is rolling to.

The real issue that Trump taps into, in my opinion is The Principle Agent Problem.

"It wasn’t supposed to be like this," Bobbitt wrote. But if so, why did the State fail to transition into the Market State? The key fallacy may lie in his belief that the market state would work to "maximize its citizens' opportunities." This belief rests on the unsupported assumption that such State would continue to act as the faithful agent of its citizens. Yet once a State has been relieved of what Paul Monk called the duty to maintain "sovereignty within territorial borders ... and a public policy of large-scale social security for the population within those borders" it acquires a rival claim to its services: the World.

"World leaders" no longer work only for their own countries, but for the World. Politicians like the Prime Minister of Greece suddenly find themselves working for "global capital markets that ignore borders", faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and accountable to a bewildering plethora of G's -- G8, G20, etc -- not to mention a United Nations and a United Europe.

In retrospect the idea that an increasingly internationalized political elite would automatically remain faithful agents of their own populations should have rung alarm bells.


Trump is not looking to make money out of politics like the Clintons have and the Obamas will.

I think the voters see that.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

"but a decisive advantage for the British in the quality and quantity of those arms"

Presumably the gap was similar to LGM-118's vs AR15's.

Unknown said...

So what would be the trigger for a revolt widespread enough to be successful?

So far, the frog seems mainly content to stay in the boiling water. What would make it hop?

AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
The Continental "navy" had zero ships of the line. Zero.


Eighty percent of the US population lived in the countryside at the time. To suppress them you had to get off the boat. The British lacked the man power and mobility to control what was such a massive territory, by European standards.

Roughcoat said...

So what would be the trigger for a revolt widespread enough to be successful?

The same thing that touched off the American Revolution: an attempt to disarm the citizenry. Remember, the objective of the British force advancing to Lexington was to confiscate the gunpowder stores that every colonial village kept on hand in a dry blockhouse.

What will touch of the next revolt will be an edict by the federal government to outlaw private possession of firearms; or, more precisely, any attempt to to enforce that edict.

Bruce Hayden @3:46: Excellent post, excellent analysis.

AReasonableMan said...

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...
Presumably the gap was similar to LGM-118's vs AR15's.


I was thinking more along the lines of black helicopters, but this illustrates the point.

cubanbob said...

Unknown said...
So what would be the trigger for a revolt widespread enough to be successful?

So far, the frog seems mainly content to stay in the boiling water. What would make it hop?

10/1/16, 4:03 PM"


Who knows what it will be until it happens. But why tempt fate with as per Michael K's principal-agent comment with Hillary?

Roughcoat said...

Eighty percent of the US population lived in the countryside at the time. To suppress them you had to get off the boat. The British lacked the man power and mobility to control what was such a massive territory, by European standards.

Wrong. The bulk of the U.S. population was rural but it is important to grasp that they weren't spread out over the vast interior; rather, they were concentrated in villages that were widely separated from each other, connected tenuously by a mostly rudimentary road network. The fact of that concentration and wide separation made them easy to control, and easy to isolate and defeat in detail. The British didn't have to control the entire countryside, they only had to control the logistics nodes, e.g. the roads. In doing so they could prevent the colonials from moving and concentrating their forces. They didn't need a lot of manpower to accomplish this objective. Which is why they came with an ace of defeating the rebellion.

Fabi said...

Now you're just being a moron, ARM. Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York -- all on the water. Furthermore, it's one quantitative and qualitative proof of my point, but you refuse to accept it, and quibble. Get a clue, ass wipe.

Fabi said...

Did you also not know that naval wars were part of the Revolution, ARM? How much stupidity do you need to display today to meet your quota?

Roughcoat said...

Also, pace my comments above, most colonial villages were situated on rivers, for reasons that need no explanation. At the outset of the Revolution and for a goodly portion of the war the British did control the interior waterways, and with few assets -- one doesn't need a lot of boats to shut down river passage. These rivers were vital to colonial life -- vital for commerce, travel, communications, and defense. Shut them down and you shut down the towns that stood on them. The vast interior which was mostly roadless, trackless and, in fact, inhabited largely by hostile Indian tribes that were allsied with the British was strategially irrelevant. The British didn't need superior manpower reserves and mobility to fight the war in the interior because they knew that possession of the interior was strategically irrelevant to the outcome of the war.

AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York -- all on the water.


What fraction of the US population lived in those towns? Just a ballpark number will do.

Achilles said...

Anyone who thinks the army would follow an order by Hillary Clinton to suppress a revolution and shoot citizens of the United States or drop bombs on them is really very ignorant of who is actually in the army.

They are not Hillary supporters. Obama is universally reviled as well. When it starts progressives are dreaming if they think that is their fallback position.

Roughcoat said...

Furthermore, if you study the major battles of the Revolutionary War -- which, significantly, took place in the most populous areas of the 13 colonies -- you will find that operational and tactical mobility of the forces engaged played little or no role in the fighting and outcome of the battles. They were straight-up encounters between well-armed and well-drilled armies fighting continental-style. There's a reason that Washington imported Baron von Steubon to teach his lads the methods of 18th century conventional warfare. It wasn't until they learned those methods that the Continental Army developed the capability to fight regular British troops of the line on equal terms and defeat them. 18th century warfare was mostly a pounding affair: who pounded hardest usually won. Mobility, as embodied by mounted troops -- cavalry and dragoons -- played, literally, marginal roles in those battles.

AReasonableMan said...

Achilles said...
Anyone who thinks the army would follow an order by Hillary Clinton to suppress a revolution and shoot citizens of the United States or drop bombs on them is really very ignorant of who is actually in the army.


Anyone who thinks there is going to be an armed revolution is very ignorant of who is actually in the country.

Old people, people with mortgages, stoners - not the well-spring of any uprising. The middle east is chock-full of young men without work or money, they rebel. The US, not so much.

Fabi said...

So you think the total quantity of population is more important than shipping and ports? Read a little military history before you continue to argue with me, ARM. And do you think they have to kill the entire population to win? Lastly, where's your source for the 80% figure -- it seems suspicious, but I'm willing to follow a link.

Roughcoat said...

Here's how an armed insurrection might ignite:

President Hillary signs an executive order backed by a now progressive-dominated Supreme Court declaring private ownership of ARs illegal. The order has provisions for enforcement via confiscation by a federal agency, e.g. BATF. The fed gov tries to enforce the order at a select locations. At one of those locations BATF agents meet armed resistance. The BATF brings in reinforcements and overcome the resistance. But subsequent attempts at enforcement are met with more armed resistance. Incidents spread like brush fires. Firefights take place. One governor calls out his National Guard units to support BATF agents. The National Guardsmen prove reluctant to take part in enforcement efforts; some desert. This pattern repeats itself. The fed government mobilizes regular army units. Army commanders refuse orders to deploy their forces in CONUS, citing the illegality of such a move. Local militias form and seize control of portions of the state highways, overrun government buildings, attack BATF convoys.

Boom. The Revolution is underway. And it will be shown on TV.

Humperdink said...

ARM said: "Old people, people with mortgages, stoners - not the well-spring of any uprising. The middle east is chock-full of young men without work or money, they rebel. The US, not so much."

You need to get out more. I live out in the sticks. No city facilities other than REA. Dirt road. The natives are restless, to put it mildly. There are rich (oil, gas and timber) and poor in our county. Excepting the local teachers union cabal, there is universal disdain for all things government.

Roughcoat said...

You don't have to believe that President Hillary would issue a federal order banning ownership of certain types of firearms. You only have to believe that she, along with the Dems and progressives, would try to ban private ownership of firearms if they thought they could get away with it.

Accordingly, the key to preventing this from happening is to make them think, make them KNOW, that they can't get away with it.

And the way to do this is to stock up on firearms. Now.

Roughcoat said...

Humperdink: I live in a suburb. The natives are restless here too. Believe me.

Michael K said...

"The middle east is chock-full of young men without work or money, they rebel. The US, not so much."

Yes and those young men are pretty good with machetes and hatchets with people who do not defend themselves.

Gun free zones draw them like flies.

If they run into armed Americans, not panty waist Pajama Boys like you, they might get to see Allah sooner.

Achilles said...

It won't start armed. First will come the tax.

AReasonableMan said...

Obviously, the very fact that the colonists won tells us the Fabi and Roughcast are missing something here. We have established that it wasn't a vast gap in military technology and Washington was roughly current in British military tactics. We all agree that the British Army could walk all over a typical European army in a typical small European country with a major capital city. One clear difference is that the colonies were vastly larger than a typical European country without a capital to siege or break. I find Roughcoat's arguments on this point unconvincing. The British lost largely because the war was unwinnable with the resources and technology that they had available to them at that time. It was unwinnable because of the size and distributed nature of governance and production within the country at that time.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
If they run into armed Americans, not panty waist Pajama Boys


This is big talk from a man who can barely rise out of his Barcalounger. Old people - no threat to the union.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

I think it's awesome to hear about the military being so willing, eager and ready to support an insurgency against a civilian gov lead by HRC or some other lib boogeyman.

But, if folks are into thinking about hypotheticals where the military opposes civilian leadership, it seems like you could better honor and respect the military by saying that they'd rebel against any civilian leadership, even con, that shows signs of evilness, such as keeping a server in their basement and wearing pants suits.

Roughcoat said...

It was unwinnable because of the size and distributed nature of governance and production within the country at that time.

At the risk of repeating myself: The size of the colonial realm was irrelevant from a military/strategic standpoint, and it was irrelevant to both the colonials and the British. The fighting took place largely in a relatively narrow geographical zone along the Eastern Seaboard. The major decisive land battles took place in the same narrow zone. The fighting in the back country was irrelevant to the outcome of the war. "Dums Along the Mohawk" is a stirring story (and a great John Ford movie) but such battles in the hinterland were sideshows of a sideshow. As for production: the real, wealth-producing economic life of the colonies was concentrated, along with all the major population centers (cities and towns and the farmlands contiguous thereto), and the bulk of the population, along the Eastern Seaboard. The economic significance of the hinterland was negligible in the scheme of things since most of the population of the hinterland communities were living at a subsistence level. Circumstances being what they were, the British did not huge mobile armies to defeat the rebels. I'll say again, the war was not unwinnable for the British nor was the defeat of Crown forces a foregone conclusion, as attested to by the incontrovertible fact that the middle part of the war went very badly indeed for the Colonials, so much so that Britain came with an ace of winning the war.

I've said enough on this subject and will say no more.

coupe said...

Roughcoat said......And the way to do this is to stock up on firearms. Now.

Bah!

Plinking is one method, but it is slow and easily countered by the defenders.

Weapons of mass destruction is the way to go. I can poison a lake, destroy electrical distribution for about $100 a pop.

Frontal assaults are just stupid. The way to end the federal government is on a little road in Virginia. Topple that one tower, and it's dominoes all the way to Manhattan Island.

Trump may want to build a wall, but he's going to have to deal with power distribution from Mexico that keeps USA lights and air conditioners on.

Roughcoat said...

Except to say this: it wasn't the size and distributed nature of governance and production that doomed Britain, it was more than anything the intervention of France, providing both military and monetary support, that brought Britain's defeat. That, and the the Continental Army's evolution into a first-class fighting force.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

"...so much so that Britain came with an ace of winning the war."

I dunno, it seems like, thinking big picture, the track record for any country (incl Britain) w/ regard to holding onto colonies that are fussy and want out, is not so good. Similarly, it seems like foreigners making up national boarders w/o considering the differences of the indigenous populations ain't so great either, especially w/ the Mooslims.

AReasonableMan said...

Roughcoat said...
The fighting took place largely in a relatively narrow geographical zone along the Eastern Seaboard. The major decisive land battles took place in the same narrow zone.


And the colonists lost the majority of these battles, yet they still won the war. Why? Because the British never controlled the country as a whole, because of its distributed nature. There were obviously other factors, the French alliance tipped a balanced situation into a defeat but their contribution simply sped up the inevitable. The British lacked the resources to control such a large territory when the majority of the people were hostile to their presence. In Canada and later in Australia they played the politics more shrewdly but also faced relatively smaller populations.

Rhythm and Balls said...

That's precisely why he might win.

AReasonableMan said...

coupe said...
Frontal assaults are just stupid.


Even the colonists generally knew this.

AReasonableMan said...

coupe said...
Bah!

Weapons of mass destruction is the way to go. I can poison a lake, destroy electrical distribution for about $100 a pop.


Exactly, forget about the pea-shooters.

Steve Uhr said...

Why would democrats want to block Trump? Hillary never could have been elected president without him.

Roughcoat said...

ARM:

I've already answered your arguments; I've already addressed the issue of what you term the country's "distributed nature." You're going in circles. I suspect you want to get the last word -- if so, let it go. Either say something new or don't say anything. The Colonials won the battles that counted which is why they are termed "decisive battles." The situations in Australia and Canada were not even remotely analogous to circumstances of the American Revolution.

buwaya puti said...

Roughcoat is right.
There werent many cases of irregular warfare of a sort unknown in Europe making much difference. And the American situation was not unknown in Continental warfare. The practices of petit guerre were well known in Europe, and much used in the wars of the 18th century. Armies used specialized raiding troops like Hussars and also large numbers of irregulars - such as Frederick the Greats provisional regiments of such, "blue on blue and damned to hell".
The US Revolutionary War though was fought in straight up linear battles for the most part. The main difference vs Europe was a nearly complete lack of cavalry on the battlefield, Im not sure why the British at least didnt bring in more. It is said that this was because it was such close country that it reduced mobility and precluded flanking tactics, but that doesnt seem right.
There wasnt the clear terrain at Saratoga for instance for a Rossbach-style mass charge, or those of the British and Austrian cavalry against the masses of French Revolutionary infantry in Flanders, but there are numerous cases of 18th century cavalry using their role in the rock-paper-scissors tactical model of the time, within the line of battle, breaking through infantry disrupted by firepower and rolling up the enemy line, as at Hohenfriedburg.
I wonder also whether the British missed the boat in not having cavalry to exploit their many victories and thereby collect many more prisoners.

Big Mike said...

@ARM, when one side forces two -- count 'em, one-two -- entire armies to surrender essentially without firing a shot in order to avoid being annihilated, then that side seems pretty likely to win. And so the Americans did.

AReasonableMan said...

Roughcoat said...
Either say something new or don't say anything.


Actually you are the one who keeps repeating yourself, by simply asserting that geography didn't matter. Obviously it did and I am hardly the first person to argue this, if you bother to look at some of the writing on this topic.

Rt1 Rebel said...

@ ARM

How did Vietnam turn out for us? How did Afghanistan turn out for the Russians in the 80s? Hell, how did our Middle East adventures turn out for us in the last 15 years? All of these were foreign wars.

The total number of police, military, and National Guard is 3.7 million, if you think they are a match for 102 million gun owners and 300 million guns, you are nuts. If you think that American police/military/NG are going to be reliable in armed opposition of their own families and neighbors on their own soil, you are nuts, the defection rate will be at least 50%, if not almost complete. If you think that the Government will use airpower domestically, or nuclear weapons, you are nuts.

AReasonableMan said...

buwaya puti said...
Roughcoat is right.
There werent many cases of irregular warfare of a sort unknown in Europe making much difference.


Although this sentence doesn't make a lot of sense I think you are trying to argue that the colonialist's guerrilla warfare tactics were an important factor. So they were. But this is not Roughcast's argument and I don't disagree with this.

In fact, these tactics were greatly aided by a geographically broadly distributed population, which forced the British to split their own forces.

Roughcoat said...

Even the colonists generally knew this.

Conventional warfare in the West in the late 18th century and even through the first years of the American Civil War was all about making frontal assaults. It entailed closely ranked lines of infantry advancing in tightly ordered formations to within musket range of enemy lines of infantry and firing their weapons in vollies. The guiding principle was concentration of mass and fire, which was necessary due to the inaccuracy and short range of most military long guns, which were unrifled muskets. The use of cover in tandem with fire-and-movements tactics is romantically appealing, and was used to good effect against British forces marching along the road from Concord Bridge, but it was generally eschewed because it was incapable of defeating massed formations of infantry making frontal attacks using volley fire followed by bayonet charges. It is important to grasp that single-shot muzzle loading muskets and rifles did not lend themselves to fire-and-movement tactics. That's because after you got off one shot you were basically unarmed for the next 30 seconds or more (usually more) -- however much time it took to reload your weapon, a time-consuming process. In the meantime, while you and other members of your dispersed unit were loading your weapons you were being subject to a bayonet charge, i.e., a frontal assault, by a concentrated mass of infantry. It was until the advent and general employment of breechloading rifled firearms that the fire-and-movement tactics became preferable, and more effective, than frontal assaults.

Big Mike said...

Getting back to the question at hand, my reading is that HT, Real American, and tcrosse pretty well covered the bases in their comments at the very beginning of this thread. In particular, however, I think that the relatively narrow focus of politicians and political consultants on fund-raising allowed a relatively small number of very well-heeled people to buy the Democrat party. George Soros is the most obvious of them, but any rational analysis would include Tom Steyer, Don Sussman, and the Pritzkers. Between them and Mike Bloomberg they account for over $100M of the Democrat Party's funding, so the Democrats will do what these folks tell them to do. And what these people want (besides Penny Pritzker's cabinet post) is to tell American workers to go get f**ked. So that's what Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Party leaders do.

AReasonableMan said...

Rt1 Rebel said...
The total number of police, military, and National Guard is 3.7 million, if you think they are a match for 102 million gun owners and 300 million guns, you are nuts. If you think that American police/military/NG are going to be reliable in armed opposition of their own families and neighbors on their own soil, you are nuts, the defection rate will be at least 50%, if not almost complete. If you think that the Government will use airpower domestically, or nuclear weapons, you are nuts.


And you are nuts if you believe that anything like this will ever play out in the foreseeable future. Rebellions do not start with a mass uprising of 102 million people, many of whom vote Democrat. They start small, or at least used to. Now, in our Republican mandated surveillance state, most will not start at all.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

"And what these people want (besides Penny Pritzker's cabinet post) is to tell American workers to go get f**ked."

Good advice.

Rusty said...

I see ARM is doubling down on talking out his ass.

buwaya puti said...

Well, I mean MORE cavalry, as both sides had some and they were on a few occasions significant on the battlefield.

Rt1 Rebel said...

@ ARM

I didn't say it would play out, I'm merely pointing out the facts if it should. And not going to attempt research regarding the proportion of those 102 million that would be likely to support a cause against the government, but I am pretty confident that the majority, if not a huge majority, would be sympathetic.

Roughcoat said...

Actually you are the one who keeps repeating yourself, by simply asserting that geography didn't matter. Obviously it did and I am hardly the first person to argue this, if you bother to look at some of the writing on this topic.

Oh dear. I didn't simply assert that geography didn't matter, I also explained why it didn't matter. As for "if you bother to look at some of the writing on this topic" -- what an unfortunate statement. As it happens, I AM one of the people who has done "some of the writing on this topic."

buyway put's statement makes sense and I agree with it. You don't agree with it, but it does make sense.

As for the lack of cavalry on the Revolutionary War battlefield: It's my contention that it was probably wise of the British to dispense with cavalry. The arme blanche was expensive to maintain and sustain and was by then outmoded as a decision-making combat arm. Its principle effectiveness was in serving as a screening force for armies during the operational maneuver and movement phase and as a reconnaissance force for locating the position of the main bodies of marching enemy armies. The use of cavalry in massed charges on an open battlefield was largely a thing of the past and mostly ineffective, often disastrously so. Case in point: Ney's charge at Waterloo. Also it bears mentioning that most cavalry charges throughout the history of mounted forces took place at a trot or canter not a gallop. Cavalry could be effective for pursuit of routed enemy forces fleeing the battlefield headlong but the fact is such circumstances were becoming increasingly rare in warfare by the late 18th century. By the outbreak of the American Civil War, and the use of breech-loading carbines and multi-shot revolvers, it was found that cavalry was most effective in combat when the horsemen fought dismounted, dragoon-style.

BN said...

The Democrat party was founded (by Jackson) to exploit "the Spoils System." Vote for us, we'll pay you one way or another. In time, they teamed up with Big Unions to expedite the exchange with "the working class." They then expanded their brand to provide spoils to whatever various interest groups they could, dividing the country by race, ethnicity, sex, rural/urban--which became urban/rural when the cities grew and the farms disappeared--immigrants, etc. They don't care what "block" it is, they'll buy the vote with some goody or other. Tried and proven throughout our history. They'll sell out one group for another as soon as it becomes more advantageous.

The problem with "free trade" vs. "mercantilism" is that it is a Prisoners' Dilemma. And prisoners are often/usually criminals. Hard to win that game if you're the only "good guy." But if anyone loses, everyone loses a little. Oh well. Gimme mine, you get your own--or get government to get it for you. Yeah, shit will be more expensive, but... subsidies! That's the ticket! More opportunity for politicians to buy votes.

buwaya puti said...

What I meant in my clumsy way was that irregular warfare was a well established part of European warfare of the day, and the way things were done in 18th century America wasnt really different from what European military professionals were used to.

On the other hand, Roughcoat is right about infantry tactics. However that wasnt all of it, not in Europe. There were in fact three "arms", infantry, cavalry and artillery, the rock, paper scissors of battlefield tactics. In the 18th century the only bit not quite developed vis-a-vis the ultimate development of this model was mobile (horse) artillery, though that - artillery with tactical mobility - was certainly in development.
There were a great number of 18th century European battles decided or turned decisive by cavalry charges and envelopments, from Narva (1700) to Marengo (1800).
In addition, European battlefields were the scenes of many attempts at grand tactical maneuver meant to avoid as much as posdible of the slugfest, which occasionally even worked.

AReasonableMan said...

Roughcoat said...
As it happens, I AM one of the people who has done "some of the writing on this topic."


An appeal to your own authority is not especially convincing. Which books? Where were they published? What did the reviewers say?

Unknown said...

"She says the workers are a basket of deplorables for wanting jobs, not welfare."

Total nonsense again Wildswan. She said the racists which include the all right proliferate Trumpism. She never said the "workers" were the deplorables. Trump doesn't give a shit about the workers, he doesn't give a shit about bringing jobs back, if he did he would be making his products here in the states instead of China and other countries around the world. Trump is merely an opportunist for his own sake, to enhance his own worth and you dupes believe the outright bull crap he feeds you. You ask no questions, you eat it with relish.

AReasonableMan said...

buwaya puti said...
What I meant in my clumsy way was that irregular warfare was a well established part of European warfare of the day, and the way things were done in 18th century America wasnt really different from what European military professionals were used to.


Didn't mean to be rude, but your point didn't have much to do with Roughcast's previous argument re geography, which remains utterly unconvincing.

buwaya puti said...

As for the utility of cavalry on European battlefields of the 18th-19th century, even in massed charges on the battlefield, the contemporaries would have disagreed. Cavalry still worked fine, if well used.
There are just too many cases where it did work, often spectacularly. Consider Marengo, Rossbach, Blenheim, Villaviciosa (which was in fact the decisive battle of the War of the Spanish Succession, as it settled the actual succession), and etc. too numerous to list.

buwaya puti said...

His argument from geography is correct, as there was in fact a rather small bit of land worth fighting over, and on which most of the fighting actually happened. And if the British had wanted to do that sort of thing they certainly had the expertise available to make a go of it. Though the only time they did make a big maneuver of this sort they ended up by botching it (Saratoga).

Unknown said...

"Anyone who thinks the army would follow an order by Hillary Clinton to suppress a revolution and shoot citizens of the United States or drop bombs on them is really very ignorant of who is actually in the army."

They are not Hillary supporters. Obama is universally reviled as well. When it starts progressives are dreaming if they think that is their fallback position."

Complete bullshit. There are a large amount of minorities in the military, if you think they will join any treasonous rebellion you need your head examined. The minorities and the majority of women in the military are Democrats. Wishful thinking Achilles again.

BN said...

TD 1:03: "Hillary conveniently ignores Economics 101."

Well, actually free trade IS Economics 101. See Adam Smith, "Wealth of Nations."

I think this is more cultural than economic, as other posters have said. Trump populism is mostly about the wall and the "press 2 for Spanish" any time one talks to the recorded message. Which by the way, used to be a human being, so that's one place the jobs all went and will continue to go to--much more so than to "free trade."

AprilApple said...

She will punitively confiscate over a trillion dollars from Americans to pay for her corrupt bureaucracy.

She's a crony socialist, with the dictator's heart.

Roughcoat said...

buwaya puti -

Yes, you make good points about the sometime-effectiveness of cavalry. I will concede that the points I made re cavalry being outmoded are certainly arguable. I could be persuaded that traditional heavy cavalry in the Early Modern period reached achieved peak effectiveness in the late 18th century. Mobile horse artillery certainly extended the life of the mounted arm although not via decision-making charges. However I maintain that by the outbreak of the American Civil War the use of heavy cavalry as an arm of decision on the open battlefield was largely over, done in by revolvers and breechloading repeating (magazine) carbines. The development and use of machine guns and rapid-fire light breechloading artillery further and rapidly degraded cavalry's tactical effectiveness; so much so that, in the American Civil War, cavalry troopers typically regarded their sabers as useless accoutrements.

At Waterloo when Ney unleashed his mounted formations in a mass cavalry charge the British infantry squared up and leveled their bayonets phalanx-style to form hegdes of sharp points at the onrushing horsemen. Their officers exhorted their johnnies to "shout, boys, shout and make faces," and so they did. The horses predictably shied away from the shouting, face-making, bayonet-armed lads; the cavalry formations either broke on the squares likes waves on rocks or swirled ineffectually around them. Von Bredow's famous "Death Ride" at Mars-la-Tour did succeed, but Von Bredow lost half of his force -- it wasn't called a "death ride" for nothing. The last great cavalry war, in which cavalry was predominant and decisive in its traditional role, was the Polish-Bolshevik War. But the circumstances in that war were uniquely suited to the employment of cavalry, and in any case Poland's victory over the Reds caused the Poles to believe that cavalry remained a viable combat arm. Which was a mistake, as the events of September 1939 proved.

Roughcoat said...

As for the utility of cavalry on European battlefields of the 18th-19th century, even in massed charges on the battlefield, the contemporaries would have disagreed.

Yes, to a point. But by the mid-19th century: no. Contemporaries in mid-19th century Europe would certainly have disagreed, did disagree -- and were wrong. Americans learned their lessons about cavalry in the Civil War, but Europeans and everyone stayed well behind the American learning curve for some time to come. Europeans were notoriously slow in understanding the lessons of the American Civil War, and the employment of cavalry falls into this category. But good on you for citing Marengo, Rossbach, Blenheim, Villaviciosa; I stand corrected. Although, to be fair to myself, we are talking here about late the 18th and early 19th centuries.

buwaya puti said...

Minorities in the US military, and its women, are disproportionately not in the combat arms. Almost no women are.
IIRC US military combat units are vastly white. The Marine Corps for instance, which has a high tooth to tail ratio, is only 10% Black, and even in that case most of these are in service units.

Roughcoat said...

Wait ... I thought the USMC had the lowest tooth-to-tail ratio of all our armed services; i.e. more teeth and less tail than than the others (although the tail part is, as always, far larger than the teeth part). Am I wrong about that?

Not a big deal in any case.

Unknown said...

Race Profile of Active Duty Force
Service % White % Minorities % Black % Other
Army 73.9 % 26.1 % 21.5 % 4.6 %
Navy 66.2 % 33.8 % 19.3 % 14.4 %
Marine Corps 83.7 % 16.3 % 11.1 % 5.2 %
Air Force 78.1 % 21.9 % 15.6 % 6.3 %
Coast Guard 82 % 18 % 6.1 % 11.9 %
Total 74.6 % 25.4 % 17.8 % 7.6 %

http://www.statisticbrain.com/demographics-of-active-duty-u-s-military/

BN said...

The reason the British lost to America is the same reason we lost all the wars since WWII: lack of will. The 13 American colonies simply wasn't worth the investment when they had a whole world of other colonies to control/protect/exploit.

And when the next revolution comes to America, it will be because of national bankruptcy and starvation, not government overreach--we kinda like that. Indeed, violence may not even be necessary; the national state may just wither away and devolve to more regional entities. then the fun will begin as the non-bankrupt states vie for power.

khesanh0802 said...

buwaya puti I don't dispute your USMC numbers, but I would be interested where they came from. I tried to find some comparable data w/o success. Remember every Marine is a rifleman, no matter his MOS.

buwaya puti said...

By the 1850's arguably cavalry was obsolete on the battlefield, because infantry effective range had increased to 300meters from 100 or so, making it impossible to form for a charge in view of the enemy.
There arent many successful cavalry charges since then, and all of them against surprised or demoralized troops.

The last, and successful, mounted cavalry charge by the US Army btw was at Morong, Bataan, by Ramsey's troop of the 26th Cavalry, Philippine Scouts. This was a case where the enemy was surprised. I highly recommend Ramseys book.

The last, largest, and successful one in western Europe was probably by Monasterio's cavalry division at Teruel, 1938.

Anyway, through the whole 18th century and the early 19th cavalry could be extremely dangerous. Even at Waterloo (an extremely controversial battle, I have @7 histories, its a hobby in itself) cavalry often succeeded brilliantly - The British smashed d'Erlons entire Army Corps of four divisions with two cavalry brigades and took it out of the offensive fight for the rest of the battle, the French cavalry overran several British and German battalions, and it was the pursuing Prussian Uhlans that exploited the victory, that actually captured or dispersed most of the fleeing French army.
And the futile French charges on the Allied right could have succeeded, had Ney, probably shell shocked by then, organized things better and brought up more artillery. The whole French command was in disorder by then of course.

buwaya puti said...

There, unknown had it - 11.1%/10% same same, probably depends on the year.

Original Mike said...

Blogger Roughcoat said...

ARM:

I've already answered your arguments; I've already addressed the issue of what you term the country's "distributed nature." You're going in circles. I suspect you want to get the last word -- if so, let it go."


In my long time here, I've never known ARM to let anything go.

Unknown said...

BP. That is only the Marines, not the other combined services. why emphasize the service that has the 2nd to lowest number of minorities? In total, minorities make up 25.4%. One would also have to consider that there will be roughly half of the white service members that are not Republicans or would not be willing to engage in insurrection.

Roughcoat said...

Re Waterloo ... well ... to say it "often" succeeded brilliantly -- no. Not often, and not brilliantly. The case of d'Erlon's corps is, to my knowledge, cavalry's only significant success. The overrunning of British and German battalions were small-scale successes of absolutely no significance to the larger battle. Cavalry by then had become rather adept at scoring meaningless small-scale successes of no great import. You are right about the pursuit by the Uhlans and I did stipulate above that cavalry could and would remain effective in the pursuit role well after its role as a decisive combat arm on the main battlefield had been relegated to the ash heap of military history. As for Ney's charge: it was a monumental failure of a major combat action that was meant to be decisive. I would advise against blaming its failure on Ney's mental condition or disarray in the French command. Saying that it would have succeeded if the charge had been better organized is akin to say the Marxism would work if only it was properly done. The notion that bringing up artillery to smash the British squares founders on the rock of the British artillery which would have smashed the French batteries as they transited across the battlefield.

Birkel said...

"AReasonableMan" seems to think the supply lines for the military would survive long without the support of so-called flyover states.

"AReasonableMan" is as confused about military matters as he is about the utility of communism.

richardsson said...

Sebastian said...

"Dumping dying white losers in favor of coastal elites plus minorities plus single women is a winning strategy in presidential elections."

That remains to be seen, but I think it is an accurate description of the Democrats' strategic calculation.


Yes indeed, and when it doesn't work, it will be very amusing watching them trying to walk that back.

Terry said...

Well, the Democrat party could have blocked the rise of Hillary, but it chose not to do that. Before the Dems point out how awful the GOP candidate is, they should look at the monster they have nominated for president. Working class white men used to be the backbone of the Democrat party. They actively hate Hillary. "Don't pick a candidate the voters hate" would be good advice for both parties.

buwaya puti said...

Because the Marines have a very high combat arms/services ratio.
I am hunting a paper I archived from 2004-05 that had racial breakdowns for combat arms - service for the Army.
There was some controversy at the time that black people were being unfairly recruited as cannon fodder.

narciso said...

well in so far, as the Crown became overextended and had to increase their revenue, through the stamp act, a similar thing happened with the Bourbons, although the food shortages probably had the greater impact, this occurred in the middle of the little ice age,

Terry said...

"Dumping dying white losers in favor of coastal elites plus minorities plus single women is a winning strategy in presidential elections."
It's called a low-high coalition, and the Democrats didn't invent it. That kind of coalition has its limits. What do you do when you have looted the middle out of existence?

AReasonableMan said...

buwaya puti said...
His argument from geography is correct, as there was in fact a rather small bit of land worth fighting over


This wasn't his argument, at least in part because it is such a stupid argument. It was all worth fighting for from the colonists perspective.

AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
"AReasonableMan" seems to think the supply lines for the military would survive long without the support of so-called flyover states.


This has to be the oddest post yet. There were no flyover states at the time, unless we are counting Pennsylvania. And I am essentially arguing the opposite of this, that the bulk of the population lived outside the main towns making it difficult to control the country by controlling a few key cities. This is so fucking obvious that it is hard to credit any one arguing against this, yet they do. Maybe I will write an imaginary book about it.

buwaya puti said...

What Ney was trying to do was what, for instance, Murats cavalry had done at Dresden, 1813, also against infantry in squares, where he took prisoner at least 10,000 Austrians. Which is yet another on to put on the list of cavalry victories, though granted this one was thrown away by other blunders.

And the d'Erlon business is very important, that was 1/3 of the French Infantry out of action. The other 1/3 was tied up on the French left, most of the rest was busy with the Prussians. That British cavalry had left Napoleon with only six available infantry battalions by late afternoon.

And of course Wellington was a very careful fellow about cavalry, he'd seen what it could do and always chose positions where it was hard for the enemy to use it. Heck, his own had won him his victory at Salamanca, 1812. And there were at least eight smashed Spanish armies, 1808-1811, that could testify about the value of cavalry (Oman, and Esdaile, make it clear how important the French cavalry was in Spain, mainly because the other side had little to oppose it with), as also Beresford, who lost a British brigade at Albuera.

Like I said, Waterloo is very controversial.

AReasonableMan said...

It is hard to credit that anyone could argue that geography doesn't play a role in the outcome of conflicts. Russia defeated Germany and France in large part thanks to geography, with an assist from the weather.

Michael K said...

a man who can barely rise out of his Barcalounger. Old people - no threat to the union.

I love how ARM is a keyboard tough guy.

I have an AR 15 and 500 rounds of ammunition which I will fire from my "barcalounger." Also a Colt .45 1911 model with another 500 rounds. I am not mentioning my black powder rifles and pistols that ARM could not describe.

Pajama Boy think he is a real hero.

I have sailed to Hawaii and have a life that ARM would probably think unrealistic.

The keyboard commandoes are amusing,.

narciso said...

take a minor example, when there was caterwailing over sb 1070, greater california was dependent on arizona for much of it's power,

Original Mike said...

Like a dog with a bone.

Michael K said...

"Like I said, Waterloo is very controversial."

I was there a year ago and toured the battlefield.>



I am amused at ARM. Have you ever done anything that required you leave your living room ?

Michael K said...

The quoted lines were omitted.

Wellington was outnumbered and the hard center of his force was his British Peninsula Campaign veterans. He stationed them on the “military crest” of the low hill behind Hougomont and La Haye Sainte. This sheltered them from French cannon fire. Direct fire cannon fired cannon balls which would skip and were devastating for infantry in squares. It was important to disperse these squares when under fire by cannon. Napoleon was a master of artillery and had won many battles with it. Wellington, in Spain, had learned to shelter his infantry. He even had them lie down in the grass behind the crest of the hill to rest and make them invisible to French cannons.

The fact that it had rained hard the night before the battle, a reason often given for the late hour of the French attack, made the ground soft and the cannonballs often dug in rather than skip along the surface.

Infantry squares were almost impervious to cavalry assault so the wise commander attacking such a force would combine artillery and cavalry to weaken and disperse the defenders. Napoleon knew this but his brother drew the center of gravity to the strong point.

The two battalions that defended Hougoumont suffered 500 dead and wounded out of strengths of 2,000.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
I have sailed to Hawaii and have a life that ARM would probably think unrealistic.


I think sailing to Hawaii is a admirable and manly thing to have done. Yet, I do not see you or your cohort as a viable threat to the union except perhaps financially.

Rt1 Rebel said...

ARM likes the geography advantage. I like the numbers advantage. This is the reason for the 2nd, and also the reason that progressives want to slowly boil the frog to do away with it.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
Like a dog with a bone.


Come on! When people are throwing meatballs down the middle of the plate, I'm not supposed to take swing at them? What sorta game is that?

Fabi said...

Five hours later and ARM still hasn't provided a citation for his claim that 80% lived in the countryside, but instead, offered another "squirrel". I'm shocked -- shocked!

Best of all, he claims that the Colonists' victory is proof of his assertion. How many logical fallacies is that? Again, I'm shocked!

Original Mike said...

"Come on! When people are throwing meatballs down the middle of the plate, I'm not supposed to take swing at them?"

You're the only one here who thinks you've come out looking good in this.

Rt1 Rebel said...

@Micheal K

Not wise to publish that on the internet. I had a collection, but I lost all of my weapons and ammo in an unfortunate boating accident last year.

AReasonableMan said...

Rt1 Rebel said...
This is the reason for the 2nd, and also the reason that progressives want to slowly boil the frog to do away with it.


I would like to see less guns, everywhere. Fewer of fellow citizens would then die unnecessarily. I find the idea that my concerns over guns are part of some nefarious plot to limit the possibility an armed insurrection against the gubmint so ridiculous that I feel you guys are just pulling my leg when you bring it up. Yet you really seem to believe this.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
You're the only one here who thinks you've come out looking good in this.


Tell me again the story about Hitler defeating the Russians.

narciso said...

oddly most of these deaths, happen in nyc, baltimore, dc, chicago, where gun laws are exceedingly strict,

over extended supply lines, general winter, for a 1,000 Alex,

Original Mike said...

Roughcoat was discussing the Revolutionary War. You, bizarrely, brought up WWII.

Fabi said...

Just because you believe an insurrection to be ridiculous, doesn't render it ridiculous, ARM.

Fabi said...

You don't expect ARM to reply in a linear fashion do you, Original Mike? That would be ridiculous!

Rt1 Rebel said...

@ARM

Why shouldn't I believe it? The mass majority of crimes are committed with illegal weapons, so you already lose the argument. Especially when Obama himself authorized a plot to ship thousands of weapons into Mexico without traceability. The intent was clearly to cause more mayhem and give support to more draconian gun legislation. When has a mass shooting not resulted in progressives calling for more gun control within hours, regardless of what or who did the malice?

AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
Just because you believe an insurrection to be ridiculous, doesn't render it ridiculous


Actually, it pretty much does. If no one takes your threat of violence against our democratic institutions seriously it's not much of a threat is it?

Bruce Hayden said...

As with the posters above, minorities, and esp apparently Blacks tend to join the military in order to learn skills or make careers, and typically not to fight. Which is why I used the term "trigger pullers" above,who are most typically white and rural. Esp the Scotts-Irish from the belt extending through the top of he South and south of the North of the Civil War. Though the remainder of the south and rural west also contribute their share. Been this way since Jackson. Here, it doesn't matter that a lot of them may be registered Democrats - the trigger pullers are not Clinton Democrats. They come primarily from heavy Trump country.

The problem with activating the National Guard is that the governor has to agree, and a majority of them are Republicans. Any Republican activating the National Guard to put down a revolt responding to a Dem attempt to seize firearms would ruin them politically. Which is why I said it ain't gonna happen. And an order by President Crooked Hillary that the regular military aid in a disarmament, or support the Feds doing so, would be illegal. And, being illegal, following it would violate the UCMJ. This was apparently made even more specific after the German military attempted to negate responsibility for Nazi atrocities by claiming that they were merely following orders. Doesn't work.

Fabi said...

First: I didn't make a threat, ARM -- try to be factually correct. Second: how do you know that "no one" does or doesn't take such a threat seriously? Try harder.

AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
try to be factually correct


You're a dummy.

narciso said...

plus lets see, hitler's armies were loaded with genocidal commanders who decided to kill everything in sight, including putative allies, a poser,

Michael K said...

"I lost all of my weapons and ammo in an unfortunate boating accident last year."

My boating accidents were in the past. One involved losing a mast in conditions that would have had ARM needing a change of underwear.

Not much chance of losing my armory unless it is an invasion,

Fabi said...

Your inability to follow a logical progression and your continued use of assertion as fact render your arguments false, ARM. Have some decency and be ashamed of your pitiful rhetoric.

Fabi said...

Hey, ARM -- where's that citation?

Bruce Hayden said...

I do believe that a serious attempt at seizing a large number of firearms from law abiding citizens, or the banning of modern sporting rifles (such as AR-15s) could very well result in mass resistance. I know just too many paranoid people who are worried about this sort of thing. I know people who have buried firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Who won't buy firearms through FFLs because the Feds might know they did so (even though that sort of thing by the BATFE is quasi-illegal). A partial repeal of Heller by Clinton SCOTUS picks wouldn't help - most everyone in the gun community knows that she has made her desire to weaken the 2nd Amdt fairly clear. The anti-federalists enacted the 2nd Amit for just this contingency. She would just be pouring gasoline on the fire.

Rt1 Rebel said...

@Micheal

Sorry that you lost all of yours at the bottom of the Pacific, along with the mast.

Unknown said...

"I have an AR 15 and 500 rounds of ammunition which I will fire from my "barcalounger." Also a Colt .45 1911 model with another 500 rounds."

Piker. They come in 1000 round cases. Oh, unless you mean "500 rounds in arm's reach from my barcalounger". Or maybe only 500 rounds you were able to retrieve after the boating accident?

=============
"Anyone who thinks there is going to be an armed revolution is very ignorant of who is actually in the country.
Old people, people with mortgages, stoners - not the well-spring of any uprising."

Old people have nothing to lose. Old people in flyover country have lots of spare time to practice at the gun range.

Anybody who thinks that a revolt against an overbearing government in impossible in the US wasn't paying much attention in the 1980's, when the USSR essentially disappeared over one week.
It only takes one spark to ingite a powderkeg.

Achilles said...

Blogger Unknown said...
"BP. That is only the Marines, not the other combined services. why emphasize the service that has the 2nd to lowest number of minorities? In total, minorities make up 25.4%. One would also have to consider that there will be roughly half of the white service members that are not Republicans or would not be willing to engage in insurrection."

This is so brazenly stupid and ignorant.

Almost nobody in the army is a republican. Nobody in the army likes any politicians period. We hate politicians almost as much as we hate lawyers and whiny progressives with "studies " degrees and people who loot during riots.

Combat line units are overwhelmingly white with a decent number of Hispanics. All other minorities are in s4,s1, and E co. Over 90% of these people come from Texas east and Virginia south. Many would love to go to the DC NYC corridor.

Rt1 Rebel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rt1 Rebel said...


@Bruce

I believe you are correct. I casually read a gun forum, and from the sentiments expressed there regarding confiscation, more than half of them claim they would shoot back, and the others would bury their weapons or lose them in an unfortunate boating accident. I don't believe internet bravado much, but the sentiment is there, and I do believe that there are at least enough folks that would actually shoot back to make the entire operation a clusterfuck, and possibly cause a much greater resistance.

Achilles said...

You know who else people in combat units hate? Generals in DC and desk jockeys at the pentagon.

Rt1 Rebel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rt1 Rebel said...

@ Unknown

Your numbers are not completely foolproof. I have purchased Federal 5.56 in boxes of 420. I shot most of them in practice, the rest were lost in a terrible boating accident.

http://www.bulkammo.com/bulk-556-45-ammo-556x45mm62fmjm855sccanfed-420

Birkel said...

"AReasonableMan"

Do you believe the Brits had an air force in 1783? Then quit being obtuse for no gain, you ignorant shit, ok?

Jon Ericson said...

arm, Good for you, people are paying attention!

Terry said...

Imagine if, in 1980, the feds had banned smoking and made possession of tobacco products illegal. There would have been riots and revolution. Instead what they did was push smokers into the margins. They made smoking more expensive, made cigarettes available for sale in fewer places (remember cigarette machines?), made casual smoking a taboo in films and on television, and made it more difficult to smoke in public places. We went from smoking anywhere you wanted, to smoking except for a few, tiny places reserved for non-smokers, to it being virtually illegal to smoke in public, in a quarter of a century.
The technique will be used again for firearms. Owning a gun will be made more expensive and more difficult. There will be taxes on ammunition and shooting ranges will be closed for environmental reasons. You may have to pay a homeowners and health insurance surcharge. If you are accused of having a loaded gun in a house with kids, and they will take the kids away.
When they have reduced the gun owners to a small, unsympathetic part of the population, they will restrict the number and types of guns that they may own, and tighten the restrictions every year.
That's how I would do it.

HT said...

"The technique will be used again for firearms."

I sure hope so. Although my preference is to repeal the second amendment and have the government kick in doors and grab guns from citizens, residents, and the undocumented, and be done with the madness once and for all.

Rusty said...

"In my long time here, I've never known ARM to let anything go."

He needs to convince himself he's right. Facts be damned.

Rusty said...

"When they have reduced the gun owners to a small, unsympathetic part of the population, they will restrict the number and types of guns that they may own, and tighten the restrictions every year.
That's how I would do it."

It's not like they haven't tried. It might have worked 20 years ago, but today there is the internet and facts are a lot easier to come by. Today there is, for all practical purposes nothing the feds can do short of armed confiscation. And that will never happen. Look at the Colorado magazine ban. Even county sheriffs said they weren't going to uphold it and citizens ignored it. The people know better as to where their best interests lie.

AReasonableMan said...

Let’s think about this rationally for a moment. The same military genius’s who thought the Iraq war was a good idea also think that unregulated militia’s comprised of poorly trained old people represent a serious constraint on US government power. The same military genius’s who encouraged the construction of a vast domestic surveillance state think that unregulated militia’s represent a serious constraint on US government power. The same military geniuses who gave us militarized local police forces think local ragtag militias represent a serious constraint on government power at any level.

These are the people who want to lead us into battle against the government on the premise that the balance of power now is just the same as it was when the colonists fought the British. Good luck with that.

There are constraints on government power but they all revolve around the ballot box. If people stopped voting for politicians who start stupid wars, spy on their own people and turn the cops into an occupying force we would be a lot better off.

Birkel said...

Supply lines depend on all those ill-trained people doing their jobs. The long tail of the military -- even with no defections -- depends on farmers, truck drivers and so forth.

You are a fool, "AReasonableMan".

AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
Do you believe the Brits had an air force in 1783?


Only a crazy person would ask a question like this.

Birkel said...

If the foolish "AReasonableMan" could learn, he would see all the failed police states in his rearview mirror.

Birkel said...

"AReasonableMan"

If you think a reference to flyover country referred to the American Revolution, then I can only assume you believe the Brits in 1783 had an air force.

I asked you not to be willfully obtuse but I knew it was a bridge too far.

AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
If you think a reference to flyover country referred to the American Revolution, then I can only assume you believe the Brits in 1783 had an air force.


That is because you have very poor reading comprehension. I was responding to another commenter. Your argument is with them. Why don't you go and call them silly names instead?

Birkel said...

AReasonableMan said...
Birkel said...
"AReasonableMan" seems to think the supply lines for the military would survive long without the support of so-called flyover states.

This has to be the oddest post yet. There were no flyover states at the time, unless we are counting Pennsylvania. And I am essentially arguing the opposite of this, that the bulk of the population lived outside the main towns making it difficult to control the country by controlling a few key cities. This is so fucking obvious that it is hard to credit any one arguing against this, yet they do. Maybe I will write an imaginary book about it.

10/1/16, 9:21 PM


......

Yes, I can see how quoting me by my handle was responding to another poster. Fool.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 274   Newer› Newest»