This interlude in the Wisconsin protests came to mind as I was thinking about the death of Charlie Kirk and what his supporters might do without him. I think there is a method of engagement with people, showing courage and openness to the exchange of ideas, that is available to everyone, and it is what this one man did in 2011.
१३ सप्टेंबर, २०२५
"But one man — who did not agree with the protesters — decided he would occupy the central spot. To the consternation of the others, he invited people to come talk to him one-on-one."
I wrote on March 4, 2011, in "A Free-Speech Countervoice Takes the Center of the Wisconsin Capitol Rotunda."
I wrote at the time: "I started to imagine Wisconsinites coming back to the building every day, talking about everything, on and on, indefinitely into the future. That man who decided to hold dialogues in the center of the rotunda is a courageous man. But it isn't that hard to be as courageous as he was. In the long run, it's easier to do that than to spend your life intimidated and repressed. That man was showing us how to be free. He was there today, but you — and you and you! — could be there tomorrow, standing your ground, inviting people to talk to you, listening and going back and forth, for the sheer demonstration of the power of human dialogue and the preservation of freedom."
पोस्ट्स
११२ टिप्पण्या:
Democratics in power inspired and build the antifa-jihadi network of hate. A literal real life Death cult.
The left's terrorist inspiring words are Repeated daily - echoed by the MSNBC terrorist network.
"Trump is an existential threat to democracy"
"Trump is Hitler"
"Trump is a fascist"
"Trump is a King"
"Trump's supporters are fascists"
"Trump is a Nazi"
“Trump's supporters are Nazis"
"Trump is a dictator and he will end our democracy"
“Trump is an existential threat to democracy”
“Trump’s supporters are an existential threat to democracy”
“We're in a war right now to save this country. And so you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to save the country." – Senator Chris Murphy(D)
“This fascist administration didn’t come from anywhere... We’re gonna fight, fight, FIGHT!” --AOC
when the demonstrations and the death threats didnt work, then came the lawfare directed by Chisholm, who attacked
many of Walker's associates, the raids were sanctioned by the 7th Circuit,
Taking Charlie's chair into or in front of the state capitals is a great idea. I would only say bring a few strong friends with you because if you are alone the left will assault you. They do it to prolife information tables all the time. Charlie had security to prevent that and you will need it, too. But still I think regular people want to be able to discuss and even seeing a peaker being assaulted by the left is information for regular people.
He is lucky a democratic sniper didn't take him out.
The Democratic party in a nutshell.
By all rights, the saddest part of that story is contained in the title "Free Speech Countervoice". That, in our society, Free Speech or any other founding principle would be considered a 'countervoice' in any situation, is reflective of our plight in these times.
They couldn’t debate with Charlie. They had to shoot him.
Previously they could silence people by calling them racist or fascist or a threat to democracy.
Shooting is just an escalation of the same strategy.
We are no longer going to tolerate terms like racist, fascist, hitler, authoritarian. It is bullshit and if you use those terms you are explicitly signaling you will use violence.
one notes this whole series of events started when Susan Rosenberg was sprung in 2001, after having bombed the Capitol, then the ANSWER protests began in earnest against the Iraq War, then so called Occupy arose in the aftermath of the Lehman crash,
it falls into 'these worlds you are using' strategem, a sign you've lost the argument,
It isn't 2011 anymore. Any time in the last decade, this man would have been set upon and beaten by the left wing mob at minimum.
So sorry evil asshole lying leftists.
But this is what you just created.
If you call me a racist or a fascist or a threat to democracy I am going to assume you plan to shoot me.
Every person needs to treat the left like this. They don’t have good intentions. When they call you names like authoritarian or racist they are justifying violence at some future time.
I wrote this on that post: “It's as like some of those people have not only never heard an opposing point of view, they can't even comprehend that someone would have one.”
This was why the left considered Charlie Kirk dangerous.
what was the point, to drive Walker out, why the recall contest was important, and Breitbart's role in the Supreme Court contest,
one recalls Andrew's part in that contest, and the subsequent events, the way they went after the Mercers, but not the Simon's
Well, that one didn’t age well…
the Simons now funding Bombdaddy, funny how some billionaires like Steyer, Soros and co, are not problematic,
2011 was a foreign country long dissolved. Today that speaker would have had the crap beaten out of him by those very same demonstrators.
How'd it all turn out?
https://www.the74million.org/article/act-10-scourge-of-wisconsin-teachers-faces-uncertain-future-in-court/
No longer obliged to deal with unions like the AFT over regular salary increases, school districts were responding to their newfound freedom exactly as Walker had intended. Some kept their existing salary schedules more or less intact, but many others began experimenting with merit pay schemes that awarded bonuses for employees who attained additional professional credentials or earned high grades in the state’s teacher rating metric.
The effects, detailed in a series of studies conducted by Yale economist Barbara Biasi, have largely been promising...she found that highly successful teachers in “seniority-pay” districts tended to find new positions in communities offering some form of merit pay, meaningfully increasing both average teacher quality and student scores in those places.
In a follow-up study circulated this spring, Biasi extended her findings up to 2016, five years after Republicans pushed the reform through. In the years prior to 2011, she found, seniority was practically the only factor determining teacher pay: A professional over 57 years old earned, on average, 88% more than one who was 24 years old. But after the pre-Act 10 contracts expired, those career veterans earned slightly less than they previously had, only making 73% more than their most junior colleagues.
As the gap between older and younger educators flattened, student achievement — especially for children from low-income families — saw a significant bump throughout the state, with standardized test scores climbing higher statewide each additional year after Act 10 was passed...
“They’re just using this flexibility to retain teachers that they consider to be better, or at a higher risk of departing for a nearby district, or who are in positions that are particularly difficult to staff,” she said.
Academic improvements like those revealed in Biasi’s research would be welcome anywhere. But even among its Republican supporters, Act 10 was not principally sold as a policy to improve schools.
Instead, it was seen as a way of heading off fiscal calamity. Like many states during the Great Recession, Wisconsin faced a large revenue shortfall in early 2011. When he took office, Walker vowed to close the structural deficit, arguing that local governments “don’t have anything to offer.” Either Act 10 would be approved by lawmakers, or thousands of state employees had to be laid off.
Nearly a decade and a half later, the budgetary picture is much brighter, with the state accumulating plentiful cash reserves. After a dip during the financial crisis, Wisconsin has finished in the black every year since, with its total debt recently falling to its lowest level since the Clinton presidency.
In particular, conservatives tout an employee pension fund that was fortified over the long term by the contribution
requirements included in Act 10. According to a report from the nonprofit Equable Institute, the funding ratio for Wisconsin’s retirement programs exceeds 100%, ranking the sixth-best of any system in the country. The Pew Charitable Trusts has found that the state effectively balances against the risk of an investment downturn while also insulating retirees from inflation.
Borsuk, a frequent critic of state Republicans who is married to a retired teacher, said the financial case for the law was “clear and compelling,” especially when contrasted with the debt and potential insolvency of neighboring Illinois, where state employee pension funds are ranked among the most over-extended in the nation.
“It saves school districts a huge amount of money, and some of them were facing fairly dire circumstances in 2009 and 2010,” he argued. “Teachers had to pay more to support their benefits, but to be honest, they got used to that, and life went on.”
Yes we’re seeing what happens when the committed know they’ve lost the power of persuasion- new words new definitions of words, new rules, new interpretations of existing words…and when that fails…well…we can plant the seed for violence in weak minds and have them do our bidding while we deny accountability. Our lawyers say that’s okay…
Will we ever find out if he did it for free or if he was incentivized with cash or a professorship at Stanford or a book or Netflix deal?
The leftist mob beat a gay Democrat state senator on the WI Capitol grounds in 2020 for filming the toppling of a statue of a Wisconsin abolitionist and Union Army Civil War office because they were historically illiterate.
yes that was full brawndo exercise,
It’s actually really difficult to take on protestors like this—because so much of what they believe is nonsense, you have to have an in-depth understanding of countless events and topics to ready for what they might throw at you.
It’s easy to just make shit up, it’s hard to counter that shit with facts.
"When they call you names like authoritarian or racist they are justifying violence at some future time."
And when some nut takes them up on their call for violence, they'll cut them loose with- well, something like this:
"“We can't take responsibility for the minds that are out there and how they hear it." - N. Pelosi (D)
Again - Again - We are at war with basement dwelling Reddit-ers and leftist podcasters - ANTIFA-JIHADIS.
All of these super-leftists are inspired by the lies and stoking that continually flow out of the top of the democratic party and their corrupt media.
https://www.ngocomment.com/p/charlie-kirk-assassin-suspect-appears
“ But it isn't that hard to be as courageous as he was. In the long run, it's easier to do that than to spend your life intimidated and repressed.”
If you have a life, you don’t want to spend it arguing with shitheads. There’s a better way. The best response to bad speech is earplugs.
eventually after walker was neutered in the primaries, the teachers union ran an amiable zombie in Evers, probably an early test of the ballot avalanche which the lockdowns made easier to carry out the fraud,
Narcisco. Walker running for President was his undoing. He lost focus on WI issues and voters noticed and it depressed his turnout. The left also ran a bunch of local weed legalization referendums to drive low-propensity voter turnout. Yes, there were ballot shenanigans in Milwaukee, as always, but the decisive aspect of the loss was Walker’s presidential run.
It is what Charlie Kirk would have wanted.
Achilles said...
"If you call me a racist or a fascist or a threat to democracy I am going to assume you plan to shoot me."
And the left will likewise say, "If you call me a racist or a communist or a threat to democracy I am going to assume you plan to shoot me."
Nothing good will ever come from this.
The best counter to speech you disagree with is more speech.
South Korea
"WE are Charlie Kirk"
Once again - The evil Corrupt vile Democratic Party is on the wrong side of history.
is this something? Don't know.
@BrookeSingman
EXCLUSIVE: Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson lived with his transgender partner, sources tell me.
The individual, who is a male transitioning to a female, is fully cooperating with the FBI.
Sources tell me the FBI had texts and other communications between Robinson and the individual that helped FBI authorities solidify that Robinson was indeed the shooter.
Transtifa- jihadi
https://x.com/BrookeSingman/status/1966889202412347602
he didn't have very good campaign staff, take Liz Mair please but he failed to focus on the critical issues, that brought Cruz and Trump to the playoffs,
lonejustice said...
Achilles said...
"If you call me a racist or a fascist or a threat to democracy I am going to assume you plan to shoot me."
And the left will likewise say, "If you call me a racist or a communist or a threat to democracy I am going to assume you plan to shoot me."
Nothing good will ever come from this.
Nope.
But there wont be enough communists or socialists around to cause problems anymore and we can have our free high trust society back.
Call it the price of freedom.
And the left will likewise say, "If you call me a racist or a communist or a threat to democracy I am going to assume you plan to shoot me."
Both sides, right? But it's only the left that's shooting people, isn't it?
Lonejustice: isn't calling someone on the left a communist or a threat to democracy 1) true and 2) actually something your side appreciates and takes as praise? You guys don't like democracy, because your side might lose an election... much better to make sure that never can happen. And as for calling you leftists racist, that's also true, since the definition of a racist is someone who wants to codify legal rights, privileges, and punishments based on skin color. Which is what the left is all about with DEI, affirmative action, blaming white people, reparations, etc. All of that is racist. And you leftists revel in it.
All I can say is, if in fact there is a tranny partner, and that partner is co-operating with the FBI, he will need better round-the-clock security than Epstein ever had. For the rest of his life. They will be coming for him.
Whatever the circumstance, whatever the consequences, his life is effectively over, even more so than the actual killer, who will likely rot in jail for a decade while the appeal his likely death sentence.
Great video. Thank you
Vote every Democrat out 2026
Weird coincidence isn't it ... after they get their assassinations in under the wire, just how fast Democrats want a return to normalcy and civil debate.
Fuck all of the way off. You people are DEAD to us.
I will spend the rest of my life trying to rid the United States not only of your political party, but you too. Get out of our fucking country.
The "bravery" of inviting dialog only requires the possibility that one is wrong, and is open to hearing, learning and sharing. The risk of being wrong--and the rock-solid conviction that we're all so right--is the only thing standing in the way of that "bravery."
Shouldn't we all be more afraid that we are living by convictions that actually are *wrong?* Isn't that the bigger risk that an echo-chamber curses us with?
After ST George Floyd of drug addiction died – the Corrupt Democratic Left used it to enflame masses of people to loot, riot, and burn… and KILL.
How many people died during St Geroge Floyd rioting?
After a deranged Democratic leftist kills Charlie Kirk in cold blood in front of his family – NO RIOTING. Instead – respectful vigils, honoring Charlie and his family.
And you evil leftists mock it.
Fuck the left.
Recall evil mafia Tim Walz(D) and his creepy wife (D) reveled in the smell of burning tires as their own city burned in righteous leftist rage. Free Crime for all!
Tyler lived with his transgender partner.
If he cannot be executed - then perhaps a life in solitary confinement in a small concrete room. Nothing but his evil thoughts.
I was about 15 when I concluded that the Left and I were not going to get along. I remember the moment, and the reasons were:
1) I was a divergent thinker, the Left does not tolerate divergent thinkers. The Left punishes or kills divergent thinkers.
2) I was interested in what was true. My Kindergarten teacher has already noted that, but not as a complement :) The Left lied all the time..
3) The Left ignored human nature, indeed, denied there was such a thing. Blank slate and all that, ideas I had already discarded.
I think those criteria still hold. I did most of my thinking about such things between the ages of eleven and my early twenties. My understanding has improved a great deal with experience, but I have not changed my basic outlook since then.
It is clear that the only thing that will ever make Achilles happy is if there is a another full fledged civil war in America. Ironically, this is also what the Russians and Chinese want to happen in America.
Here's the thing leftists - we no longer give a shit about anything you have to say. You are all as evil as the leaders you worship blindly. You are as evil as the fake news and the fake bullshit you buy and sell each day.
when cities burned five years ago, because of the pretext of one doped up bum, that was not the reason, all the usual suspects celebrated,
lonejustice said...
It is clear that the only thing that will ever make Achilles happy is if there is a another full fledged civil war in America. Ironically, this is also what the Russians and Chinese want to happen in America.
You are too stupid to actually articulate what I want honestly. That is why you have to resort to straw man bullshit.
I hold 2 normative principles that are pretty standard in this situation:
1. Treat others the way you want to be treated.
2. Rules of society are applied equally.
Charlie Kirk and every right of center speaker has had to have huge security teams for decades because of leftist violence on college campuses. There is no equivalent for this anywhere in the country where the left has to expect violent confrontation.
These people are violent. Period.
If I call someone a communist or a socialist I take responsibility for that. If someone calls me a fascist or a racist they will take responsibility for that.
For decades you have been able to call yourself a socialist or a communist and you had no legitimate fear of anything happening to you.
But there has been a second set of rules for people on the right. We have had to deal with leftist violence for decades.
Pieces of shit like you never called them out. Here we are. Fuck you and fuck your couch. One set of rules you piece of shit. Charlie Kirk was the nice guy and you shot him.
If you call me a fascist I have learned to expect violence.
So if you call me a fascist it is time for you to expect violence too.
Rules will be equally enforced from here on out.
"If someone calls me a fascist or a racist they will take responsibility for that."
That doesn't appear to be happening.
Nancy Pelosi (D): Pelosi was asked by Freedland if she thought it was fair to describe Trump as a fascist, referencing a recent remark made by Mark Milley, formerly Trump's top general, who described his boss as "fascist to the core" in new book. She responded, "Yes I do." (Newsweek)
Also Nancy Pelosi (D): "We can't take responsibility for the minds that are out there and how they hear it." (X)
What people like Nancy Pelosi are saying is that they are okay with using inflammatory rhetoric to wind up their base but accept no responsibility for what that rhetoric inspires.
What Nancy Pelosi is saying kills the entire "Trump incited treason!!!! Jan 6!!!!" if people like her can't take responsibility for the minds that are out there and how they hear it.
If Nancy sez "It's ok to punch and shoot Nazis and oh, by the way, Trump and all his followers are Nazi racist evil people, hint hint" but that's no big deal, then how can she claim Trump is responsible for whatever fevered leftist dreams happened on Jan 6?
she doesn't remember that last thing she said, nor does she care about such things,
Also Nancy Pelosi (D): "We can't take responsibility for the minds that are out there and how they hear it." (X)
Yep. That's the tact now. We even see it with Inga feverishly trying to tie the guy to the Right. As if this all happened in a vacuum. A lone wolf.
What Pelosi (and others) are ignoring are the thousands - if not millions - of leftists who celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
'Oh, we don't take responsibility for the actions of one person.'
Bullshit.
You own it, leftists. There is no getting away from it.
Dear Commentators, I am a Democrat, and by your standards, at least, a liberal as well. I am 73 years old, semi-retired, married, with two kids, two step kids and two grandsons. In the spirit of Charlie Kirk and Professor Althouse's free speech countervoice, I repeat my offer to debate any of you, on any political topic that I know something about, either in these comments, or off line via email. Let me know if you have any interest. Steve
@Steve
Why?
Steve, fuck off.
In 2011 Althouse wrote “That man who decided to hold dialogues in the center of the rotunda is a courageous man. But it isn't that hard to be as courageous as he was.”
deepelemblues said...
It isn't 2011 anymore.
I agree with deepelemblues and Yancey Ward — today’s leftists have trained themselves to believe that they are behaving downright nobly when ending a political discussion with violence. You, Althouse, keep remembering a bygone era, when liberals still used facts (however cherry-picked) and a vision of a better life for everyone to debate and discuss But even then, even well before then, my political debates with liberals often ended with an exasperated “You’re just eeeevil.”
Moreover what that man did back in 2011 required two separate but complementary forms of courage. The first, discussed above, is physical courage, the willingness to risk painful injury or death. And judging from what I’ve seen from lefties on social media and from the usual Althouse trolls, injury or even death is a very serious risk because they are filled with violent ideation.
More subtly, there is the psychological and moral courage explored by Ibsen in “An Enemy of the People.” The pressure to conform, the pressure to get along, the desire not to hurt other people, but especially the pressure of friends, neighbors, colleagues, and acquaintances asking “What the Hell is wrong with him?” Don’t underestimate the personal courage it takes to overcome all that.
Gerda, Because I'm interested in seeing whether dialogue is possible. I'm not an incendiary person, I don't throw insults, and I like to think I have some ability to recognize the strengths of views different from mine: I'm interested to see whether that helps to facilitate dialog. I am also offering to allow folks here to test their conception of who liberals are against an actual liberal who's prepared to reach out and take risks. Finally, I am interested to see if there are folks on this list who can engage with substance and drop the name-calling. Steve
By the way, my offer also extends to Professor Althouse.
The teachers' unions, public unions, generally, have bankrupted Chicago. Obamacares for education.
Stephen said...
Dear Commentators, I am a Democrat, and by your standards, at least, a liberal as well. I am 73 years old, semi-retired, married, with two kids, two step kids and two grandsons. In the spirit of Charlie Kirk and Professor Althouse's free speech countervoice, I repeat my offer to debate any of you, on any political topic that I know something about, either in these comments, or off line via email. Let me know if you have any interest. Steve
Let us start here:
I believe that the left calling Trump and his supporters fascist, racist, misogynist, authoritarian and other incendiary epithets led to the blatant political assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Prove me wrong.
Stephen said...
Gerda, Because I'm interested in seeing whether dialogue is possible. I'm not an incendiary person, I don't throw insults, and I like to think I have some ability to recognize the strengths of views different from mine: I'm interested to see whether that helps to facilitate dialog.
I will give you a second target:
The current Democrat party has shed all of it's moderate voices, people like Tusli Gabbard, Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, RFK Jr., Donald Trump etc and now is a hard left socialist entity that will never be peaceful in a society where they do not have control.
I am going to point out that none of these people are even moderate liberals. Trump might be a moderate liberal. Every single one of them is to the left of 1992 Bill Clinton.
You people are truly fucked up.
Stephen: I’ll debate you on climate change.
Steve:
Let's start with a simple one. List a few points where you disagree with mainstream Democratic politicians (not extremist Democrats).
And a second one. List a few ways in which the NYT and/or NPR systematically distort their news coverage.
Wow, three takers. Thank you. I have to go do some errands, but promise to respond later. I've clicked the notify me box. You may want to as well.
What do you know about that you can expound on?
Steve--just about every commentator here engages you in debate every time you state some lefty platitude as if you are making an important point.
What is it you want to debate about?
Steven--I applaud your willingness to open debate, in the spirit of Charlie Kirk.
I cannot claim to know much about anything specific--even about Charlie Kirk--but I am willing to engage and even to be educated (even though I already know everything that matters ;^)).
@Stephen, Dave Begley is a lawyer but I’m a mathematician with experience building and validating mathematical models. As regards Climste Change, try debating me.
Achilles is someone whom the Communists refer to as a "useful idiot." He wants to ferment a civil war in America because of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. He is doing exactly what the Communists want. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea would like nothing more than to see our society tear ourselves apart in a civil war. They do not have the military power to destroy America. But they do have the power to manipulate "useful idiots" like Achilles to start such a war. And at that point they can intervene and destroy us. God save us from "useful idiots" like Achilles.
If Stephen wants to debate climate change, he should do some homework first. Serious critique of the current state of the science by serious scholars.
Stephen,
Althouse could use some left-leaning debaters who will honestly enter in discussions. I will keep an eye out for your posts and engage you where it seems fruitful.
Vance said:
"What Nancy Pelosi is saying kills the entire "Trump incited treason!!!! Jan 6!!!!" if people like her can't take responsibility for the minds that are out there and how they hear it."
Geez 100%
She is a vile fraud - and a Nazi herself.
Silence is golden
When did that feeble Capitol choir shit disband? Or are they singing hymns to Evers now?
I remember establishments around the Capitol who didn't display expressly protest supportive signs were pressured. Brings to mind boarded up businesses I saw in Kenosha that spray painted "Black owned business" onto the boards prior to the wave of assault I saw amassing as I left that shit show.
@Original Mike, I only had time skim the paper you linked to, but for the benefit of the non-scientists it needs to say why the climate model predictions not matching real world observations totally debunks the entire field. The point is that we build models to make predictions. When the model does not match ground truth then predictions made based on that model are useless and must be ignored.
Achilles: You write "I believe that the left calling Trump and his supporters fascist, racist, misogynist, authoritarian and other incendiary epithets led to the blatant political assassination of Charlie Kirk. Prove me wrong."
I can't prove you wrong on this, any more than you could prove me wrong if I said that Donald Trump's claims about the 2020 election led to the deaths that occurred on and as a consequence of the attack on the Capitol on January 6.
What I can say is that heightened political rhetoric leads to heightened political violence. Left wing rhetoric typically leads to more violence against right wing figures, and right wing rhetoric leads to more violence against left wing figures.
Whose responsible for the escalation of political rhetoric in recent years? Both sides. Is one side more responsible than the other--I am guessing that you would say my side is, and that I would say your side is. I don't know how we settle that dispute.
But one thing I think I can demonstrate is that Donald Trump has used rhetoric to describe his opponents that is more extreme than that used by any other president in my lifetime.
Achilles: You say "The current Democrat party has shed all of it's moderate voices, people like Tusli Gabbard, Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, RFK Jr., Donald Trump etc and now is a hard left socialist entity that will never be peaceful in a society where they do not have control."
I say there are lots of moderate Democrats left. Examples: Gretchen Whitmer, Abigail Spanberger, Roy Cooper, Andy Beshear, Pete Butigieg, Elissa Slotkin, Mikie Sherrill, Josh Shapiro. Many of them have military or national security backgrounds. Many of them have run and won in purple or red states. There are also conservative Republicans who've left the party and now vote Democratic, at least in presidential elections.
The people whom you identify as moderate Democrats I would say are largely political "flakes." None was ever a major figure in the Democratic party.
Stephen contributing comedic relief.
Nice.
Stephen says he will debate like Charlie Kirk then offers DNC talking points and pro-Democrat platitudes.
No wonder your side had to shoot him if this is what you consider a 'debate'.
@Stephen, Abigail Spanberger as a moderate?!? One of the most hard core gun grabbers I’ve ever encountered? Either you are easily hoodwinked by her tacking towards the center in her campaign ads (she will tack back to extremism if elected), or you live in a place where Democrats are truly extreme.
Have you taken a hard look at the performance of Whitmer and Cooper as governors? Cooper deliberately forbade civilian rescue missions into western North Carolina in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Helene. I don’t see any interpretation that could be put on his actions other than he was prepared to let Republican voters die to suppress GOP turnout. And Whitmer, by putting COVID patients into nursing homes, deliberately killed elderly patients. Policies that kill people are “moderate”? Who knew?
Yes, the GOP has lost self-proclaimed “conservatives,” mostly because they are elitists repelled by Trump’s outreach to the working class, middle class, and minority voters, not to mention neocons repelled by Trump’s desire to end wars. Your party is welcome to them.
I can't prove you wrong on this, any more than you could prove me wrong if I said that Donald Trump's claims about the 2020 election led to the deaths that occurred on and as a consequence of the attack on the Capitol on January 6.
We are gradually learning that claims of ballot box stuffing in selected counties during the 2020 election were, sadly, very true. He was right to complain about Democrat cheating because ballot box stuffing is, in fact, illegal and does, in fact, constitute cheating. The only point I will concede is that the actions of Nancy Pelosi and Mark Milley regarding National Guard deployment around the Capitol should have told him that he and his followers were being set up, and he should have sent them home. Ashli Babbit and Rosanne Boyland would still be alive.
What I can say is that heightened political rhetoric leads to heightened political violence. Left wing rhetoric typically leads to more violence against right wing figures, and right wing rhetoric leads to more violence against left wing figures.
You wouldn’t happen to have any examples of “right wing rhetoric” thst has led to violence against left wing figures, now would you? Didn’t think do.
Whose [sic] responsible for the escalation of political rhetoric in recent years? Both sides. Is one side more responsible than the other--I am guessing that you would say my side is, and that I would say your side is. I don't know how we settle that dispute.
The old “both sides” routine? Sorry, but you’d best up your game or get off the stage. Let me break this to you gently. Your unsupported opinions are not “facts,” as people understand what facts are. Trump and other Republicans belittle and mock, but none of us are saying that the the world would be better off if you, Stephen, were dead. If someone murdered you would any of us say you deserved to die? I really don’t think so. And that makes my side objectively better than your side.
But one thing I think I can demonstrate is that Donald Trump has used rhetoric to describe his opponents that is more extreme than that used by any other president in my lifetime.
Your lifetime doesn’t include Nixon before Watergate or Ronald Reagan at all? What about protesters chanting “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” All that hatred came from the left.
Dear Stephen, what a treat! A Democrat commenter willing to debate! I am not sure if I will debate with you, but I would like to hear your reasoning, or why you think Democrats supported or support the following things:1) opening the borders to illegal immigration and facilitating the same with NGOs and partisans awarding benefits to illegals 2) the abrupt withdrawal from Afghanistan leaving billions worth of equipment for the Taliban. 3) refusal to cooperate on clean voter rolls 4) hiding the obvious fact that Joe Biden was clearly incapable of performing the duties of office 5) the insistence on supporting men identifying as women participating in women’s sports. I honestly cannot fathom the rationale for any of these things. I may debate you on them when I learn your argument. In exchange I will offer to kindly and calmly explain my culturally conservative rationale for things I support. Best Regards, Oso
We are gradually learning that claims of ballot box stuffing in selected counties during the 2020 election were, sadly, very true.
When your argument starts out with an outright, unsupported lie, why should I bother with the rest of the post?
"3) refusal to cooperate on clean voter rolls"
I'm certainly interested in hearing the left's argument in favor of not doing this.
Rusty, I am a lawyer and an academic. I am also a follower of politics, economics, etc. And I am a quick study. Let's see what you think after reading what I have to say.
Boatbuilder, I'd like to debate, among other things, the First Amendment and the Second Trump administration, federal vaccine policy under RFK, whether Trump's tariffs make any economic sense, etc. But I'm starting with the topics proposed by commenters here.
Big Mike, I am also a lawyer. I did not know you were a mathematician, that's very cool. Climate change is not a specialty of mine, but I look forward to learning from both you and Dave.
Mike, I'll take a look. It may take me a little time.
@wallstreetblogger
Thank you.
Taking you at your word, Stephen, I would encourage you to explicitly lay out your positions beforehand.
Big Mike,
You implicitly concede that none of the folks who left to work for Trump were really significant figures in the Democratic party.
As for Spanberger, I asked AI to tell me about Abigail Spanberger.
Here are two excerpts:
"Strong bipartisan record: For five consecutive years, she was ranked the most bipartisan member of Congress from Virginia by the Lugar Center and Georgetown University. Her legislative record includes co-sponsoring bills with Republicans on issues like preventing fentanyl overdoses, supporting veterans, and banning congressional stock trading.
"Clashes with the left: At times, Spanberger has openly criticized more progressive elements of her own party. She has notably pushed back against the "defund the police" movement and warned Democrats not to use the word "socialism". In 2019, she was one of a handful of Democrats who did not vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker."
What could be more moderate than "most bipartisan?"
As for Whitmer and Cooper, I'll note only that both won twice in states that Trump has carried multiple times, including after the "murders" you describe Whitmer as having committed. So a lot of moderates must think they are moderates, too.
@Gerda Sprinchorn
Here are some of the ways I disagree with the left wing of my party:
1. I don't think that trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports unless all contestants agree to it.
2. I think that the federal government needs to trim the growth of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. I would do it by reducing benefits for the most well off..
3. I think agricultural subsidies (a new deal idea) should be looked at and probably reduced.
4. I think rent control is a bad idea.
5. I believe that we need more housing and that we need to prevent liberal communities from using environmental holdups to prevent such housing from being built.
@Gerda Sprinchorn
As for NYT/WAPO, I think that their failure to expose Biden's cognitive difficulties earlier is an example of potential bias. The WSJ did a much better job. I also think that they were very slow to appreciate and report on the ways that failure to control the border were demoralizing and infuriating to so many Americans.
Gerda, I am curious what you think about the ways in which Fox News bias has distorted its coverage of political news?
Big Mike, on the question of whether left wing rhetoric "leads to" political violence, let me start over.
I take it as given that there is extreme rhetoric from both the left and the right. Do you disagree?
I also take it as given that there is violence perpetrated by both left and right against people whom they imagine are their enemies. Do you disagree? (If so, you might take a look at this article. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/briefing/right-wing-mass-shootings.html). I include in such violence the assault on the Capitol, for which many people were convicted of crimes of violence by juries.
So how do you distinguish left wing violence, where you challenge me to disprove the influence of left wing rhetoric, from right wing violence, where you do not assume a similar burden to disprove?
The idea that you put forward in an earlier post this week that most people on the left favor political violence is absolutely false, as polling shows. On the right, support is also very low, but in one study I've seen MAGA Republicans are twice as likely as other Republicans to support violence. See polling data here: https://govt.dartmouth.edu/news/2024/02/study-most-americans-do-not-support-partisan-violence
I barely knew who Charlie Kirk was before last week. I was heartsick to hear of his assassination--he was younger than my children, was just starting a family, and, as I learned, favored debate, not withdrawal. Did people on this blog acknowledge similar feelings when a Trump voter conducted politically motivated murders and gun attacks on Democratic legislators in Minnesota?
I would add that the claim that your side is morally superior because no one would rejoice at political violence is hard to sustain, when commentators like Former Law Clerk are writing stuff like this: "Fuck you. The Democrats are criminals and the enemies of the United States and Donald Trump needs to declare WAR on that party, just as Abraham Lincoln did. This isn't the first time in our country's history when a political party and its members needed to be killed."
With respect to Vietnam War protests, I was around and participated. I even got beaten up by the police and had to go to the emergency room. But that's not a response to my point which was about Presidential rhetoric. I still believe that Trump's rhetoric as President is the most violent of any President in my lifetime. Would you like me to amass examples?
I'll close by saying that the notion that people's moral worth can be judged exclusively from their political views is abhorrent to our country. I am still interested in people who live good lives, do good work, contribute to their communities, raise loving families, visit the sick, support the poor...And I don't judge them exclusively by their political views. I like to be able to say, I disagree with this person, but they are still a good person. Do you think that's the wrong way to think about things?
All for now, got to go and live my life.
Oso Negro, Thanks for this note. Here I go: 1) I think the Democrats should have closed the border earlier, during the Biden administration; 2) I think the withdrawal from Afghanistan was a mixed bag. The Afghan regime had no legitimacy and collapsed much faster than expected. The Dems can take full blame for not foreseeing that. That said, the fact that the Afghan regime had no staying power after 20+ years of US military support and funding shows that ending the war was absolutely the right thing to do. In addition, they got 100K people out. (What do you make of Trump refusing to help Afghans who helped us). (3) With respect to purging voter rolls, there are good ways of purging voter rolls (that don't disenfranchise eligible voters) and bad ways, that do disenfranchise them. As I understand Democratic opposition, it seeks to make sure that such purges don't involve an unacceptable risk of disenfranchisement. That feels reasonable to me. (4) Joe Biden and those close to him did the nation a tremendous disservice by not being more open about his cognitive decline--I am furious at them. (5) I don't support participation of transgender women in women's sports, at least past puberty, unless all participants consent. Hope this helps. Steve
Hey Yancey, here's a first position. The Trump Adminstration is an enemy of the First Amendment, as clearly demonstrated by judicial opinions like Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr v. Executive Office of the President and President and Fellows of Harvard College v. HHS. Read those opinions and tell me why I am wrong. Best, Steve
"(3) With respect to purging voter rolls, there are good ways of purging voter rolls (that don't disenfranchise eligible voters) and bad ways, that do disenfranchise them. As I understand Democratic opposition, it seeks to make sure that such purges don't involve an unacceptable risk of disenfranchisement. That feels reasonable to me."
Are you aware of any democrat efforts to clean up the voter rolls anywhere?
Biden didn't just fail to close the border. He put out the call to surge the border and hampered enforcement. Many were wearing Biden T-shirts, FFS
The border Biden was handed was, to a reasonable approximation, alreadyclosed. At least, compared to where Biden took it. Biden opened the floodgates.
@Original Mike Actually both blue states and red states have programs to purge voter rolls. As I understand, the ERIC clearing house, which was founded to improve reliability of such purges, was the product of three blue states and four red states. Eventually thirty states joined, many of them blue. After 2020, a bunch of Republican states left, preferring to purge using less reliable information. The Secretary of State of Pennsylvania, a Republican in a battleground state, had this to say: " The perversity with a lot of this is that the arguments against ERIC are allegedly coming from a place of interest in election integrity, when in reality, ERIC is quite possibly the most valuable, useful tool that we have to strengthen election integrity.” The issue then, is not whether to purge voters rolls--both blue and red states do so--but how accurate is the information upon states rely.
Guys, I've already agreed that Biden's border policies were a mistake. Trump's policies are not an unmixed blessing--they will drive up business costs throughout the American west and southwest, contributing to inflation.
Kinda financially disruptive to all the traffickers, coyotes and cartel gangs too. Of course, there are people all over the world who wait on visa lottery and work through the legal immigration criteria. They might be pretty good workers to get.
Stephen - thanks for your thoughtful replies. I guess I should mention that I am not so much a Republican as an anti-Democrat. The Afghanistan War is a bitter episode of American history for me for a couple reasons - 1) the folly of the strategy and tactics 2) the length of the madness (Bush shouldn’t have done it, Obama should have ended it, Trump should have ended it, Biden’s people ended it poorly). There is also the personal aspect that my son was a sergeant in the USMC running an FOB on his own in Helmand. South end of Marjeh east of the Shinzo strip during the clean up of the battle. I was dreadfully worried about him during this deployment, as I was during his earlier deployment to Iraq. There was a good amount of PTSD after, and as my grandmother used to say about my father (an infantryman in Korea), he was different before the war. Lest you think him a simple soldier, he went back to college after the war, went on to law school at the University of Texas, then returned to service in the USMC and is a captain today. Much of my opinion is formed by his experiences and given the fractured nature of the effort there, I consider him vastly more reliable than mainstream media.
So it is his opinion that the problem Problems with taking back:is that the NATO ruined any form of accountability for who was whom. Rampant infiltration of Afghan forces by Taliban and Al-Qaeda affiliates. So bad that green on blue incidents were common. Very common. Vetting people even in their government was difficult. The smaller tribes that helped us were wiped out by the Taliban as they came back. The people that did help, such as the interpreters, who were able to get to Europe are safe. By the way, in his view the NATO training mission was a “woke joke” and it was impossible to train effective ground forces under DEI conditions, wihich were very concerned with respecting local customs such as bacha bazi.
But I have to ask, are you inquiring about Trump’s first term or the second? We left Afghanistan in summer of ‘21. Trump took office this past January. I would surmise the people who helped us are dead or have already left. What am I missing?
"Guys, I've already agreed that Biden's border policies were a mistake."
That's not good enough, unless you support the expedited removal of the millions he let in. Biden's border "policies" were a cynical ploy to benefit the democrats. You can't just say, "bygones".
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.