In response, you made the analogy that the left are like “thugs in a dark alley”, implying that somehow trump’s behavior is justified, as if what happens in a “dark alley” is equal to what happens on the national stage.

No way.
.

Now, you want to introduce a Berkley incident. WTHey!

There are many on the left who specialize in confrontation at the micro scale like this.

Knowing this, is our best response to show up and physically fight?

Or, should we work smarter at building our support?

Not every hill has to be won, and not every territory ceded (e.g. campus) is permanent.
.

trump has a HUGE megaphone to use.

Thus far, IMHO, he is doing a poor job of reaching beyond his core to build support, which, if we hope to maintain a republic, ought to be a key goal.
.

Ideals are not for paper only, but are the foundation for what kind of society we want.

Once we go down the path of the ends justifies the means, we’ve given power to those who would administer it for their own benefit and not ours, no matter what they say and how emphatically they say it.

If folks can justify behaving like those they criticize for similar behavior, even in the name of pursuing some worthy goal, something has become very lost.

Sometimes I wonder if they truly understand what a democracy is about.

@Bill – right.

If truth doesn’t matter anymore, as everyone seems justified in holding their “own truth”, and we are willing to find acceptable lies (among many other such things) from our own side, then, letting it go on for too long, to its logical extent, what basis is there anymore for a democracy?

What is the basis for any accountability?

If someone is those things to you, it doesn’t mean that it is right to do the same thing back.

Nor, as importantly, does it mean it is the best way to deal with the situation.
.

The attitude that “well the left does it all the time, and would surely do it with the same intensity if it were any other GOP leader”, even if I would agree that is true (I don’t – trump is an escalation), is a rationalization for getting even, rather than a motivation to do the right thing and to get the right thing done.

There are a whole lot of avenues to pursue before getting into that “dark alley” in the first place.

Anyway, that “test” question is flawed, as Congress and the WH are very FAAAAAAR from any “dark alley”.

At least, I think we are talking about how our democratic republic works, right?

Have not the Republicans tried to stand for truth from Reagan on? They have not engaged in the politics of personal destruction and you can see where it’s gotten them. So many Republican pols today are petrified of being falsely accused of anything, they will not stick their necks out and buck the MSM. And they won’t back their fellow Republicans like Jeff Sessions when he is falsely accused and demeaned by the Dems and the MSM.

If you are attacked in a dark alley by a thug do you insist on fighting fair? Even if it means you lose your life? Just askin’. Your answer will tell you a lot.

Thank you richard40.

If truth is on our side, we should be able to win with the truth, right?

Otherwise, whatever we win won’t be worth the winning.

Not at all. The Dems have long used innuendo/rumor/outright lies bolstered by their surrogates continually repeating the focus group tested talking points that are then trumpeted about by the MSM as “news.” (Which is actually fake.) It is a tactic that they have long used to intimidate the Republicans who for the most part are petrified and have no answers because they are not willing to respond in kind.

Case in point: Jeff Sessions has been tarred with the innuendo that he met with the Soviet ambassador specifically for the purpose of colluding with Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton. There is no proof of anything remotely resembling that. The question put to him by Al Franken in the confirmation hearing was what would he do if it turned out that the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russians. Sessions answer was as garbled as the question but included the statement that he had not met with the Russians to collude to defeat Hillary Clinton. A true statement as far as he was concerned because his two meetings with the Russian ambassador during the campaign were pure routine government business. Just like the meetings between Nancy Pelosi and Clare McKaskill with the ambassador. There is no there, there. The Dems accusations are all innuendo. In spite of that “Honest Abe” Jeff is willing to recuse himself from any issues concerning the campaign and Russia because the Dems demand it and the establishment Republicans are all afraid of the MSM and Dem talking points. Next he and the establishment Repubs may be considering that he stepdown just because they want him to. That is nonsense! They should standup to them and fight fire with fire.

In fact the mantra that the Russians hacked the election thus far is a slogan with no – NO – conclusive proof. The intel agencies claim the hackers of the DNC and John Podesta seemed to be have Russian fingerprints but would the KGB really leave behind such a messy trail? We hear statements from officials like James Clapper (a man who lied to Congress under oath and kept his job – why?) that he believes it was Russian intelligence. But he offers no conclusive proof. The whole thing is innuendo based on unattributed leaks and is only being taken seriously because the Dems and the MSM keep repeating their mantra.

I have long said that the Republicans needed to get their own quick media reaction team to counter innuendo/rumor/outright lies by the Dems. Which tactics are straight out of Alinsky. No one has been willing to do it until Trump came along. And he is doing it almost single handedly. It amazes me how many conservatives have not caught onto what’s going on and remain opposed to Trump because they don’t care for his personal traits, or some of his policies, or ?

It’s trite, but isn’t it time to wake up and smell the coffee?

Since, in their world, losing the election was impossible, anyone who beat them would have done so only by cheating. Like with Trump, they would have spent the last five months battering away at whatever means they could think of delegitimize the election, the winner, the winner’s stated ideas and everyone who is associated in any capacity to the winner.

As noted earlier in this post, the only way of avoiding strife – if not civil war – with them is to give in 100% to every demand. And even then, even after rolling over on one’s belly to be stomped upon as the left gets everything it wants, it still complains about the “obstructionist” opposition. They are outraged that people exist that don’t agree and approve of them; in fact they are permanently outraged that anyone ever existed that had ideas different than theirs.

That is what we are facing.

I disliked Trump so much that I (normally an Independent) registered Republican again so I could vote against him in our primary. But Trump is what we got. I wish he’d cut it out with the tweets too. But pretending that everything would be nicey-nice if Cruz or Rubio had won, or Trump would behave perfectly, is unbelievably naé¯ve.

In fact, he argued on more than a few occasions that it would be just fine if trump were full blown authoritarian, as that could be “recoverable”. Hardly a “leary” position, imho.

He (and others) cannot / will not see the link between how trump currently operates and how it is “Trump cannot enact his agenda without violence and riots erupting” – it is always on the “other” side.
.

This leads to…

“to show the opposition that if you want to play the innuendo game, then two can play at this game“

People who ignore, support / cheer on, or are entertained by, trump’s “game” seem to be more interested in getting even than in getting “the right things” done.

Pure blue vs red team attitude.
.

So long as this attitude persists then it surely seems there isn’t really a desire to “avoid that most certain future reality”, as it encourages (actively or by default) this drive to a showdown.

Blaming the “others” and doubling down on hypocritically doing the same as what one excoriates the “others” for, is just a way to avoid making the case in an attempt to force one’s own way on those “others”. IOW, they want a shortcut, inside a democracy that needs BROAD support for long term change.

Accountability is for the “others” to live to. People who think that, because the “left” does all these things, it is okay to stoop to the same, are making an “ends justifies the means” argument.

So long as “our” side if fighting the “others”, this dissonance is just fine, thank you very much!
.

Because trump’s frequently engages in the petty and personal, he is not only missing a golden opportunity for making lasting change (for which he needs BROAD support – not just his core of, what?, 25-35%), but he is making this country weaker than it needs to be with this incoherence and lack of focus.

This is not “leadership”, but the abdication of it, at “our” consent (explicit or implicit).

Expect 2018 to demonstrate just what “the people” really think of all this chaos, if it continues apace. Likely will show that there really are no shortcuts in the republic we have, assuming it remains.

Expect that lesson learned to be entirely missed by much of that ~25-35%.