How many real “Proud Boys” members were there?
More and more, it seems that the number of actual Proud Boys were outnumbered by the government agents infiltrating the group. And it wasn’t just the FBI doing the infiltrating. As the information continues to trickle out, the number of agents and agencies grow:
BREAKING: Another doozy of a motion filed today by a Proud Boy defense lawyer related to informants, undercover agents
Number of DC Metro undercovers keeps growing: pic.twitter.com/3vOrIUZNPT
— Julie Kelly ?? (@julie_kelly2) April 10, 2023
The numbers so far are 50 or more, and they may go higher. These people were not just observing; they were participants and instigators. So far I’ve just seen discussions of verbal egging-on, but I’m wondering if there were acts by agents such as scaling the walls and/or window-breaking.
There used to be a common saying among the more cynical European radicals that went something like this: “In every three man revolutionary cell there are two informers and one fool”.
Since early January 2021 I have pondered what advice I would have given DJT if he had come to me prior to the events on 6 Jan 21. I would have told him that under no circustances should he have a rally within 300 miles of the US Capitol on that day for the following reasons:
1. He would not know who was in that crowd.
2. He would have no control over what that crowd would do.
3. He would be blamed for anything that went awry on that day.
4. Nothing that crowd would or could do would change the outcome of the election, and if somehow the crowd attempted or succeeded in upsetting things, he would be blamed.
5. Based on what had happened at his inaugeration in 2017, at Charlottesville, and at the BLM and George Floyd riots in DC, the press would be unrelenting in their criticism of him, and other actors (Pelosi, Capitol police chief, mayor of DC, etc.) would be let off the hook.
In the event, the institutional forces in DC were more cynical and even more prepared than I anticipated. The provocateurs were legion. The Trump supporters who went into the Capitol were putty in their hands. The people who engaged in fights with the Capitol police were fools or evil, or both.
Trump was a fool, but who is Ray Epps?
Amadeus 48:
Trump’s poor decision making re: January 6th is perhaps the main reason I don’t want him as the GOP nominee. He walked right into a trap and he should have known better.
what happened at the inauguration, they destroyed property vehicles and tried to poison delegates, the doj ostensibly under his auspices dropped the charges
Regarding most J6 indictments:
(Attorney) Marina Medvin: I’ll say that I’m a criminal defense attorney by trade. I was doing this for well over a decade when these cases started. So I’m going to tell you from personal experience in criminal law, I’ve never seen anything like this. That’s the reality, and however they want to explain it. And all my conversations with the government are about the same. You would have a normal plea offer for me had this not been a January 6 case. And it’s back and forth on whether we think that’s fair. And the government is very clear on January 6 cases being distinct, unique, and comparable. They are very clear that there’s not going to be standard plea offers for the cases that we would see in other criminal cases. And so in my sentencing memos, even if we’re accepting a plea to some misdemeanor, I’ll write out all the different other plea agreements offered to BLM protesters, violent ones, and other jurisdictions, which include complete dismissals of their felony assault charges on law enforcement.
Once Pence made it clear he wasn’t going along with the idea of returning the electors to the contested states, I agree, Trump should have backed off.
But that’s just not President Trump’s style. It was intended as a show of force (a 100,000 or more Americans protesting a stolen election).
Once Pelosi/DC politicians signaled they didn’t want National Guard at the Capitol, should someone in the administration considered the protest was going to become a trap? Given the internet was abuzz with the speculation Trump was going to declare martial law and investigate the fraud there were certainly enough willing patriots thinking they were just helping the effort. By Jan. 6 it was just a big psy-ops prodded along by the Feds.
The result is a propaganda win for the Administrative state that will last a generation.
Cornhead at 5:39–I have reached the same conclusion for the same reasons.
nothing of consequence happened on j6 except the murder of innocents, unlike what happened 6 months earlier, the proud boys were on staff if so called antifa acted, which considering what had happened with rand paul wasn’t a crazy notion,
If the Right shouldn’t protest because the media will make them look bad–as though the media is restrained when the Right doesn’t– or because the government will selectively prosecute them and violate their rights, then what is the Right to do, exactly, besides Vote Harder which is working so well?
If that’s the case, then as Samuel Adams said, let us hope our chains lie lightly upon us.
or we can go back to alexandria, nearly around the time of charlottesville, the potential death toll could have been the entire freedom caucus, now we have another loose cannon in louisville, just today,
out of 50,000-100,000 there were how many that were provocative, it’s almost too small to count
We are on the road to banana republic.
I think that Julie Kelly ought to run a table in each one of her articles. It would have helped with the Whitmer kidnap-a-palooza, too. With each story, she could update the table, containing nominally: The number of actual Proud Boys, the number of Confidential Human Sources salted in with the Proud Boys, the number of Federal Agents and DC Metro PD and other LEO’s in the January 6th Proud Boys Crowd, with a column for each department involved in the agitating.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to see those numbers evolve over the course of the trials? It’s starting to get a real D.W. Griffiths feel to it.
If you need a window broken, you NEED a window broken and if you don’t think you can depend on peaceful protestors–the real kind–provisions have to be made.
Does the recent event in Tennessee where Democrat legislators disrupted their proceedings and were stripped of their positions mean conservatives agree that the intrusion into the capitol and disruption of US legislators on J6 was a heinous crime and worthy of the sentences imposed by federal courts?
While I think the sentences of people that went into the capitol on J6 are criminal themselves, the intrusion into the building was the mistake, and had there been National Guard would have never happened. I think protests outside the building were warranted.
The Executive branch wasn’t privy to the involvement of the FBI. Should the President’s advisors have considered that potential?
The most important points in my comment at 5:16 were 1, 2, and 3. Points 4 and 5 reflect what happened throughout Trump’s presidency, and to a lesser extent, thoughout Bush 43’s.
Nothing good could come from a rally on Jan 6 in DC, and Trump should have foreseen that. As it is, the lives of hundreds of patriotic Americans have been ruined because they fell into a trap. Trump told them to peacefully and patriotically march to the Capitol. There was very little chance that things would turn out that way. Julie Kelly’s reporting tells us why.
This Twitter thread remains evergreen:
https://twitter.com/rahaeli/status/1412617956928933890?lang=en
If he’ll drive you to the criming, he’s a Fed
If he’ll drive you to the criming, he’s a Fed
If you can’t get there without him
And you don’t know much about him
If he’ll drive you to the criming, he’s a Fed
If his friend has got the weapons, he’s a Fed
If his friend has got the weapons, he’s a Fed
If you’re running off your mouth
And his buddy lives down south
If his friend has got the weapons, he’s a Fed
If he says you don’t need OPSEC, he’s a Fed
if he says you don’t need OPSEC, he’s a Fed
If he wants you to repeat it
Where the chat room won’t delete it
If he says you don’t need OPSEC, he’s a Fed
If he’s got a stupid haircut, he’s a Fed
If he’s got a stupid haircut, he’s a Fed
If his haircut’s tight and high
Fits better in a suit and tie
If he’s got a stupid haircut, he’s a Fed
The lack of support from the eGOP for the Jan 6th useful idiots has shocked me.
The lack of investigation, televised hearings, etc. on Jan. 6th by the HOUSE GOP has been disheartening, but not unexpected.
With ALL of Trumps negatives, at least he fights.
And has shown some recent support for the Jan. 6th political prisoners.
And no surprise, but ACLU has been radio silent on the Jan. 6th Prisoners.
TWO YEARS IN PRISON WITHOUT A TRIAL? I would have never have imagined this in the US, but that shows my naivete, and I thought I was pretty cynical. And what of Julian Assange?
One often reads that it’s time to move on and forget about any election “irregularities” – and all else that occurred soon after – that may have occurred in the last presidential election.
The powers that be – republican or democrat- and the deep state bureaucrats would really prefer that everybody just move on.
The problem with this approach is that the causes of whatever problems occurred are never addressed and those that committed / approved engaging in nefarious activities will remain in positions of authority and/or influence.
They are never brought to justice because, well, everybody moved on.
From the moment Trump went down that escalator to announce he would run for president, the knives came out to get him.
Why?
After all nobody, but nobody believed he had any chance whatsoever to even be nominated by the republican party. So why bother with him? Why aim all the guns at someone who had zero chance of becoming president??
It simply does not make any sense.
To this day I cannot figure this out.
Something else is going on but I have no idea what that is.
How much money did the government spend on making the Proud Boys?
We’re being played, folks. We are being maneuvered into bad situations and given legitimate grievances. Then righteous anger and desire to right the wrongs of the legitimate grievances goad us into creating propaganda fodder for the left.
The fed involvement in J6 and subsequent abuse of the criminal process against the J6 defendants is deliberate. It’s as cynical as the day is long, but very effective. The government abuses related to J6 never make it out of the right-of-center news environment. Your average American has no idea that Trump tried to deploy the National Guard on J6, or that Pelosi failed to mobilize the Capital Police. He or she has no idea that the Proud Boys was basically a fed-run organization, or that J6 defendants were incarcerated without bail or trial for months. The average American isn’t going to learn any of these things either because the mainstream media isn’t going to report it.
So we hear about the abuses through right-leaning media and speak out (and demand candidates who speak out). The media and the left (but I repeat myself) point to this and tell the average American that Republicans are obsessed with insurrection and want to overturn elections that they can’t win. Game, set, match for the left.
It’s kind of like seeing your enemy with a bazooka aimed at you. You can protest all day that it’s not fair for your enemy to have a bazooka. You’re probably right, but if you then charge right into the bazooka, you’re also a fool.
It’s the same deal with Trump and Stormy Daniels. There was a poll this week showing that nearly 60% of Americans believe that Trump knowingly broke the law regarding that situation.
Did he? No, because what he did isn’t illegal and the indictment is a joke, but the fact pattern is a fantasy-land dream for the left. Let the media find a legal “expert” to pretend that the indictment has merit. Put on another expert who opines about how no one should be above the law. (Of course, decline to dredge up the Clintons, Al Gore, the Biden family grift, et al. Shout down anyone who does with charges of “whataboutism.”) Then, presto, you’ve created abiguity about the legal merit of the charges.
(1) Legal ambiguity + Hush money to porn stars -> Public belief that Trump committed a crime
(2) Abusive prosecution + Clear examples of a two-tiered application of justice -> Republicans become livid and rally behind Trump
(1) + (2) -> Game, set, match for the left.
We can hate the game, and we should, but we can’t avoid playing.
“Bazooka,” how quaint CC™ you may have to explain that word to one of those “normal, low info voters.” Try “RPG.”
And if the Proud Boys were all or mostly Feds what were are are the Patriot Front?
But where is The Great Orange Whale?
they aren’t brought to justice, because the riots are the point, the unorganized militia, they attacked free speech activists like milo, and shapiro, to show their dominance, they attacked in charlottesville, but they wanted to destroy our history,
om – Even the kids these days still know what a bazooka is. 😉
the coen bros militia, as i dubbed them, were innocent, but of course they made another ham sandwich and convicted them, because reasons,
Does the recent event in Tennessee where Democrat legislators disrupted their proceedings and were stripped of their positions mean conservatives agree that the intrusion into the capitol and disruption of US legislators on J6 was a heinous crime and worthy of the sentences imposed by federal courts?
==
No sentences have been imposed on the Tennessee adolescents by any court. Three legislators who were their collaborators, bullhorns and all, were subject to an expulsion vote, and two were expelled. Nothing else has happened to them. Not sure the Tennessee constitution bars them from running for their seats again and their constituents will have every opportunity during the upcoming special election vote in the dimwitted blowhard of their choice.
==
As for the J6 protestors, only a tiny minority got anywhere near the chamber and the vast majority indoors were just milling around. They weren’t rallied by legislators with bullhorns. Accusations were made contra Lauren Boebert, but these have long since been debunked.
Art Deco – That’s a very difficult distinction to make, especially in public debate. If you’re explaining, you’re losing.
A better strategy is to argue that the left really doesn’t care about “insurrection” or “disrupting democracy.” When it comes from the left, as in Wisconsin 2012, in Tennessee 2023, or during the Kavanaugh hearings, the left is fine with “insurrection.” Leftist appeals against Republican “insurrection” are nothing more than partisan special pleading and should be treated as such.
Art Deco – That’s a very difficult distinction to make, especially in public debate. If you’re explaining, you’re losing.
==
Buzz off.
Does CC™ know what a bazooka was?
Roll over so we don’t make the Left mad. Vote Harder. Never retaliate. Stand still so they don’t make you look bad (as if that ever stopped them portraying us as Nazis). The Lifelong Republicans and Concerned Conservatives have always counseled thus, and here we are.
Toss Trump’s head over the wall and our enemies promise they will leave us in peace. Abandon abortion, support common-sense gun control, and they’ll let some R’s stay out of jail long enough for us to vote for them. Lol.
I hold the belief that the “best case scenario” the Dems envisioned for J6 was for Trump to give his speech and use violent rhetoric of some sort (“go over there and give em hell!”)–which he didn’t–and for many of the real protesters to be armed and then let into the capitol and goaded into a firefight with the police by the undercover feds–which again, didn’t happen. I believe the Dems prepped the capitol police to expect a firefight, which could partially account for their violence and reported “trauma” afterwards. In retrospect, I’m surprised the undercover feds weren’t given orders to pull out guns and attack the capitol police if the patsies didn’t bring any. (And while many point out how quickly they disposed of Sidnick’s body to perpetuate the “killed by extinguisher” myth, there is still the mysterious suicides of a couple (?) capitol police shortly thereafter. Were they Epsteined?)
That being said, if Trump called off his speech, I don’t think the end result would have changed. There might have been fewer people that showed up to protest, but those that did would have been roped into the capitol by their fed handlers, the “insurrection” would have happened, and trump would have been blamed all the same.
The script was written by the Dems well beforehand. They made the steal as blatant as possible, with the coordinated time outs in multiple states followed by immediate reversals in the counts, in order to assure a reaction from Trump and enrage his supporters. Once they had that, it was only a matter of time before he held a rally, and there the trap would be set. The J6 prisoners are even getting the severe pre-ordained sentences for “parading” that the Dems had planned on slapping on the would-be armed protesters.
“Roll over so we don’t make the Left mad. Vote Harder. Never retaliate.” – Frederick
Hardly. Don’t make impossible arguments, for one. For example, “your rioters who disrupted legislatures are worse than our rioters who disrupted a legislature” or “what happened to our people who disrupted the legislature was wrong, and what happened to your people who disrupted the legislature was just.” As a matter of practical politics, it doesn’t matter what comes after that. If you make those arguments, you’ve already lost.
Democrats’ weakness is that their policies are terrible and have caused significant harm to ordinary people. As much as we all hate it, Democrats are politically strong on J6 and on the 2020 election. Don’t roll over. Just don’t play their game. Find a candidate who can hammer Democrats where they’re weak without baggage that brings Democrats’ strengths into play.
Then, when Republicans are in power, clean house at the DOJ, FBI, and the remainder of the executive branch.
.
Art Deco, for someone who likes to offer concrete policy proscriptions for our various problems with government (which I largely agree with), I would think you would see the analogous elements between the two events.
I’m aware the two legislators kicked out wasn’t done by the courts, but don’t you think that represents a significant penalty?
The point I was making was the Tennessee riot was likely payback for J6. Leftists made a big deal of the J6 incursions and we got a sort of “two can play this game effect”. By doing what the Tennessee legislature did, they agreed to the severity of the J6 incursions into the Capitol.
It remains to be seen whether this was a smart move, or the two yahoo’s kicked out should have just been censured. Certainly there have been equal or worse incidents in legislative proceedings in history, and likely in Tennessee itself.
These two (and a half-wit woman) are being made celebrities defending democracy, when they were doing just the opposite. The left always does a better job framing any narrative– partly because they are better liars. It’s always uncomfortable, at least, for conservatives to lie/stretch the truth.
@Bauxite:Find a candidate who can hammer Democrats where they’re weak without baggage that brings Democrats’ strengths into play. Then, when Republicans are in power, clean house at the DOJ, FBI, and the remainder of the executive branch.
Awesome strategy–for 1980. It’s like you haven’t read anything that was posted here in the last six months.
You’ve never explained how a Republican gets to 270 with ANY state that is bluer than Wisconsin and Michigan, and you can’t explain how he gets those either.
The press will invent baggage out of whole cloth if they need to–they did it before! They’ve already tested homosexual rape on DeSantis!
The Left’s street thugs will disrupt anything they want to with impunity. They’ve been DOING it! At inaugurations, at state legislatures, at Supreme Court Justice’s HOUSES. For YEARS.
The people who count the ballots are captured by the Dems in every state that can affect the result and no court will allow a remedy. That ALREADY happened!
The FBI and the DOJ have been colluding with Dems for years, they didn’t obey Trump and won’t obey your hypothetical White Knight if he’s actually going to clean their house.
What you are advising us to do is PLAY ALONG. We’re sliding into a police state and you’re trying to get Comrade Stalin to see what a good boy you are! The crocodile is not going to eat you last.
Frederick – You win back the suburban voters that the GOP has been hemorrhaging since 2016, that’s how the GOP gets to 270. For example, PA is winnable if you win back the Pittsburgh and Philly suburbs that have gone blue in the last three cycles. You won’t do that with Trump and Doug Mastriano on the statewide ticket.
By the way, what’s your explanation for how Trump can get to 270 in 2024? It sure seems like it is some version of “vote harder.”
@Bauxite:You win back the suburban voters that the GOP has been hemorrhaging since 2016, that’s how the GOP gets to 270.
With the Win-Back fairy’s magic wand? Trump brought new voters in, some who voted for Obama. How do you know that on net you’ll bring in more by dumping Trump? The media told you? How about abortion and gun rights, going to drop them too to appeal to the suburbs? The media’s telling you to do that, too. And who’s in charge of counting those ballots and rejecting signatures in those suburban areas during the weeks it takes to count ballots now?
You won’t do that with Trump and Doug Mastriano on the statewide ticket.
It’s not 1980. It’s not candidates and not issues, or a brain-damaged guy would not have won in PA. The media will simply transfer all their Trump narratives to your mythical White Knight.
By the way, what’s your explanation for how Trump can get to 270 in 2024?
No Republican can. The elections are fortified in the purple states.
It sure seems like it is some version of “vote harder.”
Now you’re just inventing positions for me. If there’s one thing I’ve said over and over here it’s that we can’t vote our way out (and didn’t vote our way in). It’s not 1980.
There’s more–(yes, just like the Whitmer “kidnapping”)
https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1643909722792239104
@amuse
@amuse
SHOCK: DOJ admits that of the 13 Proud Boys involved with J6, eight or more of them were paid by the FBI to provide the government information about the group. The FBI was the majority of Proud Boys – only 5 are being prosecuted.
Frederick – So what’s your point then? If we’re going down in flames anyway, what difference does it make whether we go down in flames with Trump, DeSantis, or any other Republican for that matter? Why not try someone other than the same guy that lost the last election and has never won more than 46% of the vote? What’s the harm if the R team is going to lose regardless?
(Also – Remember that Ron Johnson won WI last November, and he’s hardly a moderate squish. It is possible to win purple states as long as you run sane candidates.)
@Bauxite:Why not try someone other than the same guy
Because it’s a distraction from the things that actually need doing, and because it teaches the Dems they can dictate the candidates the Rs run. Every time, folks like you blame the victims and say if we only pick the right candidates, their goodness will magically shine through the media noise.
If we just stop resisting they’ll stop clubbing us, that’s your argument. If we are extra careful to follow the rules they’ll stop cheating.
Look they’ve been doing this for years to Republicans who aren’t Trump. It’s like you fell asleep in 1984 and woke up just now.
It’s not about issues or candidates and has not been for a long time. The media will say whatever they want about either. It’s about who allows ballots in to be counted and how they are counted.
@Bauxite
Of course. That’s part of the problem, but also something we have to manage carefully. Fortunately our enemies tend to overplay.
But if we don’t speak out to overturn these kinds of atrocities, then the Left by definition has not only constructed but cemented the existence of a brutal police state where due process is dead and so is humane treatment of those alleged to have committed crimes. That is unacceptable and if anything an even greater win for the Left than the ability to make hay of our outrage. Which is why I do think this is extremely clever for them, but also very dangerous to us.
Oh for crying out loud….. even by your standards this is a thoroughly stupid analogy. And if anything cuts against your intended argument.
Starting with the essential question: WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE TO CHARGING THE BAZOOKA?!?!
Because if you turn and flee from a ranged weapon that can accelerate faster than Usain Bolt, you probably die tired (and wounded). Bazookas and their heirs have less splash damage than they are often portrayed as, they still have some and are highly deadly.
So what is your game plan?
Because I can realistically think of a handful. Most of which are in fact MORE aggressive than charging them.
Firstly: Trying to talk the person pointing the Bazooka down (probably while you have it pointed at you), counting on the other person’s sobriety and mercy. Given the analogy here, anybody trust that?
Secondly: Flee outright (however you decide to do, whether it be straight back, in a zig zag, off to the side) and hope the person with the bazooka doesn’t shoot at you or, if they do, they miss.
Thirdly: Duck and cover, go on the ground and hope that they either miss with the bazooka from the sudden movement, or that your submission appeases them…. at the expense of you being crumbled in a convenient-to-aim-at human pile they can simply angle down on.
Fourthly: Charge Headfirst at the Bazooka. This is actually not the worst idea in the world, though it isn’t a good one by ANY stretch of the imagination. But Bazookas (and the stuff usually lumped under their header) are single shot explosives with backblast and not the most convenient for hitting a human-sized target, so you can do it and HOPE that the enemy is surprised or loses their nerve and doesn’t fire, that they do and they miss (probably by a wide margin in order for you to live, but hey), or that they are so delayed you can tackle them and either force them to not fire, or have them fire and have the backblast against say the floor or close wall take you both out. At which point at least you can take the scumbag with you.
Fifthly: Try and dodge the first shot (whether by pure movement, taking cover behind something, or some mixture of the both) and THEN close to attack. This is probably one of the BETTER moves because you can then exploit the built-in lull that comes from reloading a single shot weapon or switching to another to press the attack.
Sixthly: Shoot (or hurl something at) the MoFo before they can fire. Probably the Smartest move, but you better hope a lot of things line up for you. And also MORE aggressive than charging headfirst at the bazooka.
It also assumes you HAVE something to shoot or hurl. Which you might not.
Now having established these broad categories of action, let us consider what their analogy equivalents would be.
I’ll start with the obvious one. The abuse of the law and “justice system” by the left represents the Bazooka. Confronting it will likely get you blown away by it. But so will standing still and trying to do nothing to “offend” the Leviathan in the hopes you can convince it not to blow you away.
In any case, success depends on stopping the other person from pointing the bazooka. That means them being disarmed, whether by their choice (such as putting the bazooka away), or by force (such as shooting them or charging them).
It ultimately means dealing with the person who was so malicious they were willing to point a bazooka at you in the first place (whether by killing or incapacitating them, getting them arrested, or convincing them to have a Come to Jesus moment and stop of their own volition), which means that fleeing or hiding is only an intermediary tactic because they can be back.
So what is your tactic to stop them from pointing the Bazooka at us, Bauxite? Because I don’t see anything.
Which brings us back to the issue of the left’s muffling of dissident media and narrative control (indeed, I’d argue that that poll is at least as likely to be a form of narrative control as it is to be any kind of honest attempt to poll people). That goes beyond Trump and ironically is a point in support of his attempts to steal the narrative back.
Which brings us to the question of how we deal with that.
Back in the golden days of *checks notes* the 1960s, there was enough united pressure and blowback to create the Goldwater Rule and neuter psychiatric propaganda against Goldwater. That should have applied re: Trump and to some degree DID (and we see similar in the backlash from that one leftist legal clown who openly advocated depriving Trump of the right to an attorney). But there needs to be more of that, and that means unity.
So let’s break this down.
Legal Ambiguity: properly functioning legal systems should be able to deal with legal and even ethical ambiguity about a given charge. That is one reason why criminal proceedings are SUPPOSED TO have the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt threshold. If they don’t, that’s a problem.
Hush money to porn stars: It’s perfectly legal to pay hush money to anybody so long as it is not to conceal a crime or something other legally actionable. It’s perfectly legal to consort with porn stars in ways that do not break the law. Taking the two things together does not change. Make that BLINDINGLY clear as widely as possible.
WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING!!! We don’t have to agree about the DEGREE to which we rally behind him to acknowledge that YES, THIS SHOULD PROMPT US TO RALLY!
If you see a deranged Leftist pointing a bazooka at someone, THAT SHOULD PROMPT ACTION FROM YOU. Precisely because that deranged leftist could turn to point a bazooka at you. That brings us back to the question of how we remove bazookas from that person’s possession and neutralize them.
Note that this DOES NOT mean you have to take the guy who had the bazooka pointed at him, lift him upon your shoulders like we’re medieval Normans, and support him as he runs for President (again). But it DOES Mean the basic issue of sharing the risk. This is something Mark Steyn has pointed out for years (at first regarding Islamists, such as the craven cowardice that the West showed when it caved regarding the Rushdie Fatwah and then the Danish Muhummad Cartoons).
If they can do it to Trump, THEY CAN DO IT TO YOU. Perhaps you have lived a better life than Trump making it harder to get at you, perhaps the difference between pointing a bazooka flat at someone standing in the street versus someone sitting on a bench behind a pole, or in a house. But that is a matter of DEGREES OF DIFFICULTY regarding the attack, not about the fundamental risks of the attack and how it is carried out.
This is something Dershowitz and others picked up instinctively.
Except if we remove 2 from the equation, we are left merely with a well oiled slander machine that can engage in abusive prosecution. Which Means 1 alone is AT LEAST AS GREAT A WIN FOR THE LEFT as 1+2.
Exactly. So what’s the plan to play this and disarm the goon with the Bazooka? Because I’m not seeing it from you.
Only to a point. Many of the most effective strategies do short-circuit the rational thinking and hit the brain on a more fundamental level. But not all of them. And explaining will remain crucial. Especially if we want to maintain or regain a legal system more functional than what the Castros pull.
Which is absolutely true and something we should bang on about. Though that has obstacles such as explaining to the lay person what happened in those things. Which ties in to how a sound strategy will HAVE TO BE BUTTRESSED WITH explanation, and that sort of messaging needs to complement the gut punch, emotional ones that do not need much explaining. A balanced approach to make a balanced assault.
Fair, and I have worked to avoid those.
The problem is that your argument about keeping the Left’s feet to the fire about insurrection will RELY ON being able to show that, even if “our rioters” aren’t better, they are NO WORSE than the Left’s. Which will rely on explaining. It also will only work on so many people since there are some fanatics in the left who will go full “It’s Ok if We Do It.”
And in abusive control over the bureaucracy, and “fortifying elections”, and narrative control.
You know, this WOULD be more convincing… were it not the fact that YOUR preferred analogy to this was someone pointing a Bazooka at you.
“Find a candidate without baggage (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) who can hammer Democrats” is ultimately not doing much to get that bazooka out of the hands of the person pointing it at us. MAYBE it is playing for time in order for the situation to change to accomplish that with less risk, but it is still an absolute risk.
And ultimately we need to disarm them of the bazooka. We need to crush their control over the bureaucracy and legal power. And we need to start doing it NOW, under the assumption that for many of us “when Republicans are in power” either will not happen, or will not happen soon enough for some of us.
Also: what would “Clean house” at those places even mean? The National Records Mooks have been integral to persecuting Trump and a host of others. So the rot goes quite deep.
A: Ok, Literally How?
B: How do we balance that against retaining the vote gains made by the Trump coalition? To what degree do we balance it out?
C: How do we do lawfare and other forms of noncompliance to mitigate the threat of the bazooka while that plays out?
As the Spartans said to Phillip of Makedon, “If.”
This’d be more convincing if Oz (for all of his weaknesses) didn’t lose against a far-left borderline catatonic nutjob. Which indicates that the issue isn’t with Trump and Mastriano, but with the political machines in Philly and The Pitt.
It’s painful when you try to knowingly try to avoid a point.
Trump and most other Republican, Conservative candidates can get to 270 in 2024 with voter integrity laws, organized lawfare to check attempts to undermine those, the ability to short-circuit the Narrative (TM) by word of mouth and messaging, and above all Unity. Without those things, No Republican or Conservative is getting to 270.
I have never been a fanatical OnlyTrump voter, but there is a cost if you allow the Left and victim blaming to divide what is left of the conservative camp. For any reason. That’s not just the fault of NeverTrumpers and I freely admit that, Bauxite, but even with that acknowledgement “Trump does it too” is hardly reassuring.
And as Frederick pointed out, giving the Left a Heckler’s Veto to who we run is a dreadful idea, as is a quest for the Perfect Candidate.
And you can keep the votes somewhat honest. Because otherwise you’re just at the mercy of the deep state and their evaluations of how many of “the other team” they feel the need to let win in order to keep credibility.
But we ultimately go back to Bauxite’s Bazooka, namely the brutal coercive power of the State and Bureaucracy in the hands of the Left, and the Narrative Dominance. An existential threat to us on a personal, collective, and national level. How do we deal with that?
Charging headlong at it isn’t the best option, but it is far from the worst. That at least acknowledges the basic fact that it is an unacceptable threat we must disarm.
}}} We are on the road to banana republic.
We passed “Banana Republic” in 2020. We’re now on the Highway to Hell.
🙁
Ace did a primer on the methodology of the Left’s Bazooka Brigade.
RTWT
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/403960.php