posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 11:46 PM
a reply to: Sublimecraft
Today is National Margarita Day and I will freely admit that I have had a few so bear with me.
I assume from the last part of your post that you're referring to the Antifas? It seems to me that there is a very strong effort on the Right to
promote a false dichotomy — one either supports Trump or supports violent protests/riots.
I don't buy into that at all. The issue for me is one of proportional concern.
Violent, destructive Antifa protesters did some reprehensible s# to shutdown Milo's speaking engagements. What was the practical result? Some people
are assaulted but thankfully not seriously injured (with the exception of a protester who got shot by a supporter), moderate though largely
superficial property destruction, the media gets something to report, Tucker Carlson gets an idiot to ridicule in an interview and perhaps most
importantly, Trumpland gets its boogeyman.
But let's get real here, the level of violent unrest is small time s# compared to several if not most decades in the 20th century and let's not even
get started on the 19th century. And in terms of their effectiveness? What have they actually accomplished except giving Trump supporters instances of
s# behavior to paint the entire opposition to Trump with? Shutting down a Milo speaking engagement or two? That only made him more popular. Hell, it's
why he was invited to CPAC in the first place. Notice how fast he got actually shutdown by the Right? And is wasn't just the "GOP establishment" that
acted — how about the threat by another Senior Breitbart editor going to The Washingtonian
and saying that there were half a dozen senior
staffers ready to walk if Milo wasn't canned?
Meanwhile the President of the United States is saying the media is the "enemy of the people." His advisors are inventing terms like "alternative
fact" and saying that his power will not be questioned. They ham-fistedly "leaked" telephone transcripts to make him look like a tough guy in
conversations with foreign leaders. A leak exposed the fact that the National Security Advisor was lying about communications with Russia (apparently)
which resulted in the Vice President lying to the American people. The President knew all this for weeks and it wasn't until the press was alerted
that he was forced to act.
What was his response? Blame the media. Threaten leakers. Or was it whistleblowers? The sensationalist narrative is that the leaks are part of a "deep
state soft coup." The administration finds ever more justification for rooting out dissent in the ranks of every department of government.
I dunno? Who is really posing the substantially bigger threat to democracy and civil liberty?
Is it the hundreds or maybe
thousands of largely feckless, not at all popular protesters who are mostly clustered on the West Coast OR is it
the Executive Branch of the United States government? In my opinion it's hands down the latter.