Pasayten's Methow Valley Bulletin Board

What part of the 2nd Amendment did you not read?:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Its right there in not very big words and is pretty easy to understand. So who exactly in your interpretation is going to do the regulating?

Again, right-wing terrorist groups are not a well-regulated militia.

dorankj wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 9:28 pm It’s NOT controlled by the government.

Every time I think you can’t possibly come up with something so utterly and unbelievably stupid and illogical - you manage to outdo yourself and come up with something completely devoid of fact, logic or history, yet again! It really is quite remarkable.

And while it is sort of sad and hopeless that you believe the crap that you write…..at the same time it manages to be completely laughable that you would imagine that others would believe it, also.
.

It’s NOT controlled by the government.

dorankj wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 7:26 am And something often referred to as a Militia. I swear there’s some actual language about this in our founding documents……..

Yeah, I think the actual wording is "well-regulated militia". Which a bunch of white dudes cosplaying as soldiers most definitely is not.

Right-wing terrorist groups are not a well-regulated militia.

And something often referred to as a Militia. I swear there’s some actual language about this in our founding documents……..

PAL wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 7:40 am ...
Wondered how the National Guard would respond to situations.

This comes down to "too many streets, and not enough tanks."

Even if you were very optimistic, it is doubtful that the entire US Army, Reserve, and National Guard plus the Marines and their Reserves would have enough people and enough gear to secure Los Angeles. Also we are not at all organized or designed for that kind of war.

Much of the reason Iraq and Afghanistan (and historically, Vietnam) didn't work out so well for us is because we have a small, high-tech field army. Field armies are great at defeating other armies, but very poor at securing a population or keeping a rebellious population under control. For those you need guard armies, which tend to be much larger but are trained and equipped to a lower standard and are trained for very different tasks.

Historically the United States has always been about small field armies that are pretty well trained and equipped (at least by the standards of the time). The big exception was WWII. Much of the reason our defense budget is so high is not just because we commit to ruinously expense high-tech gadgetry to fight our wars, but because we compensate those who serve pretty generously (especially compared to most any other country) and we train hard, which is enormously expensive in and of itself.

Context for the 'bloodbath' comment
https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/status ... irect=true

Great articles discussing the subject and your points, David.
Wondered how the National Guard would respond to situations.

It is undeniable that Mr Trump has said he wants to suspend the constitution and be dictator "For a Day". Which is how it always starts.

Given that Trump supporters so freely wave their guns around and also are extremely willing to make violent threats against those they disagree with, it is not unreasonable to think that at least a minority of them would be willing to follow through with that. What remains to be seen is how small (or large) that minority actually is.

Also, on Hitler (and thanks for Godwinning the thread), no, I do not think every atrocity is justified in preventing such a calamity. Especially when all peaceful methods of preventing it have not been exhausted. In fact, I suspect that organized violence by left-wing groups at this point would likely trigger that calamity and accomplish nothing at all. And historically, while plenty of atrocities and war crimes were committed by Americans in WWII, we certainly didn't commit every possible atrocity.

Some people with more knowledge and expertise than me, and a lot of my fellow Americans, also see a nonzero risk of a civil war in the near future:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-t ... civil-war/

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1214278131

The political dynamic is different than in 1860, so it isn't likely that we'll see a civil war with large-scale organized fighting by people in uniform with clearly delineated front lines. More likely it will be smaller armed groups fighting amongst themselves and killing anybody who gets in their way. That's still technically a "civil war". Think more Lebanon than the US in the 1860s. Also since local governments and federal authorities will likely be completely useless in keeping people safe in such a situation, more armed groups will spring up in self-defense. All of the material to make it spiral wildly out of control is already there.

I hope I'm totally wrong. I'll be very happy if that is so, because no sane person would to live through (or die in) such a thing. Maybe Trump will lose the election this fall, give a gracious concession speech, and peacefully retire to Mar-A-Lago. And his supporters will go back to acting like normal people. That would be nice.

None are so blind as those who WILL not see!

Yes, I totally agree with you on that particular statement...

None are so blind as those who WILL not see!

Yes, he was talking about the auto industry getting screwed. It's the use of the word "bloodbath" that concerns people. It can canote violence.
Dictionary definitions:

noun,plural blood·baths [bluhd-bathz, -bahthz, -baths, -bahths].
a ruthless slaughter of a great number of people; massacre.

Informal. a period of disastrous loss or reversal:
A few mutual funds performed well in the general bloodbath of the stock market.

In an earlier post I indicated the same thing. Poor choice of words.

He did say auto industry and later

“Now, if I don’t get elected it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole – that’s going to be the least of it, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it,” he said.

poor choice of words in my opinion.

He was talking about the automotive industry getting screwed. Maybe you should question how desperate those are who distort obvious context?

So Ken, what is this "bloodbath" about?


https://www.facebook.com/reel/1318920305435466

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh8HqfBJXiA

Do you really need to relay your insane fever dreams here? Just because you think irrational ridiculous BS (that seems to further your boogie man apocalypse) doesn’t mean your position is supported. If you really think Trump is Hitler reincarnate and every part of our constitution and ‘democracy’ and country is at stake, does’nt that validate you (or your side) committing any atrocity or law violation (or constitutional violation) to prevent this obvious wrong? Aren’t you just justifying what you supposedly are ‘warning’ of? Heal thyself physician!

PAL wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 7:45 am ...
A lot of MAGA supporters say they want a civil war. They have no concept of what that would be.
...

To be fair, I don't think any of us do. My own suspicion is that we aren't going to have clear "sides" and rather an incomprehensible mess of armed groups attacking one another and most anybody else. Also I suspect a lot of wannabes are going to get into the fray in an attempt to make themselves Instagram famous as big-game hunters and also a lot of innocent bystanders are going to be shaken down and "taxed" by armed groups.

PAL wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 7:45 am ...
Hmm, maybe if Trump were to be re-elected, then that would embolden the Trump supporters to go after those whose beliefs are different from theirs.
...

Yep. Or again it is an opportunity for them to do it for the likes.

Mike Pence in Sunday interview
https://crooksandliars.com/2024/03/just ... rips-trump

Yes, indeedy, stoking violence because supporters are so in awe of him they will do his bidding. That is where he is unethical in his choice of words. He knows people will believe anything he tells them.

There's the observation that J6 has never ended, it is ongoing. That may be so but worthwhile to remember that J6 was the culmination of layers of the coup that had been ongoing since the Fall of '20 or even before. Testimony from Cheseboro and Eastman, along with their emails and memos, testimony from Guiliani, Mark Meadows, DoJ leadership, testimony and commentary from Bill Barr and numerous insiders enough facts are on the table now to determine that the plans that were in the mix to disavow the election and Biden's overwhelming win were calculated and ongoing. The violence had a purpose, it was to delay Mike Pence from the final certification.

So here we are where a crazed leader of the Rep Party who last round lost over 60 court cases because his claims of a stolen election fell apart when he could not provide evidence, and that same guy is holding rallies where he tells insane lies with the objective of stirring up crowds that clearly are oblivious of any truths. He's using those rallies to stoke violence, to set the stage.

.
…and right on queue….Guilty donnie goes on tirade about “bloodbath” in Ohio;

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -bloodbath

“Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, confused the crowd at an appearance in Vandalia by insisting that Biden had beaten “Barack Hussein Obama” in elections nationally that never took place.

Freewheeling during a speech in which his teleprompters were seemingly disabled by high winds, Trump – a frequent critic of the 81-year-old Biden’s age and mental acuity – struggled to pronounce the words “bite” and “largest”. And he left the crowd scratching their heads over the reference to Obama, whom Biden served as vice-president from 2009 to 2017 before taking the Oval Office from Trump in 2020.

“You know what’s interesting? Joe Biden won against Barack Hussein Obama. Has anyone ever heard of him? Every swing state, Biden beat Obama but in every other state, he got killed,” Trump said.”

There’s more from pee pants in the story.
Interestingly, several of his enablers/handlers try to walk back the bloodbath remark.
.

I do agree with you on violence before the election. As you say the threats against judges and also those election workers being harrassed and more.
A lot of MAGA supporters say they want a civil war. They have no concept of what that would be.
Hmm, maybe if Trump were to be re-elected, then that would embolden the Trump supporters to go after those whose beliefs are different from theirs.
Make sure you have enough food put away oh and don't forget TP.

I'd argue you all are making a generous assumption that the coming political violence will wait for the election. There have been a continuous barrage of death threats against judges, prosecutors, and witnesses in the many Trump cases. When actually juries are finally empaneled I would expect that all to ratchet upwards. Bluntly I will be very surprised if we get through all of that without decent people getting killed.

If predictions about Trump's intent to get "retribution" if he wins the election, there'd probably be political violence even if Trump is elected as well.

This crap is exactly what the run-up to a civil war looks like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPJTm5IKF7g

Question is are they prepared for another coup attempt? Are we prepared to have a disrupted election? If Trump were to get in, would there be a coup attempt from the left?
No doubt David there will be some kind of trouble if Trump keeps inciting the crowd as he does above. He is referring in the clip above to the auto industry and China, but the fact that he used the word "bloodbath" was a poor choice of words. His minions, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers like his rhetoric. And the violence on Jan. 6th. could have been reduced had he called off the attack on the capital, which he did not do until Ivanka pleaded with him to call it off. When the word bloodbath is used, I and many others probably think of actual violence, since Trump does condone violence and supports those who would want to do violence.

Pence, of course, is much less forthright in his explanation, but at lease he took a stance not to endorse him.

Come November, not a doubt in my mind that Trump will attempt another coup in some form or another if he does not win.