Well, you made it through a whole column, and somehow avoided Greece, though I can't help but suspect you had my bingo game in mind. Still, progress. So there is that. I mean, it meant a trip to D&D and ancient Rome, but still - at least the scenery was different.
Someone complained to me a while back about taking too many words to get to the point. Can't recall his name, but your column(s) today put me in mind of it. I like to peregrine myself, but all that to get from the shores of the Mediterranean to you once again telling yourself and everyone else how great thou art? There's 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon I never want to play again.
But sure, I'll play for a bit. I mean, we're here, right?
What I fear in Israel is not a weak Israel, but an Israel not committed to democratic ideals. That only values its own lives and not those of others. The Israel that elected Bibi is not without blame, on many fronts. Refer to Tom Nichols and Thomas Friedman for details. In cynically empowering Hamas at the expense of negotiating with Abbas because they do not truly want a two state solution? Blaming the generals and ignoring how he had divided the nation? Arrogance, indifference and violence to his own people? Putting his own needs ahead of the nations?
I can see why Republicans like Trump like him.
I have many of the same fears for America.
Then the presumption that those defending life are the same as those defending Hamas? I do sympathize with Israel fighting restraint. Lot easier to preach it than it is to do it.
Yet I fear those who offer simplistic solutions to complex problems. Especially when it seems as much to get back to talking about themselves, as any dead children in a far, dry desert.
You can rationalize war all you want. Tell yourself what the rules are. Wax poetic.
But war is killing. Dead is dead. The same Iraq War that killed 5000 Americans (on a credit card, because America loves making war, just not paying for it) killed about a million Iraqis. Based on a lie, greed, frustration, and pride. Their lives had value too.
Tread lightly when advocating it. Lest someone be as indifferent to your child.
(And yes, I know this is the point in the discussion where you invoke your self-righteous interpretation of your own birth control methods as being superior to everyone else's, and therefore negates any presumption that you should have to justify any of the lives taken in your name - let's just skip that part - and pretend it's Mitt Romney making the point instead of me. The point would still stand.)
I too welcomed Mr Litchfield's column last week. His concise, clear, and most importantly - correct assessment of the situation in Spotsy, as well as the failures of your piece - was a true pleasure to read.
Though I take issue with his conclusions regarding Ms Vanuch. As much as those by Mr Clay's cartoon. In that, we are in rare agreement. I find many of her reported actions wrong, but that in and of itself does not make her a member of the Klan. Unfit to lead, yes. Certainly. If you can't respect the rights of those you despise as well as those of those you love, you have no business in public service.
But while I can deplore someone whose husband was injured in war acting viscerally as a result, it seems to be something coming from anger and hurt.
For him to then use that as a basis of concluding that her opposition to projects which will affect the local Republican party politically QED means that it is perfectly justifiable to consider her a member of the klan and label her as such seems to be a bridge too far.
Her actions and positions are little different in my mind than the gerrymandering, pork projects, etc. that both parties regularly engage in, at every level.
I don't much like it, but in this we are in agreement, in that little good is done by dismissing it and her with such a horrendous label. It shuts down debate of something which seems very debatable.
Still, despite your article, and Clay's cartoon - I did learn more about the issue from the few minutes spent reading his column than I did from the whole to-do up to that point. Again, clear, concise, informative. It was a pleasant change. Looking forward to his next one.
I agree with his comments regarding folks like Ms Durant and yourself regarding yourselves as the "center" when nothing could be further from the truth. That is truly a matter of perspective, yet you present it as a given. You seem to be very willing and able to note that trait in others, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be worthwhile to look at yourself in the same light.
His review of the structural deficits in our nation is spot on. If everyone can look at problems as objectively regardless of political persuasion and work on solutions based upon facts, I'd say we're all in agreement - we would be better off. As do the two of you. (And Mr Davis as well, it would appear.
Still, there's a reason why I voted for Joel Griffin instead of Mr Litchfield in the primary. To a degree, it's the same reason I'm willing to give Ms Vanuch a little more leeway than it seems anyone else does.
It's got to do with the cloth. I sympathize because I empathize. When I was a deputy, in a jail - where you were always outnumbered, there was one rule. Never touch the cloth. You do that, there was a price to pay.
Now many can, and do, and will, debate who, what, when, where - but whether it's Kipling's Tommy, Orwell's Pacifist, or Grenier's saying - or merely Barney Fife standing up to a town bully on the Andy Griffith Show; that rule is there.
So just as I can sympathize with Ms Vanuch's (misplaced) anger while still condemning it; I do not consider my anger displaced regarding the Republican coup attempt that led to over 100 cops just like me getting beaten within an inch of their lives, their attempt to deliberately and cynically overthrow the Constitution based upon lies which have led to multiple findings of guilt - as I see the majority of them lining up behind the man who caused all of that shame and damage to our nation.
It is not wrong to question whether someone will uphold democratic ideals, the Constitution, rule of law - when you see their party led and leading a political organization which attempted to overthrow a Presidential election based upon their predetermined belief that they didn't lose, despite evidence to the contrary. Whose leading candidate has over 90 felony charges pending. Yet just determined who became the Speaker of the House. Whose Governor just kept over 3000 Virginians illegally off the ballot. Whose School Board won't even let others speak.
And they're okay with that. That's a problem.
Back in the day, you couldn't become a deputy sheriff without attesting that you neither were, nor had been a member of the Communist Party. The reasoning being that the Communist Party advocated the violent overthrow of the government. The 14th Amendment was written, in part - to protect us from insurrectionists. They exist. We see them.
In the Republican Party of today that grows ever more extreme to the point that violence is overlooked or forgiven, and a Republican who benefits from it while saying he feels bad about it - but not so much as to not enjoy the power provided - is somehow "the center".
C'mon, man. Seriously?
And yet, Mr Litchfield - in his effusive determination to find common ground and join in debate with those such as you, ignores something that Mr Griffin, who also swore to defend the Constitution sees quite clearly.
That talk, debate, and engagement are fine. Hope they work.
But when we are having discussions with those who are actively working against the core tenets of our society; let's not get so desiring of "talking"; that we forget those tenets are non-negotiable.
Mr Griffin made real clear that he got that. Mr Litchfield, not so much. That's why one got my vote, and the other one didn't.
A response longer than my column? Wonders never cease!
Just to clarify on what Litchfield and others mean regarding “the center” — it is not conservatism or liberalism in drag, but rather the sphere of rational political thought.
The extremes tend to self identify with shortcuts to hyperbole, violence, or opposition to due process and fair play — and I think most adults recognize this for what it is.
But is that where you are, if you continually look the other way when you are being empowered by extremists, who would not have the power to cause harm without your support?
Again, invoking the ideals of Tutu when he talks about oppressors; or Niemollar when they came for the socialists.
Accountability used to be considered a conservative trait. Would that it were again.
Mr Griffith understands that.
And has my support because of it.
I wouldn't expect neither Israel nor Palestinians to meekly capitulate to terrorists. From within or without.
Neighbors/terrorists = hyperbole = numbs "people" to the real thing.
Thought experiment. Without Googling.
Tell me a lie that Obama said.
If it were a survey, I suspect that 90+% of responses would mention doctors and healthcare.
Now do the same experiment with Trump.
I doubt you'll find any of them beating the 20% mark. I wouldn't be shocked if none went over 5%.
Not because they were so rare, but because they were so prolific.
Over 30,000 PUBLIC lies in a 4 year period. They had to start a database. With it's own dedicated staff. He averaged over 15 PUBLIC lies a day. From a man who made it a deliberate, Mafia-like point to avoid having permanent recordings or documentation of his worst actions, when possible.
30,000.
Which one do you recall the most?
That is numbing. It happened and happens so often, no one notices anymore. It's not newsworthy. We know he's a liar.
I'm white. Male. Virginian. Descendent of slave owners. Never lived out of the state. Spent 60 years within 5 miles of the same mountain. Went to schools both segregated and desegregated. Worked in law enforcement for the better part of 3 decades.
And yet, in all of that, I never truly understood white privilege until January 6th, 2021. And then again on February 13th, that same year. Or should I say "power" privilege.
I mean, they weren't ALL white, right?
But they did feel entitled to be there, beating the doors down. Just as those, such as yourself, who minimize their threat, feel entitled to mock the threat, the damage done; as merely someone forgetting to lock the doors.
Makes it easier to stomach.
After the 6th, as a deputy sheriff, I tried to imagine a scenario where anyone other than you (entitled members of the conservative party) could have done anything close, and not been shot.
Repeatedly. Justifiably. Probably with you cheering them on.
Who else, besides you could have done it, and still been breathing?
Trayvon Martin? He got shot within 10 seconds for playing with a toy in a park. Him they saw as a deadly threat. Mexicans? Republicans want to invade them because of our laws. Who?
Yet to this day, the ring leader of that little episode has not been held accountable.
Due to you.
Republicans.
Then on February 13th, Republicans said they wouldn't hold him accountable during an impeachment - not because he wasn't guilty, but because he was no longer President, so it was moot.
In other words, it would have cost you deniability and harmed you politically.
You actively impeded the House investigation of the matter, and now you still, as a party - support the man - as he openly says next time will be worse. He will be your nominee.
No, Mr Kenney. I'm not saying that you got a set of buffalo horns in your closet and you're waiting for the next Klanbake to go howling at the moon.
But the Matt Gaetzes, Gosars, Stones, Bannons, Trumps, etc. aren't staying in power because they are getting my support. They're getting yours. Tara's. Glenn's. Why should we pretend otherwise to suit you? We shouldn't worry about you because you live next door?
To paraphrase Mel Gibson, is it better to have 1 terrorist 5000 miles away, or 5000 terrorists 1 mile away? Your logic is hardly comforting.
Once again, as a party - you decided that the tail wagged the dog as you settled your Speaker fiasco.
Rather than look to compromise with any Democrats - not even Abigail Spanberger or Jennifer Wexton - you decided that loyalty to Trump was what mattered.
Embracement of a lie. When asked about it, rather than answer - you just screamed and ignored it.
As you've done for years. To the point it's no longer newsworthy.
You hope.
That's what numbs people. Not that it's hyperbole, but that it's not only true; but so expected of you, and by you - that you get outraged that anyone notices.
So if my folk (cops) and my country (constitutional United States) came within an inch of dying at your hands, and you're looking to do it again - noting it seems more like due diligence than hyperbole to me.
Regarding Mr Griffin's name, well done for finding one of many of my typos. I deliberately insert them for your grading pleasure. You're welcome.
Regarding your questions of holding "the left" accountable - again - for me that is a vague question. In that I truly do see myself as an independent conservative more than of the "left". Would seem a bit weird to expect me to be able to control someone else based upon that.
But whether they be of the right or the left, if they break the law, I'm against them. And if they are advocating overthrowing the government via violent means, or have been credibly accused of doing the same - they will neither have my support nor my money.
Would that the Republican Party could say the same.
Until you do, I ain't got much use for you. Again, you may not be the ones wearing the buffalo horns, but they wouldn't feel entitled without out your support. No matter how bad you feel about giving it.
Until you do, yes - you are looking away.
Again, responsibility and accountability used to be admired traits to conservatives. To me, they still are.
"But whether they be of the right or the left, if they break the law, I'm against them. And if they are advocating overthrowing the government via violent means, or have been credibly accused of doing the same - they will neither have my support nor my money."
I dunno. That's pretty complicated. Let me think about it.
Oh, wait a minute. How about this?
"Whether they be of the right or the left, if they break the law, I'm against them."
I read that somewhere recently.......
Turns out it wasn't as hard as I thought.
But what I'm really interested in, have been for a while, cause I've truly never understood it - is how someone sees an equivalency between spontaneous acts of violence and illegality caused by citizens angered by seeing repeated videos of injustices and violence, amid the deliberate and systemic indifference of their government to those injustices - as compared to the very President of the United States, along with his political party, abetted by violent groups and men who state they are at his beck and call - deliberately fomenting an attempt to overthrow an election?
I've never figured that one out. Never.
Again, I never truly understood the sense of entitlement that those represented by the Republican Party possess, until I saw them tearing down those doors and yet still being able to live through it.
Nobody else could have done it.
Nobody.
Nobody else would have believed they were entitled to do it.
The fact you still see an equivalency, a reason, a justification, that somehow - you can explain it - I'd say is the true root of the problem.
The same denial that allows that up and until Trump is convicted of a felony, much less 90 felonies, as long as he never admits he's wrong - you'll, as a party, follow him.
You have, and you will.
They say Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.
Just like you did for House Speaker. You always do.
You may squawk about it, you may pretend that you don't, cover your ears, claim everybody does it, or refuse to answer - but it doesn't change it. He's still your guy.
Your party will put him forward as your candidate. That doesn't happen without you. And Tara, and Glenn.
You.
That is your vision of America, such as it is.
I wish it weren't. Truly.
I'll not pretend something isn't true, because I wish it weren't true. So there we are.
BLM.
Man, y'all really fear some black folk; don't ya?
Only in America would someone take offense at someone else taking a name that really means "Please don't kill us anymore."
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
May not be the American way, but it sure is the Republican way.
Well, you made it through a whole column, and somehow avoided Greece, though I can't help but suspect you had my bingo game in mind. Still, progress. So there is that. I mean, it meant a trip to D&D and ancient Rome, but still - at least the scenery was different.
Someone complained to me a while back about taking too many words to get to the point. Can't recall his name, but your column(s) today put me in mind of it. I like to peregrine myself, but all that to get from the shores of the Mediterranean to you once again telling yourself and everyone else how great thou art? There's 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon I never want to play again.
But sure, I'll play for a bit. I mean, we're here, right?
What I fear in Israel is not a weak Israel, but an Israel not committed to democratic ideals. That only values its own lives and not those of others. The Israel that elected Bibi is not without blame, on many fronts. Refer to Tom Nichols and Thomas Friedman for details. In cynically empowering Hamas at the expense of negotiating with Abbas because they do not truly want a two state solution? Blaming the generals and ignoring how he had divided the nation? Arrogance, indifference and violence to his own people? Putting his own needs ahead of the nations?
I can see why Republicans like Trump like him.
I have many of the same fears for America.
Then the presumption that those defending life are the same as those defending Hamas? I do sympathize with Israel fighting restraint. Lot easier to preach it than it is to do it.
Yet I fear those who offer simplistic solutions to complex problems. Especially when it seems as much to get back to talking about themselves, as any dead children in a far, dry desert.
You can rationalize war all you want. Tell yourself what the rules are. Wax poetic.
But war is killing. Dead is dead. The same Iraq War that killed 5000 Americans (on a credit card, because America loves making war, just not paying for it) killed about a million Iraqis. Based on a lie, greed, frustration, and pride. Their lives had value too.
Tread lightly when advocating it. Lest someone be as indifferent to your child.
(And yes, I know this is the point in the discussion where you invoke your self-righteous interpretation of your own birth control methods as being superior to everyone else's, and therefore negates any presumption that you should have to justify any of the lives taken in your name - let's just skip that part - and pretend it's Mitt Romney making the point instead of me. The point would still stand.)
I too welcomed Mr Litchfield's column last week. His concise, clear, and most importantly - correct assessment of the situation in Spotsy, as well as the failures of your piece - was a true pleasure to read.
Though I take issue with his conclusions regarding Ms Vanuch. As much as those by Mr Clay's cartoon. In that, we are in rare agreement. I find many of her reported actions wrong, but that in and of itself does not make her a member of the Klan. Unfit to lead, yes. Certainly. If you can't respect the rights of those you despise as well as those of those you love, you have no business in public service.
But while I can deplore someone whose husband was injured in war acting viscerally as a result, it seems to be something coming from anger and hurt.
For him to then use that as a basis of concluding that her opposition to projects which will affect the local Republican party politically QED means that it is perfectly justifiable to consider her a member of the klan and label her as such seems to be a bridge too far.
Her actions and positions are little different in my mind than the gerrymandering, pork projects, etc. that both parties regularly engage in, at every level.
I don't much like it, but in this we are in agreement, in that little good is done by dismissing it and her with such a horrendous label. It shuts down debate of something which seems very debatable.
Still, despite your article, and Clay's cartoon - I did learn more about the issue from the few minutes spent reading his column than I did from the whole to-do up to that point. Again, clear, concise, informative. It was a pleasant change. Looking forward to his next one.
I agree with his comments regarding folks like Ms Durant and yourself regarding yourselves as the "center" when nothing could be further from the truth. That is truly a matter of perspective, yet you present it as a given. You seem to be very willing and able to note that trait in others, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be worthwhile to look at yourself in the same light.
His review of the structural deficits in our nation is spot on. If everyone can look at problems as objectively regardless of political persuasion and work on solutions based upon facts, I'd say we're all in agreement - we would be better off. As do the two of you. (And Mr Davis as well, it would appear.
Still, there's a reason why I voted for Joel Griffin instead of Mr Litchfield in the primary. To a degree, it's the same reason I'm willing to give Ms Vanuch a little more leeway than it seems anyone else does.
It's got to do with the cloth. I sympathize because I empathize. When I was a deputy, in a jail - where you were always outnumbered, there was one rule. Never touch the cloth. You do that, there was a price to pay.
Now many can, and do, and will, debate who, what, when, where - but whether it's Kipling's Tommy, Orwell's Pacifist, or Grenier's saying - or merely Barney Fife standing up to a town bully on the Andy Griffith Show; that rule is there.
So just as I can sympathize with Ms Vanuch's (misplaced) anger while still condemning it; I do not consider my anger displaced regarding the Republican coup attempt that led to over 100 cops just like me getting beaten within an inch of their lives, their attempt to deliberately and cynically overthrow the Constitution based upon lies which have led to multiple findings of guilt - as I see the majority of them lining up behind the man who caused all of that shame and damage to our nation.
It is not wrong to question whether someone will uphold democratic ideals, the Constitution, rule of law - when you see their party led and leading a political organization which attempted to overthrow a Presidential election based upon their predetermined belief that they didn't lose, despite evidence to the contrary. Whose leading candidate has over 90 felony charges pending. Yet just determined who became the Speaker of the House. Whose Governor just kept over 3000 Virginians illegally off the ballot. Whose School Board won't even let others speak.
And they're okay with that. That's a problem.
Back in the day, you couldn't become a deputy sheriff without attesting that you neither were, nor had been a member of the Communist Party. The reasoning being that the Communist Party advocated the violent overthrow of the government. The 14th Amendment was written, in part - to protect us from insurrectionists. They exist. We see them.
In the Republican Party of today that grows ever more extreme to the point that violence is overlooked or forgiven, and a Republican who benefits from it while saying he feels bad about it - but not so much as to not enjoy the power provided - is somehow "the center".
C'mon, man. Seriously?
And yet, Mr Litchfield - in his effusive determination to find common ground and join in debate with those such as you, ignores something that Mr Griffin, who also swore to defend the Constitution sees quite clearly.
That talk, debate, and engagement are fine. Hope they work.
But when we are having discussions with those who are actively working against the core tenets of our society; let's not get so desiring of "talking"; that we forget those tenets are non-negotiable.
Mr Griffin made real clear that he got that. Mr Litchfield, not so much. That's why one got my vote, and the other one didn't.
A response longer than my column? Wonders never cease!
Just to clarify on what Litchfield and others mean regarding “the center” — it is not conservatism or liberalism in drag, but rather the sphere of rational political thought.
The extremes tend to self identify with shortcuts to hyperbole, violence, or opposition to due process and fair play — and I think most adults recognize this for what it is.
But is that where you are, if you continually look the other way when you are being empowered by extremists, who would not have the power to cause harm without your support?
Again, invoking the ideals of Tutu when he talks about oppressors; or Niemollar when they came for the socialists.
Accountability used to be considered a conservative trait. Would that it were again.
Mr Griffith understands that.
And has my support because of it.
I wouldn't expect neither Israel nor Palestinians to meekly capitulate to terrorists. From within or without.
Why should we?
How am I looking away? And where are you setting the example of tending to the extremists on the left?
I believe Mr. Griffin -- not Griffith -- is the candidate you are looking for.
As for comparing your neighbors to terrorists, that is pure hyperbole -- and numbs people to the real thing. We should be better than that, right?
Let's take a LIFO approach. Last in, first out.
Neighbors/terrorists = hyperbole = numbs "people" to the real thing.
Thought experiment. Without Googling.
Tell me a lie that Obama said.
If it were a survey, I suspect that 90+% of responses would mention doctors and healthcare.
Now do the same experiment with Trump.
I doubt you'll find any of them beating the 20% mark. I wouldn't be shocked if none went over 5%.
Not because they were so rare, but because they were so prolific.
Over 30,000 PUBLIC lies in a 4 year period. They had to start a database. With it's own dedicated staff. He averaged over 15 PUBLIC lies a day. From a man who made it a deliberate, Mafia-like point to avoid having permanent recordings or documentation of his worst actions, when possible.
30,000.
Which one do you recall the most?
That is numbing. It happened and happens so often, no one notices anymore. It's not newsworthy. We know he's a liar.
I'm white. Male. Virginian. Descendent of slave owners. Never lived out of the state. Spent 60 years within 5 miles of the same mountain. Went to schools both segregated and desegregated. Worked in law enforcement for the better part of 3 decades.
And yet, in all of that, I never truly understood white privilege until January 6th, 2021. And then again on February 13th, that same year. Or should I say "power" privilege.
I mean, they weren't ALL white, right?
But they did feel entitled to be there, beating the doors down. Just as those, such as yourself, who minimize their threat, feel entitled to mock the threat, the damage done; as merely someone forgetting to lock the doors.
Makes it easier to stomach.
After the 6th, as a deputy sheriff, I tried to imagine a scenario where anyone other than you (entitled members of the conservative party) could have done anything close, and not been shot.
Repeatedly. Justifiably. Probably with you cheering them on.
Who else, besides you could have done it, and still been breathing?
Trayvon Martin? He got shot within 10 seconds for playing with a toy in a park. Him they saw as a deadly threat. Mexicans? Republicans want to invade them because of our laws. Who?
Yet to this day, the ring leader of that little episode has not been held accountable.
Due to you.
Republicans.
Then on February 13th, Republicans said they wouldn't hold him accountable during an impeachment - not because he wasn't guilty, but because he was no longer President, so it was moot.
In other words, it would have cost you deniability and harmed you politically.
You actively impeded the House investigation of the matter, and now you still, as a party - support the man - as he openly says next time will be worse. He will be your nominee.
No, Mr Kenney. I'm not saying that you got a set of buffalo horns in your closet and you're waiting for the next Klanbake to go howling at the moon.
But the Matt Gaetzes, Gosars, Stones, Bannons, Trumps, etc. aren't staying in power because they are getting my support. They're getting yours. Tara's. Glenn's. Why should we pretend otherwise to suit you? We shouldn't worry about you because you live next door?
To paraphrase Mel Gibson, is it better to have 1 terrorist 5000 miles away, or 5000 terrorists 1 mile away? Your logic is hardly comforting.
Once again, as a party - you decided that the tail wagged the dog as you settled your Speaker fiasco.
Rather than look to compromise with any Democrats - not even Abigail Spanberger or Jennifer Wexton - you decided that loyalty to Trump was what mattered.
Embracement of a lie. When asked about it, rather than answer - you just screamed and ignored it.
As you've done for years. To the point it's no longer newsworthy.
You hope.
That's what numbs people. Not that it's hyperbole, but that it's not only true; but so expected of you, and by you - that you get outraged that anyone notices.
So if my folk (cops) and my country (constitutional United States) came within an inch of dying at your hands, and you're looking to do it again - noting it seems more like due diligence than hyperbole to me.
Regarding Mr Griffin's name, well done for finding one of many of my typos. I deliberately insert them for your grading pleasure. You're welcome.
Regarding your questions of holding "the left" accountable - again - for me that is a vague question. In that I truly do see myself as an independent conservative more than of the "left". Would seem a bit weird to expect me to be able to control someone else based upon that.
But whether they be of the right or the left, if they break the law, I'm against them. And if they are advocating overthrowing the government via violent means, or have been credibly accused of doing the same - they will neither have my support nor my money.
Would that the Republican Party could say the same.
Until you do, I ain't got much use for you. Again, you may not be the ones wearing the buffalo horns, but they wouldn't feel entitled without out your support. No matter how bad you feel about giving it.
Until you do, yes - you are looking away.
Again, responsibility and accountability used to be admired traits to conservatives. To me, they still are.
"But whether they be of the right or the left, if they break the law, I'm against them. And if they are advocating overthrowing the government via violent means, or have been credibly accused of doing the same - they will neither have my support nor my money."
Now do the BLM/Antifa riots of 2020.
Now do the BLM/Antifa riots of 2020? What!?!?
I dunno. That's pretty complicated. Let me think about it.
Oh, wait a minute. How about this?
"Whether they be of the right or the left, if they break the law, I'm against them."
I read that somewhere recently.......
Turns out it wasn't as hard as I thought.
But what I'm really interested in, have been for a while, cause I've truly never understood it - is how someone sees an equivalency between spontaneous acts of violence and illegality caused by citizens angered by seeing repeated videos of injustices and violence, amid the deliberate and systemic indifference of their government to those injustices - as compared to the very President of the United States, along with his political party, abetted by violent groups and men who state they are at his beck and call - deliberately fomenting an attempt to overthrow an election?
I've never figured that one out. Never.
Again, I never truly understood the sense of entitlement that those represented by the Republican Party possess, until I saw them tearing down those doors and yet still being able to live through it.
Nobody else could have done it.
Nobody.
Nobody else would have believed they were entitled to do it.
The fact you still see an equivalency, a reason, a justification, that somehow - you can explain it - I'd say is the true root of the problem.
The same denial that allows that up and until Trump is convicted of a felony, much less 90 felonies, as long as he never admits he's wrong - you'll, as a party, follow him.
You have, and you will.
They say Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.
Just like you did for House Speaker. You always do.
You may squawk about it, you may pretend that you don't, cover your ears, claim everybody does it, or refuse to answer - but it doesn't change it. He's still your guy.
Your party will put him forward as your candidate. That doesn't happen without you. And Tara, and Glenn.
You.
That is your vision of America, such as it is.
I wish it weren't. Truly.
I'll not pretend something isn't true, because I wish it weren't true. So there we are.
BLM.
Man, y'all really fear some black folk; don't ya?
Only in America would someone take offense at someone else taking a name that really means "Please don't kill us anymore."
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
May not be the American way, but it sure is the Republican way.