Can we have sunk this far?

[sharksrog]

This shows how far we have sunk:


From Yahoo News, which is ranked slightly more conservative than the average news source:

Almost one-third of Republicans say they think violence may be necessary to solve the problems facing the United States, according to a new national survey by the nonprofit Public Religion Research Institute. The finding is part of PRRI’s 12th annual American Values Survey released Monday which, among other things, highlights the continued impact of the same falsehoods and conspiracy theories that fueled the violent Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol nearly one year later.


Republicans used to be fine people, but now many seem ready to turn to violence instead of democracy. Would any of us have dreamed the Republican Party would come to this? This is the party of Abe Lincoln. Or at least it used to be.

[sharksrog]

You know, the more I think of this, the worse it seems. In a third-world country I could possibly see a third of the party not in power believing violence might be necessary, but in the United States? I can't believe we've sunk this low since the Civil War.

This illustrates why I keep asking you guys for answers. This might be the most serious problem we've faced in my lifetime, and I never thought I would see a problem like COVID.

When one has a Supreme Court controlled by the minority party and the leader of that party says that the Supreme Court is wrong, that the last election was unfair, I guess it's possible to see us fall this far. How can the Supreme Court by controlled by the minority party, have at least as many justices appointed by the former president as I can ever remember, and yet have that former president say in effect that they are liars?

As we saw in our study of chemistry and leaders, great leaders breed trust. The Republican leader has built a ton of mistrust. The mistrust exists primarily because his supporters believe his lies, right?

[sharksrog]

Speaking of the Civil War, I didn't know until last night that the South teaches that the North invaded the South. I also didn't know that most people in the South didn't own slaves, but those who did own them, owned a lot. During the Civil War, the North had a population of 22 million, and the South has 9 million, nearly 4 million of whom were slaves.

Despite what is taught in the South, the Civil War began when the South attacked Fort Sumter, which was controlled by the North. So the South is living a lie. Sadly, there were several Confederate flags being waved by those who attacked the Capitol on January 6th. What that scene had was losers carrying the flag of losers. Given that the Confederate states were secessionists, I don't think we should allow Confederate flags in our country. Maybe those flags should be protected by Freedom of Speech. But what kind of loser wants to wave the flag of a loser, and worse, of the biggest organization to attack the United States from within?

I don't think there is anything wrong in being proud of the South, if one is from there. But one shouldn't be proud of having tried to revolt against the United States. One shouldn't exactly be proud of supporting a state that fostered slavery.

Slavery was horrible, but it wasn't the worst thing our country did. The worst thing was stealing our country from the Indians. I'm not exactly proud of that, but I live with it. I can't change it. All I can do is properly treat any Indians I come across. In the state of Washington, not far from where Matt lives, my wife and I a dozen years ago were actually invited onto an Indian reservation. We got to see many items made by the Indians, and we learned a bit.

Anyway, I can't do anything about how the Indians were mistreated, and I can't do anything about slavery. But what horrible blights on the history of our country. That said, at least until recently, we've been the best country in the world.

Oh, we didn't do very well by our Japanese Americans during World War II either. But surprisingly, my son's grandfather-in-law and mother-in-law met at a Japanese relocation camp. Those camps don't seem very fair, and I doubt they were a great place to be. But at least something good came out of it.

In contrast, my son's own grandparents were Italian, but his grandfather served in Britain in the Army in WW II. I guess it must have been because of the color of their skin that Italians weren't segregated as the Japanese were. Perhaps it was because Japan attacked us directly, whereas Italy was more of an indirect enemy. Not sure if Italy was an enemy in WW I, although I'm pretty sure Japan wasn't.

We can't change our country's past, but we should be doing a lot more to protect its future. Most lies are protected by free speech, but we've got to become smarter and not elect pathological liars to office. When one elects a liar to office, he's asking for ... lies. Not that most politicians are as honest as they should be, but now we've got far too many people in this country believing in highly destructive lies.

[Islandboagie]

Pump the brakes, Rog.

Number 1, where did you come up with Yahoo being mostly conservative? From what I've seen they lean heavily left, but I may be wrong. What ranking are you referring to?

Number 2, I looked up this survey you're speaking of, it didn't say anything about problems facing the country in the statement. The statement they used was:

“Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”

Number 3, on the surface, violence is almost never the correct action. And yes, 30% of Republicans agreed. 17% of independents agreed, and 11% of Democrats agreed. But do we really know the mindset of the people when they are reading that statement? I'm almost certain 11% of Democrats and 17% of independents would not agree with that statement if it was linked to what happened on Jan 6.

Number 4, really read the statement, especially the last part "save our country." If our country was in a state that needed saving, would we not do everything we could to save it? I know I would. The Yahoo article directly linked it to the riot in Washington, but were the ones surveyed given the same correlation? I have spoken to MANY Republicans since, and in no way shape or form do ANY of them agree with what happened that day. I don't, and I've told you that numerous times. Do any of your other Republican friends agree with what happened?

I think it's safe to say some if not most didn't automatically associate the statement with putting on a buffalo headdress and invading our capital like a douchebag.

I think you should do more research before you come here spouting misleading narratives and fake news.

[sharksrog]

www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/

I looked a little further, and Allsides rated them "Lean left."

The point is that they're relatively neutral.

I agree with you that the question might have been a little leading, but aren't you shocked that close to a third of Republicans think we may have to resort to violence? Would it surprise you if most of that third were Trump supporters? Can you think of any time in our history before The Big Lie that anywhere close to a third of Republicans thought we may need to resort to violence? I mean, they tried that on January 6th, and how did it work out?

I wasn't sure what your point was on #3.

I don't personally know anyone who supports January 6th. Some of those who were involved truly thought they were being patriots though. Don't you agree that we should learn as much about what happened as we can, so that it never happens again? Why are the Trumpers trying to keep the truth from surfacing? What are they hiding? If one is innocent, he wants the truth to rise to the surface to demonstrate his innocence. If he is guilty, he wants the evidence to remain hidden.

You end our comments with assumptions and opinions, not facts. Why is that?

You also unintentionally show you bias with your comment "where did you come up with Yahoo being mostly conservative?" What I wrote was what I read, that Yahoo was "ranked slightly more conservative than the average news source." Since when is "slightly more conservative than average" the same as "mostly conservative?"

But while I think you do make a good point or two here, once again you go mostly with conjecture and get away from the main worry -- that close to a third of Republicans believe violence may be necessary. That's downright scary, and something I don't think we could have imagine half a dozen years ago.

One last point: You keep talking about the Q-Anon Shaman (the guy wearing the horns). There were thousands of people there, yet you keep focusing on just the one, who if the situation weren't so horrifying, would be almost clown-like. Two things I'd like to ask you:

First, why didn't Trump did Trump on national TV fail to disavow Q-Anon, which Wikipedia describes as "a far-right conspiracy theory and movement centered on false claims made by an anonymous individual or individuals, known by the name "Q", that a cabal of Satanic,[1][2][3] cannibalistic pedophiles operate a global child sex trafficking ring and conspired against former president Donald Trump during his term in office.[2][3][4][5] QAnon has been described as a cult with roots in antisemitism and Nazism.[6]"

Second, why is it that now the Shaman's lawyer says that Trump has done the most brainwashing since Hitler?

I'm sorry to ask so many questions, Matt, but when you answer, you often bring up new questions or simply remind me of the ones you have refused to answer in the past. I want to understand you thinking and that of Boly. I really do. But you guys rarely provide answers, and on the rare occasions when you do, you tend to stray from the facts.

[Islandboagie]

Rog- But while I think you do make a good point or two here, once again you go mostly with conjecture and get away from the main worry -- that close to a third of Republicans believe violence may be necessary. That's downright scary, and something I don't think we could have imagine half a dozen years ago.

Boagie- My main worry is that people like you regularly get lead in a certain direction by misleading articles by the Liberal media that has one prime objective - to get you to vote a certain way. This is how the Democratic Party has gained control and continued to hold control despite not having an agenda that conscious people would find alluring. Higher taxes, less policing in big cities, and a weak border.

[Islandboagie]

Rog- First, why didn't Trump did Trump on national TV fail to disavow Q-Anon, which Wikipedia describes as "a far-right conspiracy theory and movement centered on false claims made by an anonymous individual or individuals, known by the name "Q", that a cabal of Satanic,[1][2][3] cannibalistic pedophiles operate a global child sex trafficking ring and conspired against former president Donald Trump during his term in office.[2][3][4][5] QAnon has been described as a cult with roots in antisemitism and Nazism.[6]"

Boagie- Because Trump is a narcissist and wants everyone to think he's wonderful, even nutjobs that follow QAnon.

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Second, why is it that now the Shaman's lawyer says that Trump has done the most brainwashing since Hitler?

Boagie- Just one question a day...but I'll answer this because it's easy. He's a lawyer and he's defending his client, trying to reduce his sentence..etc etc...that's kinda what lawyers are supposed to do. It's a pretty easy question, but not a very good one.

I also don't believe his statement to be accurate. First, we don't know if those that acted on Jan 6th felt they were following an order from Trump, but if they did believe that, I think it falls way short of my definition of brainwashing. I believe brainwashing has to have some resistance, or a different way of thinking before the brainwashing occurs. Evidence would show these people were nutjobs long before Trump said anything about his supporters meeting up in Washington. And of course, those who have been brainwashed to listen to commands from a certain person, they don't all of a sudden stop listening, like they did when Trump asked them to keep it peaceful. It's my belief those rioters had their own agenda..it was anti-government, not necessarily pro-Trump.

Do I think Trump should have used a different tone during his final days in office? Of course. He acted like a baby, I was very disappointed in him, as I was a handful of times before. Just like I was dissapointed in the Democrats that said things like "take to the streets" and "get in their face" during the early stages of the protests that turned into riots and continued all summer long in some cities.

..so looking back at the original comment from the douchebag's lawyer, and finding a close correlation between what Trump said with what the Democrats said, and if you believe it's a form of brainwashing, then wouldn't the Democrats have done MORE brainwashing since it was more widespread, involved more people and lasted much longer?

I believe none of it should have been said, but I don't think you can hold one person responsible for inciting a riot unless you tell your supporters directly to incite a riot. I believe Trump wanted a protest in his name, I'm certain he didn't want a riot to funnel through the doors of the capital building. At the same time I don't think Democrats wanted violence at the BLM protests either, but they did very little to stop it once it started.

Beyond that, I'm pretty sure we could find people in a position of power that had brainwashed their followers more so than Trump is being accused of.

[reedonly]

I’m wondering if you guys get yahoo feeds tailored to your cookies on your computer. For instance, I was looking into hearing aids and all of a sudden , lots of ads and articles about hearing aids. Conceivable that you are receiving a lot of stuff people think you might be interested in politically.

[sharksrog]

I'm not mislead by liberal articles, since I read articles from all spectrums and try to read as many from as close to the middle as I can. I don't watch CNN, but I watch a lot of MSNBC and Fox News. The past few months I have been emphasizing trying to understand why smart people support Donald Trump. Reed makes a good point that ones gets ads based on what he shows interest in, and I get lots of pop ups from both sides of the spectrum. I suspect, Matt and Boly, that you get mostly right-wing articles, if you get any at all. Every day I get emails and texts from the Republican Party, with whom I was registered until I couldn't stand the hypocrisy.

I'm going to hone this down to one primary question: Is the Supreme Court living a lie, or are you two? The Supreme Court is made up of one-third Trump appointees and two-thirds appointees by Trump and other Republican presidents. It's probably too one-sided, yet it says that the election wasn't stolen. Other courts, Republican election officials and Republican politicians say it wasn't stolen. Unless they ALL are wrong, you guys persist in living a lie.

The Georgia Secretary of State says that 5 dead people and 74 convicts voted, nowhere close to the nearly 12,000 votes Trump needed. But he points out why Trump lost the election in Georgia. 28,000 people voted for other offices but didn't vote for President. If just half those people had voted for Trump instead of abstaining, he would have won Georgia.

Of course he would have needed at least two more states as well, but it would have been a start. It appears there were thousands of Georgians who voted for other Republicans on the ballot but couldn't bring themselves to vote for what Matt has admitted is a narcissist. Why would any one in his right mind vote for a narcissist?

I think the Democrats had their own narcissist in New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. At least he finally resigned. Cuomo wasn't as bad as Trump, but he was plenty bad himself. I'm glad they're both out of office, but Trump's ego simply won't let him go away.

Anyway, what do you guys know, Matt and Boly, that the Supreme Court, Republican election officials, Trump's attorney general and many Republican officials don't know? What are the sources of your knowledge, and how is it that all those Republicans missed them?

[Islandboagie]

Since you have changed the subject and ignored my one question, I guess we can call this discussion over with.

[sharksrog]

What is your question that wasn't answered, Matt? I'll be happy to answer it.

The #

[sharksrog]

The #1 question I have for you is, is the Supreme Court living a lie, or are you? Or to relate it to this thread, do you think the Big Lie is perhaps the biggest reason nearly a third of Republicans think we may have to resort to violence? I don't think that's happened since the Civil War, has it?

[sharksrog]

I welcome your questions, Matt, and I wish you would welcome mine.