I think of police as being necessarily more autonomous, which of course in the case of bad or ill-trained policemen is a catastrophe waiting. — tim wood

I'm fascinated by the interpersonal dynamics on the ground. I find the movie "Platoon" to be very inciteful in this regard. So many layers that seem simplistic from 10,000 feet.

In the Trumpian value system they would be classified as losers and suckers.

That you believe such a thing occurred is a testament to your own value system, one easily moved to conclusion by gossip and palace intrigue.

That you believe such a thing occurred is a testament to your own value system, one easily moved to conclusion by gossip and palace intrigue — NOS4A2

I must have a similar value system then. I sincerely believe that Trump views those who attacked the Capital as losers and suckers. As an analogy, notwithstanding all of his policy "positions" and any substantive steps he took which hindered abortion, I sincerely believe that he could give less than a rats ass for any baby. I don't think I'm confused by gossip and palace intrigue. I take my opinion from personal observation of the man, and not what others have said about him.

I’m fairly certain you have not met the man, have zero personal observations, and like the rest of us derive your opinion from news stories and commentators.

He had some choice words for those who participated in the incursion, so I think it can be said he was not a fan of them.

I’m fairly certain you have not met the man, have zero personal observations, and like the rest of us derive your opinion from news stories and commentators. — NOS4A2

You would be wrong, then. While I never saw a single minute of "The Apprentice", and had never really considered the man before the elevator, I have watched *him* and I have seen *his* mouth move and I have heard *his* words come out of it. I have read *his* tweets. And I have observed *his* demeanor. I have considered his executive efforts. My opinion is based upon what I have seen of *him*.

He had some choice words for those who participated in the incursion, so I think it can be said he was not a fan of them. — NOS4A2

That may not be the flex you think it is. He is not a fan of losers and suckers. But taking your point as I think you intended, for you to find sincerity in those words he spoke, and not in others, could be testament to your own value system. I'm not sure because I have not been following you like I did Trump.

Edited to add: Maybe I actually didn't hear or see any of that. Maybe the Deep State Conspiracy generated a bunch of Deep Fake and fooled me in to thinking the idiot I saw was actually the POTUS. Go Q!

Of course I could be wrong.

You sincerely believe he doesn’t like babies, yet there are countless pictures and videos of him kissing babies, picking them up, bringing them up on stage at his rallies, displaying behavior opposite and contrary to your sincere beliefs. So forgive me if I do not immediately agree with them.

I do have a bad habit of giving people the benefit of the doubt, and do so at my own peril. But so far I have not yet felt deceived by the man.

Politicians love you, I'm sure. But where we are alike, I think, is, like a jury, we utilize our life experience to discern whether one is being honest or not (we are "finders of fact"). But some folks will see and hear Trump tell the crowd he'd like to punch someone in the face, and he'd pay the legal fees of anyone charged with assault while evicting someone from a rally. Or how he likes to grab pussy. That is all hyperbole and locker room and whatnot. Not to be taken as sincere. But kiss one baby and you're good to go.

I think I know the difference sarcasm, hyperbole and sincerity.

I hate to say it but I knew it wouldn’t be long before a few sensationalized statements plucked from the vast sea of his rhetoric would occupy your opinion of the man. That’s how contextamy is supposed to work, after all.

I hate to say it but I knew it wouldn’t be long before a few sensationalized statements plucked from the vast sea of his rhetoric would occupy your opinion of the man. That’s how contextamy is supposed to work, after all. — NOS4A2

You make the mistake of thinking it was a few, just because I used a few. I've got five years worth. Yet you pick a baby kiss, and an admonition of the Capital raiders and run with it? I'm sure you've got your own five years of things you find admirable. That is what makes us finders of fact. The jury. America ruled. And it wasn't all based on spin. Most of it was based on personal observation of how the man held himself out to the public. Most people think he's a dishonorable coward and a liar. All politicians want you to see them kiss babies. And it works. You are a case in point. But it does not always work, hence he is a loser.

You mentioned he doesn’t like babies, and ran with it. But there is evidence contrary to your claim. I choose the evidence, you choose...what exactly?

There isn’t a strand of chewing gum connecting the premise to your conclusion, but that’s how the internal logic of anti-Trumpism usually works.

You mentioned he doesn’t like babies, and ran with it. But there is evidence contrary to your claim. I choose the evidence, you choose...what exactly? — NOS4A2

I didn't say he didn't like them. I said he could give less than a rat's ass for them. There is a difference. My evidence is his turning toward whatever direction provides him with props. Those who dote on him can turn him in their direction. If the left had even a rudimentary understanding of child psychology, they could have turned him left. But alas, the left is like herding cats, and they are ill-inclined to sell their souls to the devil or compromise their values to obtain a goal. The Christian right, however, will say "Look, I don't care what the guy's personal feelings are, as long as he protects the unborn. If he does that, I'll suck his dick on national T.V. He can cheat on wives, grab pussy, worship idols and gold, or whatever. He's better than the godless left." My evidence is Trump's turn to the right when the national spot light came on the screen and all the lead rolls had already been taken. He found his niche (knuckle-draggers who wanted the apple cart tipped so bad they would hitch themselves to the likes of Trump).

I, like you, tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. While I did not vote him (I'm anti-party so I wrote myself in), I did wait for the longest time, hoping he was the guy to finally set the plutocracy back on it's heels. No joy. So I continued to watch him prove his interest in himself and nothing else. His failure to go to the Capital is but one example, but it is the icing on the cake. That is my evidence.

There isn’t a strand of chewing gum connecting the premise to your conclusion, but that’s how the internal logic of anti-Trumpism usually works. — NOS4A2

Those who have partaken of the Kool-Aid would not know logic (which has it's own skeletons) if it jumped up and slapped them in the face. So pardon me if I don't take your snipe as as inciteful about my argument.

I might appreciate upsetting the apple cart. I just wish a leader could have done it, and for reasons that aligned with Liberal or Radical Democratic Theory. Our loss. And so the pendulum swings and the right will have brought upon itself the boogey man it said was coming. They should thank their lucky stars they got Biden instead. But we shall see.

I also know what self defense spray is (the kind cops use). Bear spray is on a whole 'nother level. If you have asthma, allergy or any pre-existing condition, it could kill you. And, as we used to say in the law, you take your victim as you find him. — James Riley

It was my understanding that bear spray is a less debilitating nonlethal method compared to pepper spray because of comparing descriptions like from this site. I've been exposed to pepper spray before indirectly but I have no experience with bear spray. "[Bear spray] isn’t supposed to inflict a level of pain and incapacitation on par with what pepper spray does, which is why it contains only 1 to 2% OC but has a Capsaicin and Related Capsaicinoid concentration of 2%." On top of causing less pain, "pepper sprays are specifically designed to bring down human adversaries – their OC concentration and their precise stream spray pattern (typically) makes them ideal for close quarter self-defense." As in the typical use coats the victims' skin, eyes and clothes.

I'm completely ignorant of the self defense spray you mentioned and maybe bear sprays have other ingredients I haven't considered. But I thought that the police are to be exposed to pepper sprays during training, and so the idea of an officer dying from a weaker version of it, that isn't delivered to the same capacity seems dubious to me.

Sounds like you know more about this stuff than I do. My can of spray says "NOT FOR USE ON HUMANS". Active ingredients are Capsaicin and related capsaicinoids (Derived from Oleoresin of Capsicum) 2%, with 98% other ingredients.

I have no idea what that means, but I'd much rather run back into the Gas Chamber in boot camp and hang out for a half hour than get sprayed once with this stuff for a nanosecond. Maybe I just got weak in my old age.

I'm somewhat confused by your post though, and ask you to clarify:

"[Bear spray] isn’t supposed to inflict a level of pain and incapacitation on par with what pepper spray does, — FlaccidDoor

That sounds like bear spray is not supposed to be as bad as pepper spray. But compare with:

On top of causing less pain, "pepper sprays are specifically designed to bring down human adversaries — FlaccidDoor

Which seems contrary to the first quote. I'm not sure how to read your findings. Thanks.

In the Trumpian value system they would be classified as losers and suckers.

That you believe such a thing occurred is a testament to your own value system, one easily moved to conclusion by gossip and palace intrigue. — NOS4A2

Considering that the previous line to the one you quote suggested that the NYT published a headline that read "Insurrection by orange man almost wipes America out," any half-wit might have at least suspected that I was speaking rather tongue-in-cheek. It suits your tedious (and now largely irrelevant) narrative that anti-Trumpers are irrational, I realize, by making the claim that I essentially don't value truth and will swallow whatever story is published by the 'fake news media'.

You are basically claiming that I share your and Trumps values or that I don't value truth. I do value truth and that's one reason I'm anti-Trump.

Recently the lawyer for Sidney Powell, one of the most prominent instigators of the BIG LIE, stated in court recently that “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.” In other words, Trump and gang were fully aware that his base is comprised of suckers and were speaking directly to them and not 'reasonable people'.

Of course he regards them as losers and suckers.

Recently the lawyer for Sidney Powell, one of the most prominent instigators of the BIG LIE, stated in court recently that “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.” — praxis

I'm not sure, but I think that is an argument that was previously used by Tucker Carlson in defense of a law suit brought against him. Some wag said it should hence forth be known as the "Tucker Carlson Defense." (Or maybe it was Hannity, I can't recall.) Nevertheless, I like it. Whichever clown it was, the name should be recorded in the canons of law so we have a ready short-hand for the future. Maybe Faux News can use it against Dominion. Had that been done, Sidney Powell could have saved herself having it spelled out, and her sycophants, incapable of reading the pleadings, would be faced with less cognitive dissonance.

Sounds like you know more about this stuff than I do. My can of spray says "NOT FOR USE ON HUMANS". Active ingredients are Capsaicin and related capsaicinoids (Derived from Oleoresin of Capsicum) 2%, with 98% other ingredients. — James Riley

I know that at it's essence it's just really spicy. Like they literally take the same things that make chili spicy in a concentrated form most of the time (Read: Capsaicin), but I'm not sure if there aren't other ingredients that are included in bear sprays and pepper sprays.

The entire quote goes

[Bear spray] is intended to deter the bear from attacking you while you’re out in the wild, and isn’t supposed to inflict a level of pain and incapacitation on par with what pepper spray does, which is why it contains only 1 to 2% OC but has a Capsaicin and Related Capsaicinoid concentration of 2%.

Apparently the OC content makes the burn here but I'm ignorant of what it is, where capsaicin is the spicy component I just mentioned.

On top of causing less pain, "pepper sprays are specifically designed to bring down human adversaries — FlaccidDoor

This 2nd quote was misleading, sorry. It should of been "On top of bear spray causing less pain, 'pepper sprays are specifically designed to bring down human adversaries" being a concentrated stream.

https://www.bushcraftpro.com/bear-spray-vs-pepper-spray/

My point was that the integrity of news sources are to be questioned, and holding skepticism in said news sources' claims are not the same as rejecting said claims — FlaccidDoor

I agree. There is bias in all reporting of news, whether it comes from the left or the right. For example, when CNN headlines “Firey But Mostly Peaceful Protests After Police Shooting”, then we know FOX will say something like “‘Peaceful Protests’ Break Out Into Rampant Destruction Of Property”. Both are literally true; both also reflect a bias.

What gives me doubts that the insurrection isn't as impressive as it's made out to be is that, while being made out to sound like the most terrible thing in modern history, no one on the law enforcement side was killed — FlaccidDoor

Indeed, what was so terrible about it was not loss of life, or even injury (though there was a lot of that, some permanent). It was rather the intent. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their lives in wars to protect our freedom. If dozens of Capitol officers had lost their lives, I think you and I and they and the whole nation would have considered their sacrifice just and noble and honorable and necessary for the same reason.

Take a look at Jimmy Carter, — 3017amen

Here, in my opinion, is more evidence of the American ppl’s lack of wisdom. Carter was a discreet mixture of traditional and progressive values; his successor was a precursor of Trump, a Hollywood celebrity who steered the country into materialism, away from buckskin and into Brooks Brothers. Carter probably fell out of favor only after the long Iran hostage crisis ended rather unsatisfactorily...which was not his fault.

Wisdom much like logic, is a priori and a posteriori. With respect to the latter wisdom changes based on empirical analysis. — 3017amen

For my part, if I meet wisdom, in a man or group or institution, I consider it a permanent quality they possess that can be generally counted on. When Solomon was said to be wise there was no implication that he would someday become foolish—aren’t lifetime appointments for judges based on this idea?— after all, it was a wish granted by God...though one might suspect his promiscuity and choices with regard to women.

In other words, might he had fired and hired top brass so as to install his minions, in the wake of the coup attempt, so that, after it had succeeded, he could trust in them to support him?
— Todd Martin

Our democracy of checks and balances would have precluded that from happening. — 3017amen

You mean these same checks and balances that Trump undermined during his administration? The ones Biden is struggling to reinstate?

I used to think that the President of the United States of America was a puppet role; that he had no real power. After Trump, I am much less sure. His only failure in the exercise of his powers for his personal ends seems to be that he was too impetuous: he said and did things, through his power, that inspired him at the moment. Had he exercised more foresight, calculated more than just reacted, he might have gained himself a successful ride on that hobby-horse our founders feared our future leader might.

My recommendation would be to take this same intellectual energy and focus on something more virtuous — 3017amen

My apologies, Mr. Amen: this thesis was just a fantasy I had while reading Machiavelli. Down here in my cave I have no one with whom to share my fantasies, so I was compelled (against my will) to share them in TPF.

brow:

The only confirmed murders were by the police to the rioters.
— FlaccidDoor

In the Trumpian value system they would be classified as losers and suckers. — praxis

Clever thinking. Accolades from me.

Those guys still work together. That is scary, to me. — James Riley

And it should be scary to us all: we are a divided nation. In all our institutions men and women work together who have polar opposite notions of how the world should be. This has been hidden beneath an administrative cloak of “protocols” and rules and regulations; but that is an uncertain standard, because it is the spirit, not the letter of those rules, that was sought when they were established...and it is just that spirit that has now come into question.

but that is an uncertain standard, because it is the spirit, not the letter of those rules, that was sought when they were established...and it is just that spirit that has now come into question. — Todd Martin

:100:

Btw, I don’t care much for babies: I like for them to grow old enough to talk to and play with. After that I am delighted in them.

As for pussy, I don’t like to grab it unless I am sure it wants to be grabbed.

Here, in my opinion, is more evidence of the American ppl’s lack of wisdom. Carter was a discreet mixture of traditional and progressive values; his successor was a precursor of Trump, a Hollywood celebrity who steered the country into materialism, away from buckskin and into Brooks Brothers. Carter probably fell out of favor only after the long Iran hostage crisis ended rather unsatisfactorily...which was not his fault. — Todd Martin

No exceptions taken (except BB probably had more integrity).

For my part, if I meet wisdom, in a man or group or institution, I consider it a permanent quality they possess that can be generally counted on. When Solomon was said to be wise there was no implication that he would someday become foolish—aren’t lifetime appointments for judges based on this idea?— after all, it was a wish granted by God...though one might suspect his promiscuity and choices with regard to women. — Todd Martin

Nice. What do you consider wisdom, in this context of politics? Do you think, like a priori mathematical truth's, there is perfect wisdom in politics? That seems like what you're implying.

I think subjective truth's, or Subjectivity, is more in line with what you are arguing there. Otherwise, we have to concede that general wisdom evolves, changes, gets better or worse with time.

You mean these same checks and balances that Trump undermined during his administration? — Todd Martin

No, I mean the checks and balances that lost him re-election.

Had he exercised more foresight, calculated more than just reacted, he might have gained himself a successful ride on that hobby-horse our founders feared our future leader might. — Todd Martin

Our system of democracy precluded that. He lost.

However, perhaps your thesis is more of a fascist pipe-dream for those who seemingly have narcissistic tendencies, not really sure there...or is it the other way around...

It needs to be one of the blood-line. The blood of the prince has power over the ppl like nothing else. If his dad wasn’t bold enough, Donald Jr might be. What is he doing right now? Do you think he isn’t salivating over wet-dreams of 2024? — Todd Martin

Donald Jr or anybody of Trump's family has his or her chance if daddy isn't around anymore. You see, it is still Trump himself that has the delusional ideas that he can win again the GOP nomination and win again the Presidency. However the thing is that the media isn't anymore fixated in him. When has Trump been news lately? When is the last time he has said something that has gotten everybody commenting it?

I think it might be a totally different kind of person that overthrows the Constitution, if that happens. An American version of Vladimir Putin, the no-nonsense leader who doesn't take bullshit and the masses love him and the liberals just whine about something bogus like "overthrowing the Constitution".

Another consideration is, the "top brass" aren't as on top as they might like to think. And the troops aren't inclined to follow all orders. There is a limit. That limit would be found had the top brass followed Tump. But again, it's all academic, because the top brass wouldn't do that. — James Riley

It really still is hypothetical. But then again, remember how delusional and afraid people were after 9/11? And let's think about it if every major city in the US started to look and feel like Portland? Have enough polarization, ineffiecient governance, violence and riots and then people might in the end be too tired just about everything. In that kind of situation to say that emergency powers are there to protect the Constitution might sound totally logical and correct to enough people.

Luckily the US isn't there yet. And so isn't the armed forces either:

Donald Jr or anybody of Trump's family has his or her chance if daddy isn't around anymore. — ssu

I agree. Who could be the heir apparent? Who has Trump's faith in the brand? He is the brand, and he rose to that position because of a narcissism that has been refined down to a level so pure that it has rarely (if ever) been seen in the annals of man. This is not hyperbole. Don Jr. and the daughter don't have it. Neither does Cruz or any other idiot. The new Republican leader will have to forge his/her own identity. You just can't copy that shit. The man was a one off.

Most thinking General Officers were too conservative to hitch their wagon to that star, and conservatives aren't all stupid.

Who could be the heir apparent? Who has Trump's faith in the brand? He is the brand, and he rose to that position because of a narcissism that has been refined down to a level so pure that it has rarely (if ever) been seen in the annals of man. — James Riley

And what actually comes of the Trump brand? You see, the era of social media has made us even more short sighted than ever. We lose focus even more quicker than before. People might remember the Tea Party or the Occupy Wall Street movement, but do the follow these movements now? Are they making the waves here? The next Presidential election is years ahead.

Trump's comeback on social media might take a bit time:

(CNN, March 31st, 2021)The former president will return to social media in two to three months on his own platform, according to Jason Miller, a long-time Trump adviser and spokesperson for the president's 2020 campaign. The new platform will attract "tens of millions" of new users and "completely redefine the game," Miller added.

Let's see how completely it "redefines the game"...

Let's see how completely it "redefines the game"... — ssu

Regarding Trump's new venue, if you are dishonorable, if you are a coward, if you are a liar, if you are a petulant, whiny little bitch, then you might find yourself relegated to obscure, isolated little echo chambers full of confirmation bias, compounding stupidity based on spin. If there are enough people who like what you do, willing to sell their souls to get it, notwithstanding your shortcomings, then you will thrive in isolation. But it will be in isolation nonetheless. We just need to make sure law enforcement is keeping tabs on his followers, just in case someone with more courage and less brains than Trump decides to attack the Union.

We just need to make sure law enforcement is keeping tabs on his followers, just in case someone with more courage and less brains than Trump decides to attack the Union. — James Riley

More courage and less brains? Hmm.

If you look at the reality, the American security apparatus has kept tabs on every kind of domestic group there is that can possible adhere to violence, from right-wing militias to animal rights activists and everything in between. I'm sure both the events of last year and of last January have increased emphasis on domestic terrorism in many departments.

And of course, let's not forget that it was a vote of 81 million to 74 million, so the smartest thing isn't to call those 74 million followers that have to be kept tabs on.

Yet the real issue is that Trump truly performed a huge train wreck during the last days of his Presidency, and this really has likely had a lot of consequences. Nothing alienates conservatives and authoritarian right-wingers more than mob attacking and killing policemen.

If you look at the reality, the American security apparatus has kept tabs on every kind of domestic group there is that can possible adhere to violence, from right-wing militias to animal rights activists and everything in between. — ssu

And yet it happened. I suspect it happened, not because the apparatus wasn't looking, but because so many within it "stood back and stood by" while it happened. I personally remember the chatter a week in advance, and I remember the simmering months in advance. Any idiot knew it was coming. And had it been BLM, there would have been a response more akin to what we saw in the summer.

I'm sure both the events of last year and of last January have increased emphasis on domestic terrorism in many departments. — ssu

I hope so. And they need to look within their own ranks while they are at it. We will always have these folks, but they need to stay under fridge when the lights are on. Lately they've been brave and getting braver.

And of course, let's not forget that it was a vote of 81 million to 74 million, so the smartest thing isn't to call those 74 million followers that have to be kept tabs on. — ssu

Most of those 74m were smarter and stayed home. It doesn't take a whole lot to be smarter than Trump, or to have more courage.

Nothing alienates conservatives and authoritarian right-wingers more than mob attacking and killing policemen. — ssu

I refuse to cede that ground to them. I think they pick and choose which mob and which cop will get their interest or alienation.

And yet it happened. I suspect it happened, not because the apparatus wasn't looking, but because so many within it "stood back and stood by" while it happened. — James Riley

The Trump crowd hadn't been violent before. And of course, Trump didn't respond to the riot, obviously, but just looked at how events unfolded. Simple as that, actually.

Most of those 74m were smarter and stayed home. It doesn't take a whole lot to be smarter than Trump, or to have more courage. — James Riley

And most of those 81 million weren't rioting in the streets last summer either. They stayed home too.

I refuse to cede that ground to them. I think they pick and choose which mob and which cop will get their interest or alienation. — James Riley

Well, you go with the polarization of your country then, if you want. I've lost hope that Americans could be capable of consensus or calming down and doing away with the polarization. If a pandemic cannot get Americans together, what could do that? Think of your fellow citizens as the enemy then, if you like it. Some seen to do so.

The Trump crowd hadn't been violent before. And of course, Trump didn't respond to the riot, obviously, but just looked at how events unfolded. Simple as that, actually. — ssu

The Trump crowd doesn't need to be violent when they sport AR-15s and the cops don't give them shit (Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.). But the chatter was all about rolling over resistance. And they did exactly that. Had it been BLM, now way.

Well, you go with the polarization of your country then, if you want. . . . Think of your fellow citizens as the enemy then, if you like it. Some seen to do so. — ssu

I'm one of those who stayed home too. That doesn't stop me from having an opinion.

This is probably not fair of me, because I should refine my argument first, before using it, especially when calling upon analogy. But I liken this situation to the movie Platoon. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. If you are not inclined, then that is my fault for leaving it at that, without first finishing the argument in support of the analogy. But if you are inclined, or familiar, my outline is this:

Cop who shot woman = Chris
Women who got shot = S.Sgt Barnes
Cop who was killed = Sgt. Elias
Traitors at large = Sgt. O’Neill
Cops who were confused = Big Harold
Putin = NVA
United States = United States
Trump = one off. I can’t recall anyone in history so far off the rails. Even Trump's followers have morals. I may not agree them, but they at least have them.

It is evidence of the fragility of democracy when Sgt. Elias is killed, leaving it to an airstrike on our own positions to create an opening for Chris to shoot Barnes. I’m just naïve enough to think our ranks are full of Sgt. Elias types. And that they all recognize the Barnes’ of the world as the Blue Falcons that they are. Perhaps I am like Big Harold in that regard.

But polarization? Yeah. Blue Falcons are the heroes of the right, all while they stupidly think Sgt. Elias was the Blue Falcon. He wasn't. We lucked out that the NVA and the U.S. got together and created an opening for Chris. Barnes was off the rails and leadership failed to line him out.

The lesson is to correct this shit now. When you strike the King and fail, you need to burn. If the right wants to bury the hatchet, they need to confess the error of their ways first. They brought this shit on themselves. They are back under the fridge for now. But we have to assume they are planning. And they may be hiding in an among our intelligence, law enforcement and military communities. If all they do is drag their feet we'll be lucky.

Interesting option to view this like Platoon.

If the right wants to bury the hatchet, they need to confess the error of their ways first. They brought this shit on themselves. They are back under the fridge for now. But we have to assume they are planning. And they may be hiding in an among our intelligence, law enforcement and military communities. If all they do is drag their feet we'll be lucky. — James Riley

Just replace the word "the right" with "the left": "If the left wants to bury the hatchet, they need to confess the error of their ways first. They brought this shit on themselves, etc. etc." How does that sound?

I'm just trying to point out how hollow this is. "The Right" just as "The Left" depicted as a single actor isn't credible here. Q-anon followers, the Proud Boys, Oath Takers, the Bugaloo-movement and other aren't those 74 million voters. There are up to 6 000 Proud Boys at best, perhaps several thousand Oath Takers and so on. Less than four hundred people were charged on the assault on the Capitol. In a country of well over 300 million that is not much, but naturally these fringe people can have a big impact. Yet one should call them out with their own name. I wouldn't say they portray all the people in "the right" in a republic. Yet this is very common on both sides. On the right the left, the liberals and especially the progressives are depicted as staunch enthusiastic supporters of the leftist rioters. That simply isn't true, even if there are those who give the thumbs up for rioting.

Radicalization of the extremes can turn ugly and there are historical examples of this. Italy had a big problem from the end of the 1960's to the start of the 1980's with a crisis now called the Years of Lead. The history from Italy is a good example of what happened when radical elements start fighting their "war" on the streets and this goes on, even if the economy of the country is doing rather OK. I hope it doesn't get to something like that in the US, but that tempers calm down.

"The Right" just as "The Left" depicted as a single actor isn't credible here. — ssu

You are correct. I am embarrassed about that post and I regret posting it. Sad thing is, I knew I shouldn't post it as I was doing so.

My point was this: The left is naïve if they think there is a hero out there who going to save them from the right. The left is naïve if they think those *few* people you refer to on the right don't pose a substantial, credible threat. The absolute trust that is required in intelligence, the military and law enforcement creates a culture where one bad apple can spread and ruin the barrel.

The blue line is wonderful. It's the blue wall that I worry about. We can only hope the right is equally naïve in thinking they will find a leader with the courage and commitment and skill sets of their ideal fantasy. (Remember Trump spun out as Rambo?)

I am fully aware of how the right can look at the left in the same light that the left can look at the right. That is a false equivalence, akin to the media giving time to both sides and then patting themselves on the back for being neutral. That's BS. Lies are not facts. But there are fundamental principles of our form of government that are reduced to writing in our organic documents. America has what I call a tone, and Trump, as a leader, had the wrong tone.

There is someone at the top of every organization. It is incumbent upon them to appreciate the extreme difficulty faced by those below when it comes to interpersonal loyalty. So difficult can that issue be, peers will pretend there is no difficulty at all, capitulating to blind loyalty itself. They will do this regardless of any differences which might otherwise exist.

Every institution has a wall. Law enforcement has a blue wall of silence. Another wall springs from the shared experience of military service. Such a wall is equally as compelling, if not more so. Who is going to care if the man who has your six, or who saved your life, or shared your tribulations, is also a criminal, a racist, a bigot, a fascist, a communist, a misogynist or any other ist? He is your brother, regardless, right? If he slows his roll in response to an incident because he supports the people involved in that incident, then he needs to burn. Otherwise, his peer, who may be ready to go to the incident and do his job will lose faith in the institution he is a part of, and will have every incentive to side with the peer who stood down. Bad apple effect.

It is the job of the person at the top to make sure such difficulty never exists, or is at least allayed. Leadership must honor our tone, and defend to the death all those who abide that tone. Leadership must create an environment where a whistleblower doesn’t need protection, but is, instead, a hero. A virtue must be made of necessity; for the tone itself is a virtue.

Leadership must allow a person to maintain a distance, and vet a peer, prior to developing a friendship or a trust with that peer. And during this period, leadership must itself vet and weed out any who might run afoul of the tone. And leadership must do this weeding before friendships are made; before unimpeachable loyalty is allowed to develop.

This is the difficulty of leadership, because many a vetting process is specifically designed to create a trust and dependence among peers. In boot camp, men are encouraged to help each other without there first having been a determination of an individual’s attitude toward others, or toward the tone. Indeed, this can be a good thing, helping to break down barriers that subvert the tone. But the difficulty of leadership is further exacerbated by the fact the leader himself has risen through that process, and may have, due to a lack of good leadership above, “looked the other way” along the road. One General my give a pass to another, simply because they are in the same clique, attending the same venues. The same vetting process that will allow a black man to trust a white man, and vice versa, is also a process that will allow a hater to slip through. The process of vetting must not only engender trust between peers; it must weed out the untrustworthy threats to the tone.

And the peer, too, has responsibility. You simply cannot be a Blue Falcon if the guy you falcon was never your blue in the first place. Get to know a man before he becomes your buddy. Get to know the tone that an institution aspires to. If it is your tone, then defend it. And sleep well at night after having done so.
If it is not your tone, then find another institution. Let yourself know where you stand, in advance of taking an oath. If you instead try to slip through, spinning tone to your own understanding, selling yourself on an interpretation after the fact, obtaining the benefits of the institution, then you are dishonorable. You are a traitor. Falcon you. And falcon those who whine about the Power Point presentations and other BS designed to weed them out.

If, in the spirit of America and the First Amendment, you want to debate the meaning of the tone, or what this tone is of which I speak, then by all means, join an institution designed for that purpose. Go to a university or elsewhere, and hone your edge upon the best. Or scream alone in the darkness. Run for office. Whatever. But if an institutional understanding of the tone is not your understanding, then don’t join. And if you are not sure if your understanding is in accord, ask the institution itself. But don’t dishonor your understanding of the tone, lest you be dishonorable.

As for the salvageable person, test them, and don’t let them through until they pass. For who knows now who we can trust at the higher echelons? Who knows the extent of the insidious creep of the traitor? Which superior is it safe to blow the whistle to?

Leadership starts at the top. Leadership sets the tone that springs from our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Enforce. Find men and women of leadership and character and spine who, with due process of law, can vet and weed out the traitor. And back their hand when they do it. For, ultimately, the institution is subordinate to the tone.

We are damn lucky Trump was no leader and lacked the convictions in which to have a courage that he also lacked. We may not be so lucky next time.