Another interesting article! A couple of thoughts - I agree it was foolish and cowardly for Twitter to do this now. That's the difficulty with having different standards for public leaders and the public. Many of his posts violated the rules in ways that would have gotten any of us kicked off permanently. Maybe a commission is necessary, or maybe they should just consistently enforce their standards.
I think that you are denying Trump supporters agency in blaming the majority of their actions/reactions on the left. At some point, as with the left, they MUST take responsibility for their actions.
As far as the campaign financing race goes, unfortunately, because of the electoral college and the extreme gerrymandering in "Red" states, Democrats have to raise much more to overcome the inherent Republican advantage. If you have to get 4% more of the vote to eke out a win nationally or can still lose a legislature by 60+% of the seats while having a clear majority of the votes cast, that's a sign that something is seriously out of balance. I think that Republicans were able to get by with less fundraising because Trump is a once in a lifetime figure. Of course, this is all due to Citizen's United, which, if Republicans would assent, could be done away with (although given the conservative lean of the Supreme Court, probably not). During the campaign, many Democrats were in favor of breaking up these companies, with some Republicans now coming on board.
I think you are seriously understating what went on at the Capitol. These people did not just go in to break a few things. They went in to go after the Vice President and the Democratic Leaders and a relatively large number of Republican leaders were cheering them on. Additionally, there have been several armed intrusions by right-wing militias recently - Michigan and Oregon in particular.
I also think you are downplaying the effect that race plays in all of this. Certainly, the hardcore left DID take advantage of the Protests this spring and summer to do VERY bad things, but this was started in response to a very good and important issue of discussing the interaction of policing and race. I found an interesting non-partisan group that researches violence on the far-left and right: https://networkcontagion.us/. It was very illuminating. I continue to believe that race is a larger problem in the US than class, because class can be reasonably fixed by leveling the economic playing field (providing that there is the will to do so), whereas to fix racial inequality, you have to somehow overcome all of the societal racial issues in addition to the economic issues.
Thank you Bob! I disagree. The money THIS time, in my opinion, was above and beyond what is decent in any political election. Think about just the Lincoln Project alone. I think if this is what it takes to win an election it is going to be very difficult for any elections in America to be free, especially when Big Tech has its thumb on the scale to such an enormous degree. If I was running government I would set limits on Big Tech immediately. Money is a little more tricky, I know, but I hope I never in my lifetime see an election like the one we just lived through. It did not seem fair. Most of Trump's supporters aren't educated elites and they have no voice. Just as the majority on the left who live in the cities feel like they have the majority but still no voice. In this country, if we're to be united, has to figure out a way to address both of these needs.
Thanks for the response! I think this election is going to end up being a bit anomalous (I hope so, so much!) due to the Trump factor. It was very definitely way beyond decent, probably beyond obscene. I've spent a fair amount of time working all over my state of Oregon along with having some Q-Anon relatives, and try to engage in conversions on their terms (I am a visitor). I have not been able to get a real sense of what is desired politically. Certainly, the rural vs. urban divide is prominent and has always been (and probably ever shall be) There are a fair number of rural communities that are unwilling to help themselves maintain the services that they desire. For that, I am grateful that the state redistributes resources fairly well (sending more money per capita rurally than for urban areas - which is fine with me) - it got to a point where the tilt was bad enough that the Portland area decided to tax ourselves to get some infrastructure that helped ease commutes for people from more rural areas. Certainly, local control is an issue both ways, but that also has always been a problem (and probably ever shall be). Guns is a pretty big divide, but a rallying cry of "they're coming for our guns" isn't true and has gone significantly the other way toward many, many more guns being owned.
I think one of the difficulties here is the huge long term success of the Conservative media and Republican leadership that has not come to grips with the changing demographics For most of my adult life (and it's been a while), those living in urban areas have been the other - unpatriotic, unAmerican, femi-nazi libtards forcing our beliefs down their throats. Largely untrue, but I get it. I feel that a lot of Trump supporters have been actively lied to for decades (late 80's-early 90's) by Republican leaders (equally as elite as the liberal elites - and in some cases having more power) and more recently Trump that we are their enemies and are genuinely bewildered that many of those lies aren't and can't be true. Republicans have simultaneously held both the presidency and the legislature for 6 years of the last 20 vs 2 for Democrats and have gained a 6-3 in the Supreme Court. Additionally, they held the Senate for 6 of 8 of Obama's years, shutting down most everything. Given that, it is not surprising that Democrats pushed so hard this year. If I may turn your argument on its head a bit Democrats have been terrified these four years - and in some cases for good reasons. What have Republicans had to be afraid of? Unfortunately, the press has moved left, but when you actively campaign and govern on them being the literal enemy of the people, I guess you have to expect pushback.
Sorry this went a bit longer than I thought! Thanks again for your efforts to explain where you are coming from!
One last thing, I guess the thing that Republicans/Trump supporters can honestly say they haven't got are the potential financial safetly that they are due. Unfortunately, a fair amount of that goes back to Republican elites that have rewarded the elite in general and Republican elite in particular. Thanks!
When you referred to lowering the increase of accepted ballots were you meaning to refer to the lower rejection rate?
Do you genuinely not see what an absurdly false equivalency it is to liken storming the Capitol in a bid to help overturn the results before Biden has become president with peaceful marches which took place after Trump was inaugurated?
The idea that the storming of the Capitol would have happened without Trump is preposterous. The notion of it being rigged would have remained far more fringe without the president to both set the tone and repeatedly amplify it.
You say that anyone rational would have an issue with the way mail-in ballots were utilised. I'd counter that anyone rational should see that the amended way of doing things was an extremely sensible way of running an election during a pandemic.
Your concerns about the power of big tech undoubtedly have some validity to them but, for me anyway, they get utterly lost amongst your deluge of basless sweeping statements.
And I really enjoy having conversations with people where they don't come at that conversation with shrieking condemnations. I tend to shut down any desire to interact with you. So if you do indeed want to have a conversation with me and ask me what I actually think without shrieking at me I can do that.
Having said the below, if I am ever moved to want to question your point of view again I will attempt to do so in a less adverserial style. I genuinely didn't think that would bother you, but this is your forum to address the topics of the day, so if commenting again I'll modify my tone accordingly.
Thank you. I appreciate that, I really do. I have a combative nature on Twitter but in the past few months I've had to leave Facebook because I could not handle harsh confrontation -- I dunno. I'm sure it's me. You didn't really sound harsh at all.
Can you direct me to the part of my post you consider to be shrieking, because that seems to me to be a deeply unfair characterisation of what I wrote.
You write with pretty heightened (and often damning) rhetoric yourself so I am surprised that you would consider words like "preposterous" to be shrieking or beyond the pale.
I've made specific points in my post. If you don't want to respond to them that is entirely your prerogative but I find it a bit cheap to use feigned outrage at my tone as a reason not to do so.
Worth noting you didn't address most of the points Bob made either, and generally don't respond to questions asked in response to your political postings in most forums, regardless of how politely they are put.
As I said, we're all a little stressed out and mildly traumatized so if you could just speak directly that would work. So you want to know how I can compare the mob on January 6 with what happened over the summer, right? So I have spent a lot of time inside Trump world - and I know most people have not done that. I was listening to Steve Bannon's podcast - ground zero for Stop the Steal. But these guys pride themselves on being nonviolent. It's the only point of pride against the "radical left" for them. They are pro law enforcement, pro-police and they never riot. Not only that but they brag about it. Q'anon, however, the ones who were partly responsible for the rhetoric that led to that riot, ARE violent in terms of what they threaten they're going to do. That's how you get a guy which a machine gun at a pizza place looking for a child molestation ring. Somehow that hysteria has been appropriated to Joe Biden, believe it or not, and that fear continues. I don't really know anyone from Q all that well (one of my good friends is involved with the group so I know what their goals and motivations are. What he told me is that Trump is "useful" but not the center of the movement. They are anti-globalist, anti "child molestation rings," very anti-Pelosi. Trump was useful to them but they existed before and will exist afterwards. Trump supporters were mixed in with them and caught up in a violent frenzy. One of the problems with right now is that we accept what we hear on Twitter or see on MSNBC as fact. Unfortunately that turns out not to be true. We get versions of stories but not the whole story. I personally would love to know what made a group of usually nonviolent Trump supporters suddenly become violent. Trump supporters, for instance, would never beat up a police officer or damage public property. That is uncharacteristic for them. Trump's "stop the steal" had a very specific goal in mind - they were debating the points made IN the Capitol. So why would they create something that would completely destroy Trump's case? Why would Trump supporters do that when they knew the case was being debated in Congress? Because they were not Trump supporters -- they might have supported Trump but their mission and their goals are ongoing and won't stop once Trump is out of office.
Thank you for explaining all that- it was interesting to hear and this is definitely a better forum for such things being explained than twitter.
That wasn't actually my question though. You compared what happened on January 6th to the "pussy hat" matches, which I took to mean the Women's marches in protest against Trump which started in 2017. From what I remember they were peaceful, but also, more importantly, the first one did not take place until the day after Trump was inaugurated. That was the comparison which I was querying.
You've certainly been a lot more privy to how Trump fans think than I have. At the risk of indulging in a lazy stereotype, from my point of view what happened felt like it fit reasonably with typical Tea Party style rhetoric of threatening an armed uprising if anyone tried to take their guns (except here it was their president, who protects their guns, and from "socialism"). I know Trump isn't responsible for starting that kind of sentiment, for the Tea Party (obviously), or for Q Anon. However, it doesn't really seem arguable (and I'm not sure you are arguing this) that he didn't hugely embolden the more dangerous elements of his base by making them feel they had the support and backing of the most powerful politician in the country.
With regards to comparisons with what happened over the summer, I can certainly see the relation in terms of the looters and rioters being to BLM protesters what Q Anon etc are to Trump supporters. The reason I don't find it persuasive when equivalence is drawn between them overall is because the primary spark for the BLM protests and riots was police brutality, whereas the actions of Jan 6th were directly sparked by repeated groundless claims of election fraud and heightened rhetoric from Trump about the presidency being stolen and never conceding. I know there are other things which fostered the atmosphere in which people were susceptible to Trump, but the ultimate cause and effect when it comes to Jan 6th seems indisputable.
On other points, I consider increased mail-in voting and extra voting methods to make total sense in a pandemic, and that it would have gone far more smoothly but for Trump and his party sabotaging the postal service and refusing to let votes be counted in some states prior to polls closing.
Anyway, that's probably a lot more than you wanted to plough through, but thank you for engaging!
Hi Rob. I read your earlier comments and I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
The death of Floyd wasn't the only reason for the nationwide paroxysms of violence on the behalf of BLM/Antifa, as much as January 6th wasn't the only reason for what happened that day. It was a spark that lit kindling piling in the dark.
Both groups share similar grievances: There exists only a performative government and that they have been ignored, cast aside and treated as inconsequential cogs in a machine that denies its very existence.
What results? I don't know, but reading your interactions with Sasha is a positive sign.
Do they consider Boogaloo Bois and Proud Boys as part of their non-violence? If so, they are deceiving themselves to a certain extent. Around these parts, the Proud Boys have been instigators of violence on many occasions. Additionally, a member of the Boogaloo Bois drove from Texas to Minnesota at the very start of the George Floyd protests and has been charged with crossing state lines to participate in a riot by helping start the fire that burned down a police precinct building and shot up the place. The article - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo-boi-minneapolis-police-building-george-floyd - describes the networking that occurred on the far-right in relation to the summer's protests. That didn't get any condemnation from anyone on the right either. Unfortunately, this a real "both sides" situation that places the vast majority of us in the middle. Thanks!
Yeah again I don't think they are specific to Trump supporters. I think they are to the right what ANTIFA (or whatever) is to the left. They are roving mobs of thugs, in other words, empowered by -- whatever it is they are empowered by. Proud Boys are pro first Amendment. Rittenhouse was out there with guns mimicking that ideology. They support Trump but their allegiance is to "protecting" others from violence. No one ever talks about the violence the left perpetuates. It is always seen as justified. And yet, that has been the most common in 2020. Violence being mainly directed at property or taking control of cities, forcing defund, etc. But they've been far more active than proud boys or boogaloo. I do not know anything about boogaloo, btw. But I would think people would pay more attention to an entire year of uprisings in this country on various sides. It isn't all Trump's fault and I don't think it's going to end when Trump leaves. We'll see if I'm right.
Just FYI, the Boogaloo Bois are a far-right militia group hoping to incite a second civil war.
One last belated comment, I was thinking about the claim that these "guys pride themselves on being nonviolent" and recalled that there was a fair amount of violence at Trump rallies (protesters getting beaten - press getting threatened) in 2016 incited by Trump himself - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-violence/ - I think there might be a slight disconnect in that there was little violence after the 2016 election from Trump supporters because they won everything, so what would be the point. I think another point of disconnection is that any violence from either side, does not happen in their communities, Most all of the Trump rallies happened in urban areas near airports. There was an incident here in Portland during the election where normal Trump supporters had a rally in an adjacent county then caravaned to downtown and were macing and shooting protesters with military-style paintball guns from the backs of their trucks.
It is, however, exhausting and dispiriting, to have to know about all of these stupid fringe groups.
Another interesting article! A couple of thoughts - I agree it was foolish and cowardly for Twitter to do this now. That's the difficulty with having different standards for public leaders and the public. Many of his posts violated the rules in ways that would have gotten any of us kicked off permanently. Maybe a commission is necessary, or maybe they should just consistently enforce their standards.
I think that you are denying Trump supporters agency in blaming the majority of their actions/reactions on the left. At some point, as with the left, they MUST take responsibility for their actions.
As far as the campaign financing race goes, unfortunately, because of the electoral college and the extreme gerrymandering in "Red" states, Democrats have to raise much more to overcome the inherent Republican advantage. If you have to get 4% more of the vote to eke out a win nationally or can still lose a legislature by 60+% of the seats while having a clear majority of the votes cast, that's a sign that something is seriously out of balance. I think that Republicans were able to get by with less fundraising because Trump is a once in a lifetime figure. Of course, this is all due to Citizen's United, which, if Republicans would assent, could be done away with (although given the conservative lean of the Supreme Court, probably not). During the campaign, many Democrats were in favor of breaking up these companies, with some Republicans now coming on board.
I think you are seriously understating what went on at the Capitol. These people did not just go in to break a few things. They went in to go after the Vice President and the Democratic Leaders and a relatively large number of Republican leaders were cheering them on. Additionally, there have been several armed intrusions by right-wing militias recently - Michigan and Oregon in particular.
I also think you are downplaying the effect that race plays in all of this. Certainly, the hardcore left DID take advantage of the Protests this spring and summer to do VERY bad things, but this was started in response to a very good and important issue of discussing the interaction of policing and race. I found an interesting non-partisan group that researches violence on the far-left and right: https://networkcontagion.us/. It was very illuminating. I continue to believe that race is a larger problem in the US than class, because class can be reasonably fixed by leveling the economic playing field (providing that there is the will to do so), whereas to fix racial inequality, you have to somehow overcome all of the societal racial issues in addition to the economic issues.
Thanks for another thoughtful article!
Thank you Bob! I disagree. The money THIS time, in my opinion, was above and beyond what is decent in any political election. Think about just the Lincoln Project alone. I think if this is what it takes to win an election it is going to be very difficult for any elections in America to be free, especially when Big Tech has its thumb on the scale to such an enormous degree. If I was running government I would set limits on Big Tech immediately. Money is a little more tricky, I know, but I hope I never in my lifetime see an election like the one we just lived through. It did not seem fair. Most of Trump's supporters aren't educated elites and they have no voice. Just as the majority on the left who live in the cities feel like they have the majority but still no voice. In this country, if we're to be united, has to figure out a way to address both of these needs.
Thanks for the response! I think this election is going to end up being a bit anomalous (I hope so, so much!) due to the Trump factor. It was very definitely way beyond decent, probably beyond obscene. I've spent a fair amount of time working all over my state of Oregon along with having some Q-Anon relatives, and try to engage in conversions on their terms (I am a visitor). I have not been able to get a real sense of what is desired politically. Certainly, the rural vs. urban divide is prominent and has always been (and probably ever shall be) There are a fair number of rural communities that are unwilling to help themselves maintain the services that they desire. For that, I am grateful that the state redistributes resources fairly well (sending more money per capita rurally than for urban areas - which is fine with me) - it got to a point where the tilt was bad enough that the Portland area decided to tax ourselves to get some infrastructure that helped ease commutes for people from more rural areas. Certainly, local control is an issue both ways, but that also has always been a problem (and probably ever shall be). Guns is a pretty big divide, but a rallying cry of "they're coming for our guns" isn't true and has gone significantly the other way toward many, many more guns being owned.
I think one of the difficulties here is the huge long term success of the Conservative media and Republican leadership that has not come to grips with the changing demographics For most of my adult life (and it's been a while), those living in urban areas have been the other - unpatriotic, unAmerican, femi-nazi libtards forcing our beliefs down their throats. Largely untrue, but I get it. I feel that a lot of Trump supporters have been actively lied to for decades (late 80's-early 90's) by Republican leaders (equally as elite as the liberal elites - and in some cases having more power) and more recently Trump that we are their enemies and are genuinely bewildered that many of those lies aren't and can't be true. Republicans have simultaneously held both the presidency and the legislature for 6 years of the last 20 vs 2 for Democrats and have gained a 6-3 in the Supreme Court. Additionally, they held the Senate for 6 of 8 of Obama's years, shutting down most everything. Given that, it is not surprising that Democrats pushed so hard this year. If I may turn your argument on its head a bit Democrats have been terrified these four years - and in some cases for good reasons. What have Republicans had to be afraid of? Unfortunately, the press has moved left, but when you actively campaign and govern on them being the literal enemy of the people, I guess you have to expect pushback.
Sorry this went a bit longer than I thought! Thanks again for your efforts to explain where you are coming from!
One last thing, I guess the thing that Republicans/Trump supporters can honestly say they haven't got are the potential financial safetly that they are due. Unfortunately, a fair amount of that goes back to Republican elites that have rewarded the elite in general and Republican elite in particular. Thanks!
When you referred to lowering the increase of accepted ballots were you meaning to refer to the lower rejection rate?
Do you genuinely not see what an absurdly false equivalency it is to liken storming the Capitol in a bid to help overturn the results before Biden has become president with peaceful marches which took place after Trump was inaugurated?
The idea that the storming of the Capitol would have happened without Trump is preposterous. The notion of it being rigged would have remained far more fringe without the president to both set the tone and repeatedly amplify it.
You say that anyone rational would have an issue with the way mail-in ballots were utilised. I'd counter that anyone rational should see that the amended way of doing things was an extremely sensible way of running an election during a pandemic.
Your concerns about the power of big tech undoubtedly have some validity to them but, for me anyway, they get utterly lost amongst your deluge of basless sweeping statements.
And I really enjoy having conversations with people where they don't come at that conversation with shrieking condemnations. I tend to shut down any desire to interact with you. So if you do indeed want to have a conversation with me and ask me what I actually think without shrieking at me I can do that.
Having said the below, if I am ever moved to want to question your point of view again I will attempt to do so in a less adverserial style. I genuinely didn't think that would bother you, but this is your forum to address the topics of the day, so if commenting again I'll modify my tone accordingly.
Thank you. I appreciate that, I really do. I have a combative nature on Twitter but in the past few months I've had to leave Facebook because I could not handle harsh confrontation -- I dunno. I'm sure it's me. You didn't really sound harsh at all.
Can you direct me to the part of my post you consider to be shrieking, because that seems to me to be a deeply unfair characterisation of what I wrote.
You write with pretty heightened (and often damning) rhetoric yourself so I am surprised that you would consider words like "preposterous" to be shrieking or beyond the pale.
I've made specific points in my post. If you don't want to respond to them that is entirely your prerogative but I find it a bit cheap to use feigned outrage at my tone as a reason not to do so.
Worth noting you didn't address most of the points Bob made either, and generally don't respond to questions asked in response to your political postings in most forums, regardless of how politely they are put.
As I said, we're all a little stressed out and mildly traumatized so if you could just speak directly that would work. So you want to know how I can compare the mob on January 6 with what happened over the summer, right? So I have spent a lot of time inside Trump world - and I know most people have not done that. I was listening to Steve Bannon's podcast - ground zero for Stop the Steal. But these guys pride themselves on being nonviolent. It's the only point of pride against the "radical left" for them. They are pro law enforcement, pro-police and they never riot. Not only that but they brag about it. Q'anon, however, the ones who were partly responsible for the rhetoric that led to that riot, ARE violent in terms of what they threaten they're going to do. That's how you get a guy which a machine gun at a pizza place looking for a child molestation ring. Somehow that hysteria has been appropriated to Joe Biden, believe it or not, and that fear continues. I don't really know anyone from Q all that well (one of my good friends is involved with the group so I know what their goals and motivations are. What he told me is that Trump is "useful" but not the center of the movement. They are anti-globalist, anti "child molestation rings," very anti-Pelosi. Trump was useful to them but they existed before and will exist afterwards. Trump supporters were mixed in with them and caught up in a violent frenzy. One of the problems with right now is that we accept what we hear on Twitter or see on MSNBC as fact. Unfortunately that turns out not to be true. We get versions of stories but not the whole story. I personally would love to know what made a group of usually nonviolent Trump supporters suddenly become violent. Trump supporters, for instance, would never beat up a police officer or damage public property. That is uncharacteristic for them. Trump's "stop the steal" had a very specific goal in mind - they were debating the points made IN the Capitol. So why would they create something that would completely destroy Trump's case? Why would Trump supporters do that when they knew the case was being debated in Congress? Because they were not Trump supporters -- they might have supported Trump but their mission and their goals are ongoing and won't stop once Trump is out of office.
Thank you for explaining all that- it was interesting to hear and this is definitely a better forum for such things being explained than twitter.
That wasn't actually my question though. You compared what happened on January 6th to the "pussy hat" matches, which I took to mean the Women's marches in protest against Trump which started in 2017. From what I remember they were peaceful, but also, more importantly, the first one did not take place until the day after Trump was inaugurated. That was the comparison which I was querying.
You've certainly been a lot more privy to how Trump fans think than I have. At the risk of indulging in a lazy stereotype, from my point of view what happened felt like it fit reasonably with typical Tea Party style rhetoric of threatening an armed uprising if anyone tried to take their guns (except here it was their president, who protects their guns, and from "socialism"). I know Trump isn't responsible for starting that kind of sentiment, for the Tea Party (obviously), or for Q Anon. However, it doesn't really seem arguable (and I'm not sure you are arguing this) that he didn't hugely embolden the more dangerous elements of his base by making them feel they had the support and backing of the most powerful politician in the country.
With regards to comparisons with what happened over the summer, I can certainly see the relation in terms of the looters and rioters being to BLM protesters what Q Anon etc are to Trump supporters. The reason I don't find it persuasive when equivalence is drawn between them overall is because the primary spark for the BLM protests and riots was police brutality, whereas the actions of Jan 6th were directly sparked by repeated groundless claims of election fraud and heightened rhetoric from Trump about the presidency being stolen and never conceding. I know there are other things which fostered the atmosphere in which people were susceptible to Trump, but the ultimate cause and effect when it comes to Jan 6th seems indisputable.
On other points, I consider increased mail-in voting and extra voting methods to make total sense in a pandemic, and that it would have gone far more smoothly but for Trump and his party sabotaging the postal service and refusing to let votes be counted in some states prior to polls closing.
Anyway, that's probably a lot more than you wanted to plough through, but thank you for engaging!
Hi Rob. I read your earlier comments and I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
The death of Floyd wasn't the only reason for the nationwide paroxysms of violence on the behalf of BLM/Antifa, as much as January 6th wasn't the only reason for what happened that day. It was a spark that lit kindling piling in the dark.
Both groups share similar grievances: There exists only a performative government and that they have been ignored, cast aside and treated as inconsequential cogs in a machine that denies its very existence.
What results? I don't know, but reading your interactions with Sasha is a positive sign.
Do they consider Boogaloo Bois and Proud Boys as part of their non-violence? If so, they are deceiving themselves to a certain extent. Around these parts, the Proud Boys have been instigators of violence on many occasions. Additionally, a member of the Boogaloo Bois drove from Texas to Minnesota at the very start of the George Floyd protests and has been charged with crossing state lines to participate in a riot by helping start the fire that burned down a police precinct building and shot up the place. The article - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo-boi-minneapolis-police-building-george-floyd - describes the networking that occurred on the far-right in relation to the summer's protests. That didn't get any condemnation from anyone on the right either. Unfortunately, this a real "both sides" situation that places the vast majority of us in the middle. Thanks!
Yeah again I don't think they are specific to Trump supporters. I think they are to the right what ANTIFA (or whatever) is to the left. They are roving mobs of thugs, in other words, empowered by -- whatever it is they are empowered by. Proud Boys are pro first Amendment. Rittenhouse was out there with guns mimicking that ideology. They support Trump but their allegiance is to "protecting" others from violence. No one ever talks about the violence the left perpetuates. It is always seen as justified. And yet, that has been the most common in 2020. Violence being mainly directed at property or taking control of cities, forcing defund, etc. But they've been far more active than proud boys or boogaloo. I do not know anything about boogaloo, btw. But I would think people would pay more attention to an entire year of uprisings in this country on various sides. It isn't all Trump's fault and I don't think it's going to end when Trump leaves. We'll see if I'm right.
Hi Sasha,
Just FYI, the Boogaloo Bois are a far-right militia group hoping to incite a second civil war.
One last belated comment, I was thinking about the claim that these "guys pride themselves on being nonviolent" and recalled that there was a fair amount of violence at Trump rallies (protesters getting beaten - press getting threatened) in 2016 incited by Trump himself - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-violence/ - I think there might be a slight disconnect in that there was little violence after the 2016 election from Trump supporters because they won everything, so what would be the point. I think another point of disconnection is that any violence from either side, does not happen in their communities, Most all of the Trump rallies happened in urban areas near airports. There was an incident here in Portland during the election where normal Trump supporters had a rally in an adjacent county then caravaned to downtown and were macing and shooting protesters with military-style paintball guns from the backs of their trucks.
It is, however, exhausting and dispiriting, to have to know about all of these stupid fringe groups.
Thanks!