Student Opinion: All Aboard the Trump Train! Final Stop: Impeachment No. 2

(Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

By Gisselle Zaragoza

Just as the dust had begun to settle following the Capitol’s riots, Democrats (and a few Republicans) came to the rescue. This past week, Congress successfully moved forward with impeaching President Donald Trump. With a vote of 232-197, 10 Republicans included, President Trump was impeached a second time during his four-year term for inciting chaos at the Capitol. 

Trump just keeps on making history, doesn’t he? The only U.S. president who managed to get impeached twice. Absolutely none have before Trump! I suppose I now see why Trump supporters roam the nation with such pride. Who wouldn’t when the leader of this country twists nationalism into white supremacist jargon and encourages vile behavior?

I can only imagine how refreshing it must feel to no longer have to hide behind white hoods and instead only have to add a bumper sticker to your diesel truck. Which other presidents would have a following that would show up to support them in a Camp Auschwitz shirt? What sane and logical person can truly say that America has ever been great? What exactly does it mean to “Make America Great Again”? 

Although most of America was finally able to breathe again after President Trump’s reign was officially coming to an end, the terror has only just begun. According to an article by USA Today, the Capitol is already responding to a threat directed towards the inauguration.

What happened to the right, saying there would be a peaceful transition if Biden won? 

As if there weren’t already so many things to attend to during these unprecedented times, now we have domestic terrorists becoming unhinged. There needs to be firm action taken against these people. Not only did they threaten the safety of government officials, they even went as far as to murder a police officer. 

Weren’t these the same people who “backed the blue”? Blue lives no longer seemed to matter when it got in the way of their riot. 

When will enough be enough? Not only has Trump given these people the right to spread hate, but he has also encouraged this infantile behavior. All we can do now is wait and see the results of the impeachment trial. 

Not only do the puppets have to be held accountable, but the puppet master must also be.  

Over the last couple of decades, political polarization has increasingly become a redundant issue. The main dilemma at hand is widespread blind loyalty to political parties. It’s important to understand that both sides have their fair share of propaganda, but we cannot deny the cold hard fact that there is an attack on our democracy happening. 

We cannot justify these actions. 

In a blatant act of domestic terrorism, we need to look past political parties and into what the riot meant for the nation. Suppose, we let something as detrimental as this go not condemned. In that case, it sends the message that violence is the answer when assuming a baseless conspiracy is true. 

We need to move forward as a nation and learn from President Trump’s failures to ensure the U.S. can become a shining example of what a democracy should be. Things have only progressively gotten worse in the United States following the 2020 election. 

Congress was swift to act as they understood what it would mean to allow this type of behavior to go unpunished. 

The future of the nation depends on it.

While I hope the horror ends here, I cannot confidently say that it will.

Gisselle Zaragoza is a third-year Political Science-Public Service major with a minor in Chicanx Studies. She is originally from Las Vegas, Nevada and is pursuing a career in immigration law. She is one of the Opinion Editors for the Davis Vanguard at UC Davis. 


Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

About The Author

Related posts

127 Comments

  1. Keith Olsen

    Trump just keeps on making history, doesn’t he? The only U.S. president who managed to get impeached twice. Absolutely none have before Trump

    When it only takes a simple majority of the House to impeach a sitting president this will now become more the norm than the exception.

    1. Bill Marshall

      Not if they don’t egregiously commit impeachable acts… I was disappointed that the House did not include the documented phone call to the (Republican) GA Secretary of State attempting to use coercion, possible ‘abuse of power’, to have the SoS fraudulantly come up with “different” vote totals. There were very implied threats in that transcript… no one has denied that the recording was “real”… had the SoS complied, and certified false results (along with the Republican Governor) THEY would have been culpable on conspiracy and perjury grounds… a ‘slam dunk’ for an additional article or two… but the House ‘muffed’ that one…

      Either POTUS is a criminal, or Pence and cabinet should have certified him as “section 25″… has to be one or the other.

      The House ‘fumbled’ in not putting that in the articles of impeachment… had they added that, there would likely be much more than 17 Republican Senators ready, willing, and able to convict (and probably in record time).

      1. Keith Echols

        I never understood the point behind impeachment against Trump.  Unless you already know that you have the votes in the Senate to remove him….what’s the point?  I’ve heard that it’s important to get it on official record….ooooh!  a mark on Trump’s permanent record!  I’m sure he was worried about it at the time.  You can’t shame the shameless.  All the impeachment did was make the Democrats look weak and whiney for going through the motions.   The first time they impeached him there was no way the Senate vote was going to remove him….it was just wasted time on political circus/theater.  This time around….I dunno…I hope the Democrats are smarter about it and know they have the votes in the Senate….otherwise it’s the same stupidity all over again.

        1. David Greenwald

          Agree on the first but not the second. If the second wasn’t impeachable, nothing is. Politically it forces Republicans to eitehr defend or bury Trump. That’s not a losing issue either.

        2. Tia Will

          Keith

          I totally disagree with your post of 9:58. Since when has it become a “weakness” to tell the truth? When is it “weak” to stand up for principles even if you know the majority will not stand with you? When did transparency in service of the truth become a weakness?

        3. Keith Echols

          What’s the point of forcing Republicans to defend or bury Trump?  So what?  By February or March no one is going to care what happened anyway.  The court of public opinion’s memory is very short.   They’ll have moved on.

          The political talking heads will care…but so what.

        4. Keith Echols

          Tia,

          Crying foul and not being able to do anything about shows weakness.  It highlights that you can’t do anything.  It’s not a show of strength.

          Let me put it you another way….if you stand up to the school bully and tell the school how bad he is and then get into a fight with him and he beats you up….guess what?  You lost that confrontation.   Everything you’ve said is “the truth”….so what?

          Going on about the righteousness of truth and transparency sure feels good but it doesn’t accomplish anything without some muscle behind it (like the Senate votes to remove the President or actually beating up the bully).

        5. Bill Marshall

          Keith… your view is truly scary…

          I guess you feel professional Public Works staff should not have, time and time again warned the CC about street maintenance issues, requesting more funding year after year, knowing that it was unlikely the CC would ‘listen’ and vote the resources.

          Same logic.  Why would the staff even bring it to CC?  Look where we are in spite of that… probably would have been even worse if staff had remained silent for ~ 15 years…

          The house did not go far enough this time… they picked a ‘count’ that was the least provable… cowards… they should have laid all the cards on the table… the attempt to coerce GA State officials to fraudulantly change election results, perjuring themselves, and calling on the ‘bond’ of being ‘fellow Republicans’ to commit crimes?  That gets closer to ‘high crime’ than ‘misdemeanor’.  It was reprehensible… and he did it directly, instead of via a surrogate… that was flat out STUPID!  No chance for ‘plausible deniability’…

          I have yet to see any plausible challenge to the veracity and/or provenance of that tape… like Nixon, ‘condemned’ by his own words (and actions).

        6. Keith Echols

          Bill,

          Your outrage clouds you ability to see that your examples are not the same thing.  I’m sorry you feel so outraged that you can’t see that City Staff works to serve under (in terms that staff doesn’t make those decisions) the City Council.  There is no power play there. The staff did their jobs.  Righteous outrage doesn’t change the perception of strength and weakness among political leaders.

      1. Tia Will

        IMO it was not the Democrats who turned the first impeachment into a farce. It was the GOP who decided without hearing any evidence or witnesses. The second impeachment is not so easily dismissed because those of us on Twitter and some other social media followed Trump’s lies and incitement in real-time and then, watched the events of 1/6/21 unfold again in real-time. Much harder to ignore the facts when the nation has been watching.

        1. Keith Echols

          You have to stop looking at things in terms of fair play, what’s right…etc…  You have to view it in terms of raw political power.

          The Democrats made it a farce when they knew full well they weren’t going to get the Senate controlling Republicans to play fairly yet they went though with it anyway.

          It’s would be just as absurd and foolish of the Washington Generals to complain that the Harlem Globetrotters aren’t playing fairly.

    2. Tia Will

      When it only takes a simple majority of the House to impeach a sitting president this will now become more the norm than the exception.”

      Not if Congress chooses to only impeach on matters of national substance, not for acts such as lying about infidelity.

       

      1. Lila Zaragoza

        remember you can always log out “keith”! it’s called an opinion piece you know! and by the looks of your viewing of this situation i say you are butthurt about this oh keith😂

        1. Alan Miller

          i say you are butthurt about this

          seems like a judgement that could also be considered a personal insult, but perhaps I’m being judgemental.

          Isn’t one of the litmus tests for pornography “having no redeeming social value” ?

    3. Richard_McCann

      Given the increasing centralized power of the Presidency, using impeachment and conviction more often may be the best way to reign in future Presidents. We don’t have a parliamentary system with votes of confidence to control premiers, so this is the best remaining mechanism that we have. I don’t see a problem with using this more.

  2. Keith Echols

    I’m not sure what the point of this opinion piece is.  It seems like some sort of cathartic…like the writer really felt the need to express their feelings about the subject for some reason.

    1. Matt Williams

      Keith, if “some sort of cathartic” was indeed the point of the opinion, why is that problematic (bad)?  Opinion pieces and editorials are quite often expressions of the feelings of the author(s).  That has been the case since the time of Gutenberg.

  3. Chris Griffith

    You know I heard a rumor that Uncle Trump is not going to take Hair Force One as it means of transportation when he exits the White House I find that quite interesting 🤔 I Wonder if he’s going to take a stroll down Pennsylvania avenue as he exits town giving Aunt Pelosi the bird is he exits.

     

  4. Chris Griffith

    Since when has it become a “weakness” to tell the truth? When is it “weak” to stand up for principles even if you know the majority will not stand with you? When did transparency in service of the truth become a weakness?

    Since the very day they took away Donald Trump’s Twitter feed and Facebook feed that’s when it started

  5. Chris Griffith

    What’s the point of forcing Republicans to defend or bury Trump?  So what?  By February or March no one is going to care what happened anyway.  The court of public opinion’s memory is very short.   They’ll have moved on.

    You’re right by February or March nobody’s going to care about what happened they’ll be more worried about trying to figure out how to pay for food and gas after Biden in his little minions implement the green New deal.

      1. Chris Griffith

         The Green New Deal is not part of Biden’s agenda. That was made very clear during the campaign.

        Yep you’ll put a little bit of lipstick and mascara on that pig and you’ll call it biden’s new energy plan 🤓 couple that was a good old tax increase and I think that’s going to be a fun February and March

         

  6. Don Shor

    There were only three constitutional remedies for Trump’s incitement of a riot.

    He could have resigned.

    He could have been forced out by the 25th Amendment.

    He could be impeached.

    Since the first two didn’t happen, he had to be impeached. Conviction in the Senate is not strictly necessary, but would be appropriate with the added stricture that he never be allowed to hold office again.

    Simply allowing him to leave office without consequence would be a very dangerous precedent. His supporters, including those who comment on this blog, still seek to minimize the extraordinary danger of the events he incited. The false narratives and excuses continue. So it is, in fact, necessary that the party he leads go on record as either supporting or opposing his behavior and its outcome. I’m not usually fond of binary choices, but in this case we have no choice.

      1. Tia Will

        If he were to be convicted, the loss of ability to run for office again, the loss of secret service protection, the loss of his pension. But far more importantly, a message to future demagogues that there will be real consequences for attempted overthrow of the legitimate functioning of our country.

        1. Matt Williams

          Keith, as Don has pointed out the route to being removed from office has dwindled from three options to only one option, and the Senate can not conduct a trial unless there is an impeachment by the House.  Those are the only procedural options available.

        2. Keith Olsen

          At least if it ever actually comes down to a trial in the Senate Trump will be able to defend himself, not like the Kangaroo Court snap judgement in the House where no testimony or witnesses were actually presented.

          But I’m with the other Keith here, there will be no trial as this all fades away after the first 100 days of Biden’s admin.

        3. Richard_McCann

          You mean defended by the circus clowns who’ve already revealed their incompetence in the election challenges? A legitimate law firm won’t touch him. A big firm already disavowed one of its partners for participating in that debacle. The single most important indicator of where this could be headed is all of the corporations running away from That Guy affiliates.

          And Keith E., you’re splitting hairs. Don obviously meant impeached and convicted…

  7. Tia Will

    You have to stop looking at things in terms of fair play, what’s right…etc…  You have to view it in terms of raw political power.”

    No. That I will never do. I simply do not want to live in a country where the biggest bully calls the tune. Fair play has real-world meaning for me. We apparently see “strength” fundamentally differently. I see true strength as the ability to stand for what is right, including what is true, regardless of the odds against you. Weakness to me is to capitulate to what you know is wrong in order to “get along”.

    1. Keith Echols

      The strongest always call the tune.  That’s how democracy works.  That’s how capitalism works.

      In terms of personal character?  Sure standing for what’s right is strength.  But in the world at large it’s all about what you have the strength to enforce…politically or otherwise.   The world is filled with people that stood up for whatever they think is right, got stepped on…and nothing came of it.  Sure they had great personal strength…but ultimately…so what?

      In terms of “capitulating to what you know is wrong to get along”….and this go round of impeachment?  The only benefit of impeaching Trump AND removing him is preventing him from running again (or at least sowing hope to his supporters that he will run again).  But other than that, you have to ask what is gained by impeaching Trump politically?  All you’re doing is stirring the pot and annoying his already unstable supporters?  The political leader’s responsibility is to do what’s best for the country.  Is that by going through a righteous political circus just to feel good about being right and putting the bad man in his place?  Is it worth more political unrest?  Trump still faces federal and even more importantly state criminal prosecution so it’s not like he’s getting away scott free.   In terms of impeachment….what is the practical thing to do?

        1. John Hobbs

          “I wonder if the Vanguards opposition to capital punishment would be excepted for this case”

          “Sounds like a way over the top comment don’t you think Vanguard?”

          18 USC § 2381:

          Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

        2. Bill Marshall

          18 USC § 2381:

          That needs to be amended… $10,000 is way too low of a floor… should be 10-100 X that… but, POTUS reportedly is scheduled to fly overseas on Wednesday… British Isles… they would not likely extradite in a ‘capital case’…

      1. Richard_McCann

        Keith E

        Not always true about a well functioning democracy or market economy. The Bill of Rights plus the 13th-15th Amendments for example protects certain rights for those who may be in the political minority because the “majority” can swing back and forth. And a functioning capitalism works best when it mitigates its excesses as Adam Smith pointed out.

        1. Keith Echols

          Yes, protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  also one of the reasons behind the the Senate and the Electoral College.  uh…thank you for pointing out the exception to the overall rule?

          I’m not advocating unfettered capitalism. Just pointing out how much of it works in our society.

          So I’ll say again….for the most part….might makes right….political might, military might…etc….  I know that offends some of the righteous folks but that’s the reality of the world.

        2. Richard_McCann

          No, Keith E., “winner takes all” isn’t the singular focus of America. There are some who believe in Ayn Rand’s fictional world, but many of us recognize the need for accommodation and compassion.

          And you fail to recognize that might comes in many forms including changing public opinion. How the view on gay marriage changed so quickly is just one of many examples.

          Saying “might makes right” aligns with a fascist view of how a nation should be run.

  8. Bill Marshall

    Nah…

    Impeach, convict (Federal)[precludes from future public office]

    Try, convict, and exact $$$ due from back/falsified tax returns (State and Federal)

    Refuse to lend, call in all current financing… (private)

    Boycott all asset properties.

    Make a subject of derision, and permanent ban from social media.

    Practical manner of ‘drawing and quartering’, and less likely to create a ‘martyr’…

    Few things you can do with cancer… accept it, and let it run its course… treat with radiation/chemicals… excise it…

    With any luck we can excise it (should happen Wed., with trial and conviction to follow), and follow-up treatment with ‘radiation and chemo’…

    My concern is that it has metastasized throughout the Republican party, and those that worship at the temple of The Donald… and abide by his ‘scriptures’…

    He was born in June (6th month)… 1946 (6 again)… elected in 2016 (another 6)…666 is the ‘number of the Beast’…

    1. Alan Miller

      He was born in June (6th month)… 1946 (6 again)… elected in 2016 (another 6)…666 is the ‘number of the Beast’…

      I thought MW was the numbers guy around these parts.

  9. Ron Glick

    “By February or March no one is going to care what happened anyway.”

    The sacking of the Capitol will long be remembered as a day of infamy in American History. As will Trump, as the only President to be impeached twice, his legacy is cast like a Mount Rushmore of ill repute. His name will forever after be associated with impeachment. Long after his judges have been retired from their lifetime sinecures Trump will be remembered as the most loathsome and mendacious President in U.S. history.

  10. Ron Glick

    In 1978, I remember a guy at a family social event telling me that “The greatest President the country ever had was a guy named Richard Milhous Nixon.”

    History doesn’t remember it that way and so it will be with Trump. All the Trump lovers who are making excuses today will be seen as taking a position that will not be sustained by the verdict of history.

  11. Ron Oertel

    Keith E. “Let me put it you another way….if you stand up to the school bully and tell the school how bad he is and then get into a fight with him and he beats you up….guess what?  You lost that confrontation.   Everything you’ve said is “the truth”….so what?”

    I guess you can say that the voters stood up to “the bully” (and won), if that’s what one thinks of him.

    Regardless – I’d agree with your other comments (regarding “the way that the world works”), but more often in a much-less visible manner, to most people. And that the world is not as clearly-divided into “good guys” vs. “bad guys” as it appears in the political sphere.

    1. Ron Oertel

      (A paraphrased quote in parentheses, above.)

      If you want to know how the political world works, take a look at lists of lobbyists, and the access that they have. And then, ask them the last time that they met with “non” lobbyists (aka, normal people). 🙂

      “Who” was the governor dining with, for example? (I’m more concerned about that – and the reason that he thought it was important enough to attend, than whether or not he used masks in-between bites.)

  12. Tia Will

    “By February or March no one is going to care what happened anyway.”

    Too broad a brush. My memory goes back to Vietnam and Kent State and I still care what happened there. I care about the lies of the Reagan years that set us up for the economic system some of us now consider normal. I remember and care about the lies that took us to war in Iraq. I remember babies in cages, abandoned Kurds, the coverup of the Khashoggi murder…and so much more. I doubt I am alone in those remembrances and I will not forget 1/6/21 either.

     

     

    1. Ron Oertel

      By February or March no one is going to care what happened anyway.

      In my opinion, few care (at least, not as much as you might think) even now. That’s a “conclusion/analysis”, not a personal view.

      Certainly, Nancy Pelosi (and others) care quite a bit. Not sure that they’re taking others with them (who weren’t already fully “on board”).

      1. Don Shor

        In my opinion, few care

        The president of the United States incited a riot, lied for weeks about the results of the election. His supporters occupied the Capitol, threatened the lives of the Vice President and members of Congress, who were evacuated. They beat a policeman to death. All in an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in an election whose results were certified.
        “Few care.” Right. Just another day in Trump’s America.

        1. Ron Oertel

          Certainly, not as many care as you might think.

          The ones who care a lot make comments like yours, above.  (Not disagreeing with it, just doubt that most people care if Trump is impeached.)

          I sometimes wonder why people view the opposition in such black-and-white terms, rather than trying to understand them.  (I’m referring to the 74 million who voted for him, not necessarily the ones who showed up at the Capitol.)

          Regardless, folks don’t seem to realize how corrupted our political system is in the first place – which is also apparently a reason for Trump’s popularity – in the eyes of some. That corruption is by no means limited to one party. But if you only identify with one side, you won’t see that, or will simply deny it. (Not unlike hard-core supporters on either side.)

          I’ve pretty much concluded that some aren’t happy unless they gain agreement regarding how “bad” the other side is.

          A waste of time to even discuss or analyze things, with those folks. The best thing to do (if you don’t want to waste a lot of time and energy on nonsense) is to just agree with them, or don’t say anything at all.

        2. Ron Oertel

          And of course, the media plays a big part in focusing attention on stuff that actually doesn’t matter much, in people’s daily lives.

          I suspect that if people didn’t know who the president was in the first place (and the media didn’t remind us), they’d barely be able to tell the difference in their lives (from one administration to the next). With the possible exception of changes in tax laws.

          By the way, the “black-and-white” view is promoted by the corrupt political system, itself. It’s in their interest to do so.

        3. Ron Oertel

          So when you have both the media and the political system itself sharing an interest in generating controversy/division, that’s what you get.

          But that doesn’t serve anyone other than them, and the interests that benefit from it (most of which are hidden from view, and rarely examined by the media).

          But before I get myself in some kind of nonsensical argument, let’s just all agree that Trump is bad, as are those who caused mayhem at the Capitol. That acknowledgement/agreement ought to make some happy.

        4. Richard_McCann

          Ron O

          I agree with your observations here. I’ll observe roughly half of the 74 million really are hard core supporters of some form of authoritarianism and can’t be dissuaded. It’s the same 29% that supported Nixon the day he resigned.

          It’s the other roughly half that we need to listen to about their concerns. Right now they’ve been fed a list of scapegoats for their problems for last four decades by political consultants who only care about winning and protecting the economic interests of their elite well-moneyed clients (not the cultural elite who don’t pay the consultants well enough). As you point out, the media has eaten this up because it skyrockets their ratings. The real solutions lie in challenging the institutions and culture that create these problems.

          The question is how do we get to the constructive dialogue to come up with workable solutions? Much too often people are wedded to their chosen solution, and even getting to a mutual problem statement is difficult. We probably lost a lot of ground when we can’t even agree on a mutually agreeable set of fundamental facts.

        5. Ron Oertel

          As you point out, the media has eaten this up because it skyrockets their ratings. 

          Though rarely acknowledged, some might refer to this as “infotainment”.  I think that “doom-scrolling” is another related term.

          Or, “weather porn” – as someone I know refers to catastrophic weather events.

          We probably lost a lot of ground when we can’t even agree on a mutually agreeable set of fundamental facts.

          That part seems rather “new”.

          Right now they’ve been fed a list of scapegoats for their problems for last four decades by political consultants who only care about winning and protecting the economic interests of their elite well-moneyed clients (not the cultural elite who don’t pay the consultants well enough).

          I don’t have a lot of answers, other than getting money out of politics.  (Yeah, right.)  🙂

           

      2. Eric Gelber

        By February or March no one is going to care what happened anyway.

        This assumes that Trump, himself, will disappear and the fire he and his lackeys (Cruz, Hawley, Don Jr., et al.) fueled by their incendiary anti-democratic, insurrectionist rhetoric will die down by February or March. I believe the white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, conspiracy theorists, etc. have been emboldened and we haven’t seen the end of the chaos and mayhem set in motion on January 6th.

        1. Ron Oertel

          Some in the media and political sphere might hope that it continues. It certainly makes for some sensational news. Hell, I fall into that trap as well – who can resist watching it?

        2. Keith Olsen

          I believe the white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, conspiracy theorists, etc. have been emboldened and we haven’t seen the end of the chaos and mayhem set in motion on January 6th.

          Just as Antifa, leftist anarchists and BLM have been emboldened by the soft responses they received from the Democrat leaders in many cities that they rampaged.

  13. Ron Glick

    Normalizing violence by pointing fingers  at other acts of violence makes for a poor rationalization especially when condemning one group without condemning the other.

    1. Richard_McCann

      Ron G

      93% of BLM demonstrations have been entirely peaceful. At many of the other demonstrations, the violence has been sparked by right wing and white nationalist and even law enforcement infiltrators posing as demonstrators. There are dozens of videos documenting this. (I posted a list a couple months of ago here.)

      While I don’t condone violence, as MLK observed”

      “I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years.”

      Too often quiet demonstrations are ignored. Too often those who are comfortable are unwilling to accept the need for change. That’s why revolutions happen.

      One important distinction is that violence at the civil rights demonstrations have been targeted at property, and when targeted at individuals, it has been in response to physical force being exerted on the demonstrators. (I’m sure you’ll find an exception, but this statement is generally true.) On the other hand, violence at the Capitol (and too many other fascist demonstrations) are aimed at people to intimidate them.

      But a much more important one is who is driving this violence. At the civil rights demonstrations its a few citizens who aren’t affiliated with any particular group. (Even the FBI acknowledges that Antifa isn’t organized anymore than as a loose communication network.) BLM is not condoning or organizing the violence–its that these event happen outside of their control, and as I pointed out, 93% of the events are peaceful. There is no real control of who initiates this violence and condemning it will not stop it. And I for one will not demand the end of all civil rights protests because a small portion have violence. Who do you I suggest that I condemn?

      In contrast, January 6 was driven by a single individual who has been building this frenzy since at least last summer when he said that he would not accept the results of this election unless he was the winner. He sparked it all on that day. We know who to condemn and we know what actions we can take to deliver consequences with that condemnation for him and his confederates. He is clearly a traitor instigating sedition. We know what we have to do.

      1. Ron Glick

        Richard, why do you direct your remarks to me? I didn’t say anything about anybody or any group. I was pointing out that the equivocation of violence by pointing fingers at other violence is a failed argument.

        I support all non-violent protest and do not support violent protest. I have been consistent in this position. During the summer I objected to looting and burning but supported non-violent protest.

        What I find pitiful, are the arguments of those who condemned violence during the summer, who try to rationalize violence now by pointing out the failure of some to object to violence back then. They seem to want it both ways.

        On this MLK Holiday we must remember that violence begets violence and those who don’t condemn civil violence cannot claim the high moral ground.

  14. Alan Miller

    I sometimes wonder why people view the opposition in such black-and-white terms, rather than trying to understand them.  (I’m referring to the 74 million who voted for him, not necessarily the ones who showed up at the Capitol.)

    Regardless, folks don’t seem to realize how corrupted our political system is in the first place – which is also apparently a reason for Trump’s popularity – in the eyes of some. That corruption is by no means limited to one party. But if you only identify with one side, you won’t see that, or will simply deny it. (Not unlike hard-core supporters on either side.)

    I’ve pretty much concluded that some aren’t happy unless they gain agreement regarding how “bad” the other side is.

    RO

    I am repeating what you said here with no further comment because I what you said need repeating.  Daily, like a mantra.  And I fear for our country because of the masses so blind to the simple point you just made.

    ACM

        1. Ron Oertel

          It’s potentially a way people, on a local level, can hear others’ points of view and find areas of mutual understanding.

          Key word being “potential”.

          The manner in which this blog (and others) are written does not encourage that.  Nor do many (maybe even most) of the comments.

          In my opinion, it largely functions to increase division.  And since one type of political view predominates in places like Davis, you’re not going to hear much from the “other side”.

          The few that do comment from that side face an onslaught of others piling on them, sometimes driving them off the blog I think. [edited]

          Truth be told, the same thing occurs regarding development issues. I believe this is a large part of the reason for the creation of the “other” blog – which isn’t run as a business (and therefore has fewer ongoing articles).

        2. Ron Oertel

          Reminds me of this, which I just happened across.  Really?  Trump was in Home Alone 2?  And some want to “remove” him from that?

          Have they removed OJ from the Naked Gun films?  (I hope not.)

          https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/kristy-swanson-says-if-president-trump-is-removed-from-home-alone-2-she-also-wants-to-be-cut-from-john-hughes-films/ar-BB1cPR1B?li=BBnbfcL

          But let’s all just agree that they should never, never show “Gone With the Wind”, again. At least, not without warnings and significant editing. 😉

          We won’t even discuss some cartoons that were edited and/or removed from the lineup.

        3. Ron Oertel

          Ironically, Trump’s “controversial appearance” is about the only reason I might (now) be interested in viewing Home Alone 2.

          Did he say anything about immigrants, in there? 😉 Since the plot presumably involves criminals, let’s just hope that they weren’t also immigrants.

  15. John Hobbs

    I fear for our country because of such malignant racism disguised as “patriotism” and because of how easily some are led to believe that the Emperor has new clothes.

      1. Richard_McCann

        Keith O

        Viewing the Confederacy favorably is racist and traitorous. We need to all agree that we need to change our perspective on that tragic event in our history.

        1. Alan Miller

          We need to all agree that we need to change our perspective on that tragic event in our history.

          I’m not sure why you are stating this to KO as there was nothing antecedently stated about the confederacy.

          While I wouldn’t use your “we need” language, to go in parallel with your point, what “we” also and more intently “need” to change “our” perspective on is the other tragic long-series-of-events in our history, the entirety of the wiping out of the native tribal nations in what became the USA.  That even more basic tragedy is one we are far, far further distanced from reconciling in our collective social conscious than the horror of slavery.

  16. John Hobbs

    “It boggles my mind that you haven’t looked up what it means …”

    Your mind must be easily boggled. I have seen no evidence of Olsen learning or caring about definitions or truth. It seems his limit is cutting and pasting right-wing media bs.

      1. Richard_McCann

        Keith O

        I build my view from empirical evidence. I read many scientific articles, and my own work has been published by the Reason Foundation and Cato Institute. I know about how the media fails to adequately understand the issues in the industries that I work in. I’ve found that trying to rely solely on intuition or “how it should be” are not useful for determining how things actually are, or what the best policy choices are. I’m not relying on “left wing bias” for my perspective–it’s coming from real research.

        1. Keith Olsen

          my own work has been published by the Reason Foundation and Cato Institute.

          Well, my own comments have been published in the Vanguard.

          I’m not relying on “left wing bias” for my perspective–it’s coming from real research.

          Yes Richard, I always turn to you first when I want a real unbiased perspective.

  17. Tia Will

    I totally agree, I haven’t seen much condemnation of the Antifa and BLM rioters on this blog.”

    Have you stopped reading my posts? I have repeatedly posted about my position as a pacifist. You also have ignored multiple times when other posters have posted quotes from Dems stating that no violence was acceptable. And sure, you have left yourself wiggle room with the word “much” leaving an out from the implication that violence on the left is condoned. So for a sampling of such condemnations, I offer:

    https://www.fayobserver.com/story/opinion/columns/2021/01/15/8-times-biden-obama-et-al-condemned-black-lives-matter-violence/4170932001/

     

    1. Eric Gelber

      I’m sorry. While I also condone violence on the left or right, one can’t compare–by intent or method–the recent and growing right-wing extremism–involving open racism and anti-Semitism, ransacking and defiling the U.S. Capitol, bludgeoning a Capitol police officer to death, threatening to kill members of Congress and the Vice President, and, of course, seeking to overturn a democratic presidential election by violent means, with the violence perpetrated by fringe ideological groups like Antifa at protests by people seeking criminal justice reform and social justice.

      1. Keith Olsen

        people seeking criminal justice reform and social justice.

        Did they think they were going to find those things inside the stores they looted and buildings they burned?

        1. David Greenwald

          For the most part, people who rioted and looted were not connected with the movement.

          Tampa prosecutor Andrew Warren told me: “Most of the people that we see committing crimes in connection with the protests are not protesters. They are people who are trying to take advantage of the situation.”

        2. Keith Olsen

          You have no way of knowing that.  Most of the looters never faced any prosecution. Nice try though.

          One could just as easily say that most of the rioters who entered the capitol didn’t represent the the tens of thousands that were there.

          Would you buy that?

          1. David Greenwald

            Actually your point is a good one. We know who was involved in the Capitol Rioters the same way we know who was involved in a lot of the looting – by looking into the people caught.

            Did you ever read this comment I made last week – https://www.justice.gov/opa/investigations-regarding-violence-capitol

            The DOJ has done the work for us – full with complaints, and supporting documents. We know exactly who stormed the Capitol – and it was Trumpists. By the same token, we also know who was arrested for looting and their backgrounds. We have been covering looting cases in Sacramento for six months.

        3. Ron Oertel

          For the most part, people who rioted and looted were not connected with the movement most Trump supporters.

          Many of those who rioted, vandalized, looted, shut down freeways, and intimidated or attacked people in cities across America for months are a subset of the “movement”.

          Those who attacked the Capitol are primarily a subset of Trump supporters.

          I find this back-and-forth argument rather pointless. What exactly are you all trying to “prove”?

           

          1. David Greenwald

            You’re ignoring something important – in both cases we have data. We have data on who has been prosecuted for both – and that data paints a picture that you appear to want to ignore.

        4. Ron Oertel

          Oh, and took-over a section of Seattle – also a subset of the “movement”.  Which lasted until about the time someone was killed within that “community”, as I recall.

          I believe they also prevented assistance from going in.

          Sometime after two protestors were mowed-down on the (closed) freeway, I believe.

          But since I’m not trying to “prove” that one side is holier than thou, I don’t have an arsenal of proof at the ready. And more importantly, I don’t think this is a helpful argument to engage in.

  18. Ron Oertel

    You’re ignoring something important – in both cases we have data. We have data on who has been prosecuted for both – and that data paints a picture that you appear to want to ignore.

    You are wrong about what I “want to ignore”.

    I’m not referring to looting arrests (though you did have one commenter on here, who claimed this was a form of “protest”).

    But you’re right – there is no comparison in other ways, as well. The “movement” occurred for months (across multiple cities), while the Capitol was a one-time thing. (Along with all the other differences already noted.)

    The only thing you’re accomplishing with these type of arguments is “convincing the convinced”.

    And on a broader level, you and I don’t necessarily get to decide “who” is a protester, vs. a non-protester. Those are not fixed definitions.

    1. Ron Oertel

      There is one other difference that hasn’t been addressed, though:

      The “movement” impacted “normal” people across America, including those trying to get to work, small business owners (including those of color, etc.).  As such protests usually do.  (The “middle class”, if you will.)

      The siege on the Capitol impacted what some might derisively refer to as “the political elite”, which isn’t necessarily the most popular group for “either” (disaffected) side.

      Protests usually have some commonality, regarding disaffected people. Perhaps it’s unfortunate that some then try to divide those disaffected people (e.g., by skin color, etc.).

      1. Ron Oertel

        Perhaps it’s unfortunate that some then try to divide those disaffected people (e.g., by skin color, etc.).

        A truly cynical person might suspect that this is being done “on purpose” (e.g., get the poor masses to fight each other as a deflection, while we conduct “business as usual” for those who are “connected”).

        And before you know it, another Trump-type figure is elected (“drain the swamp” – regardless of whether or not it’s true).

        In any case, I’m surprised that the “left” can’t see the appeal of that message, along with the claim of concern for the working-class. (Those are traditionally “leftist” appeals.)

      2. Ron Oertel

        (Those are traditionally “leftist” appeals.)

        As was the push for $2,000 stimulus checks, etc.

        Hey – Biden’s only giving-out $1,400, I’ve heard. 🙂 But, I guess he’s willing to cancel some student debt.

        Maybe a spreadsheet is needed, before voting?

        1. Bill Marshall

          Let’s see… Demos wanted $2k… Repubicans agreed to $600… Trump pushed for $2k… Republicans, no way… $1,400 + 600 = 2,000 (old math), yet you say,

          Hey – Biden’s only giving-out $1,400, I’ve heard. 

          Totally weird comment… we’ve already got our $600 apiece.

          Along with the proposed $1,200 apiece, all will augment our charitable donations… we don’t need it. Others do…

    1. Ron Oertel

      From the article you posted:

      “Guatemala’s message is loud and clear: These types of illegal mass movements will not be accepted, that’s why we are working together with the neighboring nations to address this as a regional issue,” the Guatemalan president’s office said of the influx of traveling migrants.

      Anyone claiming a “racist” government, there?  🙂

      The situation at the border isn’t going to be transformed overnight,” the official told NBC News, and migrants seeking to gain asylum right away “need to understand they’re not going to be able to come into the United States immediately.”

      Yeah – give it a couple of months, I guess.
       

        1. Ron Oertel

          Apparently not, based upon your question.

          Do they view themselves as “different” than Hondurans?  Should I?

          And perhaps more importantly, is this the reason I should conclude that they don’t want thousands of Honduran refugees?

          And on a broader level, should we automatically conclude “racism” if those emigrating (to any country) are not “white” – even if the recipient country is primarily not? Does “white privilege” really extend that far?

          And if so, can someone sell it to someone who doesn’t have it (or donate it, they’re feeling generous)? 🙂

        2. Ron Oertel

          When someone asks a question of me (implying that it’s related to my question, but without stating how), I’m not real inclined to research whatever documents they then refer me to, to figure out whatever their point was, or if it was even related to the questions at hand.

          More often than not, I’ve found that this is a way to make it appear that a question was answered, without actually answering it.

          Alternatively, you could stay out of it, since David was the one who initiated that.

          I am well-aware of Wikipedia, regardless.

    2. Don Shor

      It looks like a new Biden inspired migrant caravan is headed our way. How’s this for a super spreader event?

      Why do you keep trying to change the subject from the behavior of Donald Trump and the impeachment in response to his incitement to riot? Do you support what he did? Do you think he should just leave office without consequences for his behavior?

      1. Bill Marshall

        Don… with all due respect… the Demos ‘failed’ in the impeachment charges… cannot fathom why they did not include the documented attempt to get GA officials to falsify election results, and perjure themselves if they did so… the documents came not from Demos, but from Republican governement sources…

        We have yet to see who gets last minute pardons, and how much was ‘paid’ for those… reminds me of one of the reasons Martin Luther posted his theses… one of the biggies was “selling indulgences” (religious equivalent of ‘pardons’)… that could be an additional count for impeachment, or other federal charges (after Jan 20th), but comes too late, if he ‘pardons’ himself… theoretically erases any federal tax fraud, evasions, before and after he took office with a minority of the popular vote…

        1. Don Shor

          I don’t agree. The article of impeachment charges that he incited insurrection and rebellion, cites the lies about the election, cites the “prior efforts to subvert” involved in the phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State, and declares him “a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution.” There was no need to present specific evidence as we all saw it happen. There is really no question about what he was doing and saying to his supporters. So they kept it simple. His phone calls and attempts to sabotage the electoral college process may well still result in criminal charges in Georgia and possibly in other states.
          Here are the articles of impeachment:
          https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/11/us/articles-impeachment-trump.html

  19. Ron Oertel

    Does “white privilege” really extend that far?

    I’ve got a question regarding this, as well.

    Say, for example, that there’s groups of “white” people, who may not be all that well-off (such as those in a declining coal industry, for example).  Since they’re already “privileged” via skin color (but not simultaneously well-off), does that mean that those who promote the construct of “white privilege” view those folks as complete losers?  In other words, are they viewed as folks who can’t even manage to make white privilege work for themselves?

    Just some musings, I guess.

    1. David Greenwald

      Saw a great meme once (most are actually really bad), something to the effect white privilege doesn’t mean your necessarily rich, but it just means if you aren’t, it’s not because of race. Remember the people victimized by Jim Crow were not just Blacks but also the poor whites who were used by the ruling class in the south even when it was against their economic interest to preserve the status quo.

      1. Ron Oertel

        Remember the people victimized by Jim Crow were not just Blacks but also the poor whites who were used by the ruling class in the south even when it was against their economic interest to preserve the status quo.

        I recall you (or someone) claiming that, before.  Hadn’t realized or thought about it.

        One wonders if the same thing is happening, now – on a broader scale.

        I was (once again) watching a YouTube video the other evening, which claimed that the major media and technology companies have ties to China.  As a result, they don’t rock that boat (and are not supportive of Trump).  Interesting, at least.

        Clearly, Trump is right regarding China as a competitor to the U.S. And the video claimed that Biden downplays that.

        It was not framed as a “conservative/liberal” issue.

        1. John Hobbs

          How about framing it as an issue of reason?

          Of course that would require more ken than you’ve demonstrated here.

          Since most electronic components are “Made in China” (Have you heard of this?) it is reasonable to assume most if not all media and technology companies have ties to China.

          “Clearly, Trump is right regarding China as a competitor to the U.S.”

          Clearly you don’t understand the relationship between US companies and foreign vendors. It is far more cooperative than competitive.(Perhaps because the US based corporations decided that production in China was better for their bottom line since they don’t have to pay US wages over there.)

          Like many of the current event issues, this one can be framed as real people/dumba$$es

      2. Bill Marshall

        Sharecropping, common in the South, was a form of feudalism… coal miners in “company towns”, about the same… sharecropping, and being a coal miner was very close to being ‘slavery’… so “po’ whites”, aka ‘ poor white trash’ were not treated much better than Blacks…

        Am amazed most middle class, white, liberal folk don’t know or acknowledge that… must be inherent bias, under a ‘different color’… perhaps descendents of those sharecroppers/miners, whose ancestors weren’t afforded ‘much schoolin’, have a twisted sense of wanting “reparations”, and resent “others” demanding reparations.

        There is more than one field that hasn’t been level… economic based.

        Remember under Jim Crow, on a practical basis, it was not just Blacks, who, in one manner or another were supposed to “know their place”, and “sit at the back of the bus”… the KKK hated Blacks, Jews, and Irish-Catholics.  Not exactly the same, but definitely not dissimilar, socially or politically…

        It wasn’t until 1960 that a Catholic was elected President, though several had been candidates… about 170 years after the first president was elected… a Black president won the office less than 50 years later… but, unlike the Catholic, he survived his first term, and served a second.  Now, 60 years after the first Catholic was elected, another has been… with a Black woman Vice President.  And some folk out there really hate that, as we’ve recently seen…

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for