Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Rep. Jim Jordan Seeks to Oust Rep. Liz Cheney from Leadership
According to this Politico article, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan plans to move to oust Rep. Liz Cheney from her position as the House Republican Conference Chair. Cheney previously announced her support for the impeachment of President Trump. According to the same article, the top two Republicans in the House — Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Minority Whip Steve Scalise — oppose impeachment.
This strikes me as a proper response to Cheney’s action. As I have posted previously, I find the calls for Trump’s impeachment to be a deranged overreaction. It is very disappointing to see some erstwhile conservatives and Republicans supporting such an action.
Rep. Cheney is entitled to her opinion and may vote as she sees fit. I think that it is quite proper for her House colleagues to remove her from a leadership position, if they disagree strongly with her on such an important issue.
I do expect that any Republican Congressmen or Senators who support impeachment to face a serious primary challenge in their next election. Rightfully so, in my view.
Published in Politics
Right, it was “mostly peaceful.”
Yea, I admit that’s a cheap shot but I refuse to make excuses for this. It doesn’t matter that it was a “minute portion” exactly like how we didn’t excuse protests on the other side for their “minute portion” of BLM/Antifa rioters.
And do I really have to remind you thatwhat you say in a rally, where you hold it and when you hold it all matter?Sorry, unnecessarily confrontational.
Egad, is he president for life? In a week he is history. He can make speeches all he wants. He is, I think, a spent force. Time will tell. Of course, the Dems will over-reach and try to get him behind bars (“Lock her up” remember?) and that will put some wind in his sails.
Actually, the Trump rally REALLY WAS mostly peaceful. The reason “mostly peaceful” gets put in “air quotes” is because the BLM/Antifa rallies AREN’T mostly peaceful, although their leaders/handlers and the media claim they are/were. And the “air quotes” also serve to show that we aren’t falling for it.
No, the reason why it gets put in air quotes is that it doesn’t matter whether or not a riot was mostly peaceful, it’s still a riot.
But would they insist that what they want must be delivered by Trump and Trump alone? What if someone else (even Tom Cotton) were to offer the same kind of things (secure borders, rule of law, skepticism of world markets, America First foreign policy, pushback against the elites, etc.) why need the party split apart–especially if that package came in a more appealing personality? Or is it the case that the NT crowd is faking and it is not Trump they oppose but those values? Those who are pushing for a civil war in the party may think they will be stronger after a purge. That seems nuts to me. But it is hard to see how Trump voters, neo-cons, libertarians, world market types, cultural conservatives, etc. manage to stay together long enough to win national elections.
Since I was not present at any of these protests/riots I really cannot weigh in on the “mostly peaceful” part. Reporting seem to be thin at best so it was hard to tell or get any concept of whether therefore different groups with different agendas. What was disturbing was the lack of arrests, charging, and prosecutions for those committing crimes. It looks as if that part won’t be skipped over for the Capitol.
Okay, fine, then all “riots” are the same?
One big problem might be that the Republican Party has had candidates TALKING ABOUT stuff like that for a LONG time, without lifting a finger to actually DO it once in office.
So having a nice-looking candidate who TALKS a good game would not be a departure from the norm.
This.
So this is what gets you exited when it comes to solving America’s problems?????
I’ll put my 2 cents in. I think a big part of the problem is an issue that Tulsi Gabbard has raised about Trump’s insistence that something be done about the Section 230 provision of whatever statute it is that shields Big Tech and allows them to censor conservative speech in various ways. Gabbard has said, in order to explain all the tough talk before and after hearings with the Big Tech CEO’s on this matter followed then by no action, is that these Republican Senators and others get money payoffs from the Silicon Valley firms and they don’t want that to stop. To me, this seems like about the only explanation left and it must involve some influential members of both parties in both houses of Congress. We don’t have very many elected officials who always, or even close to it, do the right thing for the people they represent.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth as to “mostly peaceful.” If I want to say something, I will.
The number of malefactors as a percentage of those who did nothing is extremely relevant to the question of whether the riot was, or should have been, forseeable. It’s clear thousands and thousands were not moved to violence, while a small percentage with their own agenda was. If Trump was as all-motivating as some would have us believe, well, I guess the tens of thousands who did nothing were slackers.
This is fun. Now let’s try this one: It doesn’t matter that it was pre-planned and already underway before he spoke, he still incited it.
Indeed.
I agree, and I wasn’t trying to suggest otherwise. There is room to capture Trump supporters, but it will not be done by those who kicked him to the curb.
Agreed. But Trump couldn’t drain the swamp either. All we can ask is for someone who sees roughly the same main problems we do and favors roughly the same solutions we do and shows a willingness to work at them. Trump does draw a LOT of oxygen to himself. Maybe someone who could make the case with a bit more clarity could be more successful? Someone with the rhetorical skills of Lincoln, say? I don’t ask for much. (And Lincoln was–and still is–treated much as Trump has been, I know.)
I’m just going to assume you missed it when I said I’m not making excuses for BLM/Antifa or attempting to downplay their significance. Clearly, not all riots are equal but at the same time it doesn’t matter if they were “mostly peaceful” to start. Re-posting internet memes isn’t particularly helpful.
The thing is, with so many possible candidates who TALK a lot but may not DO anything if elected, does it make sense to pick (another) someone who DOESN’T seem to fight like Trump, or someone who DOES? Based on a few decades of watching what they say versus what they do, which option really makes the most sense?
I think your statement “whether or not a riot was mostly peaceful, it’s still a riot” required that response.
And as with many things that some people might claim are absolute – something is either a riot, or it’s not – there are gradations. Indeed, compared with BLM/Antifa, it might reasonably claimed that Jan 6 was not actually a “riot” since very few of the thousands of people present, were involved.
So, if I was outraged at the riots during the summer, can I still be outraged at a riot that included people who were trying to overturn a legitimate election? Can I be outraged that there were people with zip-tie handcuffs looking to kidnap and harm members of Congress?
I was outraged at the rioters who vandalized my state capitol and tore down a statue of Hans Christian Heg–a man who literally gave his life fighting to abolish slavery and preserve the Union–in the name of “racial justice.” I was outraged when the same crowd attacked a state senator for taking pictures, even though he supported their cause. I was outraged when so-called leaders did nothing to hold the rioters accountable.
I am also outraged that self-described “patriots” attacked police officers, forced their way into the Capitol, and tried to force Congress to overturn the election. The videos of these idiots literally beating a police officer with American flags is repulsive. This isn’t a particularly difficult call. Because of them, and the politicians and pundits that lied to them about the election, this will not be a peaceful transition of power. How are you not ashamed of this? And if you are, why are we “whatabouting” this?
Yes.
It’s not what abouting, it’s why weren’t the (D)/MSM outraged by all rioting.
It’s more a WTFing.
There’s at least two parts to this. Revealing what is going on and the action to change it. I think Trump did a lot of the first. Not much on the second but wasn’t it revealing that the “swamp” took 100% of 4 years in an effort to thwart every action by Trump and he still got some good things accomplished.
How is “number of malefactors as a percentage of those who did nothing” not just a wordier version of “mostly peaceful”?
By and large, yes; and not just the NT crowd.
As for forming a second party, if it comes to that, I would support it if the first wave of defectors was sufficient to greatly cripple the capacity of Republicans to win, as there would no longer be any point in voting for the Stupid Party-like I’ve said before, I’ve had my own issues with Trump this past month or so, but I am completely alienated from most of the Republican political class. Its up to the latter not to throw away the hardcore (i.e. the theoretical first wave) Trump vote, and they seem either unwilling or unable to do that.
This strikes me as more excuse-making for what happened at the Capitol. After 2 months of Trump and his allies lying about the size and scale of alleged voter fraud, the rhetoric got more and more desperate. When the court challenges all failed, Trump resorted to trying to pressure state legislatures to change the electoral votes. When that failed, he pressured Pence to violate the Constitution and reject electoral votes. All the while, Trump insisted he won in a landslide.
The result is a lot of people believing that an election had been stolen. The fraud and conspiracy was enormous. What other option did they have? They were convinced by the lies that they needed to “fight” and show “strength” to make sure that Congress and Pence “did the right thing.” Members of Congress called for violence! The result was then a riot on 1/6.
Even if you disagree with how the riot happened, do you at least agree that it was wrong? That it is deserving of condemnation?
Condemnation has been near universal, what most people are objecting to is portraying it as an insurrection and using it as a Reichstag fire in hopes that it destroys the dominant Republican voter faction as a political force.
As has been mentioned on other threads, calling “whataboutism” is just a tool used by the left to distract from their hypocrisy, among other issues.
So let me see if I understand your point: whether or not a riot is a riot is conditioned on how many people didn’t riot??? So if the left can prove that BLM/Antifa rioters were a minority of those who peacefully protested you would be OK with them?
I’m very much not on the left. Their hypocrisy is awful. I have no problem condemning it provided that at the same time you are also condemning the riot at the Capitol. You seem to be deflecting and accusing those of us who are outraged as virtue signaling or simply seeking liberal approval.
It’s easy to suspect that many who called Trump too divisive, too confrontational, etc, were actually motivated not by “Trump is divisive” etc, but by “Trump is trying to stop our gravy train!” And they were able to convince a lot of people who were not on the gravy train themselves but could be flattered into going along and hence believe they were really the righteous ones. Those would be the useful idiots. In some cases it may not be immediately clear whether an individual is on the “gravy train” side personally or if they are one of the “useful idiots.” In others it’s glaringly obvious.