Cawthorn Predicts Bloodshed Over "Stolen" Elections

Nice democratic process you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

"Madison Cawthorn Says There Will Be ‘Bloodshed’ If US Elections ‘Continue To Be Rigged’" | Daily Caller

This is the Republican Party today. Parroting Trump's lies and weaponizing them. Normalizing political violence and slouching toward fascism. An elected representative making an implicit threat, encouraging those who are already all too willing to go to the next level.

Sure, go ahead and bleat "whattabout those BLMs?" as if the overwhelmingly peaceful Black Lives Matter protests against racist police violence are in any way equivalent to an attack on the US Capitol which was intended to thwart democracy in the United States.

You may manage to fool yourself, but it's not going to work in the real world. What Republican leaders are saying out loud tells the world what the Republican Party has become.

Not that there is all that much to worry about. With gerrymandering and voter suppression, Republicans should do fine in the next election.

 

The U.S. humbly apologizes for taking the lessons of Great Britain to much to heart.

 

It's not the Republican Party. It's the Trump Party. They are too far up his ass to see daylight anymore. People keep talking about the death of the Republican Party. It's already dead. Trump is their new master and he dictates who gets to do what. This will not end well for any of them. Did you see the January 6th crowd? Real cream of the crop types. They looked like they just fell off of the turnip truck and sounding like a bunch of drunken hillbillies coming down from a meth trip. I can see the movie now. The rube class goes to Washington.

 

Where is the "Democracy" that Republicans say they hold so dear?

Too. Too.

 

The people who sacked the Capitol looked to me like fairly regular US citizens. Aside from the Trumpist regalia and the notable predominance of white folks, that is. They were clearly in a mob mentality, but the US is no more immune to that than any other nation. It's considered bad form to use proper grammar and syntax when you're part of a rampaging mob, isn't it? Beyond that they seem to be a cross-section of the country. Retired military, including officers. Police officers. Small business owners. Suburban moms.

I think it's important not to allow their self-degradation to lead to discounting them as "drunken hillbillies." They're American citizens who either actually believed in Trump's lies, or decided that devotion to Trumpism justified supporting the lies. Either way, Trump's continued presidency was to them far more important than the stated ideals of the United States. That is significant for what it says about the Republican Party and many of those who vote Republican.

Maybe a particular strain of the Republican Party is dead. The perpetually outraged Fox News/Breitbart/Daily Caller Republican Party is thriving though, and while Trump currently embodies it, he is not essential. The Republican Party will continue to be a driving factor in US political life for a while yet.

 

the GOP will never win a popular vote again. their best hope is to disenfranchise voters and hope for an electoral college squeak.

 

"Disenfranchise voters" covers some important ground. State legislatures have the constitutionally protected ability to ignore the popular vote and choose their own electors to send to the Electoral College. A number of the new laws being passed in Republican controlled states will open that route. It seems clear that they will not hesitate to do it if they get the chance--why else create such a law? Those laws and the rest of the overt voter disenfranchisement work being done right now could well determine the results of the next presidential election.

The popular vote is a detail. I heard "the people have spoken" after Trump won the 2016 election. The charitable interpretation of that is ignorance, but it also may unmask a particular notion that "the people" are those who vote Republican, while the rest are less worthy of consideration.

 

Once again, what Republican Party? Do they have a party platform? Do they have a list of 2024 presidential primary candidates? Is there any kind of cohesive party message? Isn't it the definition of a cult of personality? The Trump party does not share power?

 

I wish I could find a video of the live new feed I watched in my city of the little dog that was kicked to within an inch of his life by BLM protesters. That way the little dogs screams could haunt your dreams as they do mine as a constant reminder of just how peaceful those thugs were.

 

More tax cuts for the rich and large corporations. Outlawing abortion. Preventing as many Democratic voters from getting to the polls as possible. Forcing schools to teach a whitewashed version of American history. Abolishing the ACA. Deporting undocumented workers and refusing to accept refugees. These are off the top of my head. I could easily add to the list if I spent some time looking for reminders of other Republican Party policies. The cohesive Republican Party message is "Those socialists are destroying OUR country!"

Trump helped bring these themes to the fore, but the ideas behind them have been more or less part of the Republican Party for the last decade or so, in some cases much longer.

Trump seems likely to run. DeSantis is obviously positioning himself as a 2024 candidate, as is Mike Pompeo. Nikki Haley is in the wings, and no doubt there are others with similar ambitions, looking to see how things shake out over the next year or two.

 

Yes, there were deplorable incidents. When millions of people take to the streets you can rest assured that some thugs will take advantage of an opportunity to engage in thuggery.

It's telling that you felt compelled to be selective in what you quoted and and responded to.

 

I am quite biased against criminal activity in all forms and was quite sickened to see the BLM criminal activity embraced so warmly by the left.

 

Let's unpack and unravel your thoughts...

When it comes to economic science, taxing the rich and large corporations is just a way of taxing the poor without them knowing it. This requires a thread of its own. It's on my short list.

Everyone agrees that the Constitution protects "Life". The question then becomes..."When do Constitutional protections begin?" The Founding Fathers didn't think it was necessary to define when Constitutional protections begin and end...birth and death, right?

Technological advances have us revisiting this question...not just for abortion, but for a whole host of end-of-life issues, too. Not so long ago in Korea, live births weren't recorded until the 100th day after birth. What do you think? If not at conception, when should Constitutional protections begin?

Voting standards are required to protect the rights of all citizens. You're suggesting that voting standards discriminates against one party over another. I would like to see the statistics on which you base this conclusion.

To quote AG Barr..."Whoever wins gets to write history". If you don't like American history, you're welcome to find a country more to your liking.

Covid-19 has shown us the tyranny of socialized medicine...no thanks!

We live in a Democratic Republic based on representative law. Not everyone coming to our border is a "refugee". Illegal aliens have no right of residency and must be deported. If that's not acceptable, then follow the democratic process and implement immigration reform.

If democrats can't BOTH obey fair election law and win election, then their crazy ideas shouldn't see the light of day. PERIOD!

 

You can unpack and unravel to your heart's content. I'm not interested in bad faith arguments.

 

tell us all about it.

 

"Some" is an interesting way of describing riots in 140 cities, over a billion dollars in damage (including the destruction of multiple minority businesses that were some of the only sources of employment and necessities in impoverished neighborhoods), and multiple deaths.

 

Someone did something...

 

What do you call your shotgun blast of twaddle?

 

First a general note regarding the apparent acceptance of Representative Cawthorn's violent posturing by some members here who've chosen to dispute other details in my posts in this thread. Implicit encouragement and normalization of "bloodshed" is not worth a comment, but by all means let's discuss something else. Like Black Lives Matter, for instance. That's much more in a particular comfort zone.

It appears your position is that all Black Lives Matter demonstrations were riots. Is that correct? Given your objection to my use of "some" it also appears that you consider all or most Black Lives Matter demonstrators to be thugs? Is that accurate?

I already cited a source, the accuracy of which has not been refuted. Quoting:

 

As you are well aware, I was replying to JoeNation. I listed a number of Republican Party policy positions. As far as I can tell, you do not dispute the fact that they're Republican Party positions. Rather, you jumped at the chance to champion them. Very well; I'll take that as support for my point, and note it for JoeNation's consideration.

Meanwhile, your version of advocacy clearly involves misrepresenting the position of your interlocutor. While you may find that thrilling, I've long since grown bored of trying to engage with such puerile buffoonery.