StormsVille
From the NY Times' Mike Baker:
For the record, here is what Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan had to say:
“Any deployment here would, in my view, undermine public safety,” Ms. Durkan said.
Again, the only clearly discernible rationale for any of this is to provoke a violent response all in the name of having the faux prophecies of the screamers realized.
.
4 comments:
I’m not sure if I’m observing any of this accurately. Quite a big deal is being made about the absolute offence federal troops are committing against the US Constitution—as it should be. But it seems to me the number of troops is insufficient to do what tRump says he wants them to do, that their offences, though absolutely wrong, are relatively few (that is, relatively few protesters have been detained) and the troops appear to know it by their reluctance to charge the protesters at full capacity. Unlike tRump’s sweeping threats, spokesmen for these detachments of federal troops insist they are merely protecting federal property—that is, not pursuing protesters when they retreat from said federal properties. Neither have courts of law sent protesters to jail for “many, many years” like tRump boasts they will. In short: this offensive seems rather half-assed and more like posturing.
Again I’m astounded by tRump’s propensity to jump the shark, to react in ways so ill-thought out that his increasingly lame position becomes all the more apparent for trying. At this rate, one expects agents provocateur to get busted red-handed supplying the little bit of violence tRump expects his troops to overreact to with a lot of violence. Very Keystone Coppish.
And eventually real libertarians are going to reject the presidunce’ s tactics as the very kind they’ve been warning about for years: the deep state suspending constitutional rights and freedoms. It seems to make no sense because libertarians—real ones not simply trying to disguise bigotry behind the heroic-sounding label—have been supporters of the self-proclaimed swamp-drainer and anti-politician: tRump can’t afford to lose any support at all, yet his tactics are going to be a challenge for some of his initial supporters.
And Covid’s still on the upswing. What the hell is going on? It’s as if somebody’s letting him stumble over a cliff he can’t see himself.
Scotty--
My take (and the take of a number of much sharper folks than I who have been really paying attention) is that this is all designed to provoke. Thus, the size of the 'force' is irrelevant and some might even say sacrificial.
Oh, and on Friday night they did chase protesters down the street in Portland.
And now, last night (Saturday), things erupted again in Seattle.
.
Provocative, yes, Ross, but I can’t see it outside of being a desperate move on a sheer cliff-face where one can’t very well descend, but continuing ascent will require greater and greater proof of necessity and results, neither of which, I believe, the presidunce can provide—except, perhaps, by retreat, despite it’s difficulty—which, I think, he’ll do when it becomes possible (it’s already necessary).
He’s obviously sensitive to the dilemma, so much so he’ll embarrass himself by proffering lame excuses for threats—like making the first pitch at a MLB game, then cancelling when it appeared embarrassing—or rehash in excruciating detail his “acuity” test. He has little qualm and zero foresight about either back-peddling disingenuously or threatening ridiculously. It’s easy over half of his problems.
I take it his plan (or his planners’ plan for which he’s given a few minutes of his narcissistic preoccupation) expects BLM to recognize the ploy and eventually back away so’s not to be labeled crazy-unamerican —tRump taking the victory lap, of course—and leaving the more radical protestors In their place which, I agree, are more easily provoked in a way tRump wants: he gets both results and rationalization.
The real question is: does setting federal buildings on fire help? How much does it blunt peaceful protestors’ purpose? At some point BLM and peaceful protest will have to recognize the narrative alley that’s predominating: the election; and if it wants to help it has to align its purpose with defeating tRump and committing to continuing to make its demands for justice. Right now, some of BLM’s associates appear to fear losing the spotlight on its particular demand, but attention-getting antics are playing into the Orange One’s dirty little hands.
IMHO, tRump is losing, will try anything to save himself. Protestors need to take it away from him, not give him anything. If they want to focus on a stage like Portland or Seattle, it gives too much to tRump. They need to diffuse, broaden nationally again and—definitely—dilute the fire-setters or expose those who are probably agents provocateurs. Call tRump’s bluff and remember: rewards will come after he’s been defeated.
Only double-digit days left.
Good point about the diffusion Scotty.
After all, it was the fact that things were happening everywhere that brought BLM back to the fore in a way that was unassailable and even made Corps, including the sports leagues, pay attention in a mostly positive way.
.
Post a Comment