Attack on Tacoma ICE contrated center

[TimothyC]

A protest outside the federal immigration detention center in Tacoma last year drew headlines when a 68-year-old man wrapped his arms around a police officer’s throat and shoulders in an apparent attempt to free another protester.

When police got the man into handcuffs, they found a collapsible baton and knife in his pocket, leading to criminal charges.

Early Saturday morning, that man, Willem Van Spronsen of Vashon Island, returned to the Northwest Detention Center, the holding facility for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, this time armed with a rifle and incendiary devices, according to Tacoma police.

Police said Van Spronsen tossed lit objects at vehicles and buildings, causing one car fire, and unsuccessfully tried to ignite a propane tank.

Officers were called by an ICE employee who saw the rifle. Soon after they arrived, officers reported “shots fired,” said Tacoma police spokeswoman Loretta Cool, although it is unclear who fired first or if Van Spronsen fired at all. The Pierce County Medical Examiner’s Office classified his death as a homicide.

The four responding officers all opened fire and then took cover, uninjured. After medical aid arrived, officers found Van Spronsen dead. He had multiple gunshot wounds, according to the Pierce County Medical Examiner’s office

Immigration is increasingly a flashpoint American politics, and Van Spronsen’s death came on the eve of Sunday’s planned national raid by ICE targeting thousands of undocumented immigrant families who the government said missed court hearings or who had received removal notices. Seattle is not among the 10 cities being targeted in the raids.

Deb Bartley, a friend of Van Spronsen’s for about 20 years, described him as an anarchist and anti-fascist, and she believes his attack on the detention center was intended to provoke a fatal conflict.

“He was ready to end it,” Bartley said. “I think this was a suicide. But then he was able to kind of do it in a way that spoke to his political beliefs … I know he went down there knowing he was going to die.”

She and other friends of Van Spronsen got letters in the mail “just saying goodbye.” He also wrote what she referred to as a manifesto, which she declined to discuss in detail but predicted would be taken by authorities.

Maru Mora-Villalpando, an activist with the group La Resistencia, which has frequently protested the conditions at the detention center and broader immigration policy, said she did not know Van Spronsen. Nor was La Resistencia involved with the June 2018 protest at which he was arrested, she said.

However, the group believes, based on information provided to them, that Van Spronsen was targeting the detention center’s parking lot, which includes a fleet of buses that transports immigrants to the Yakima airport, where they are deported.

Van Spronsen had worked as a self-employed carpenter and contractor, according to court documents. He was also a folk singer, playing shows on Vashon Island and around the Seattle area.

The 2018 protest involved about 160 people outside the detention center. About 40 people blocked a police car that had arrived, prompting the officer to call in backup; about 25 officers responded.

In court documents, Van Spronsen was accused of lunging at a police officer’s neck to help free a 17-year-old protester who was being detained. Van Spronsen refused to comply with officers’ orders, and as he was led through a crowd of protesters, police said he tried to pass the baton to another protester. Van Spronsen was punched in the face at least once during the altercation. Nine other people were arrested as well.

He ultimately pleaded guilty in Pierce County Superior Court to one count of obstructing an officer, a gross misdemeanor, and received a one-year deferred sentence in October, according to court documents, which labeled him indigent.

The four male officers involved in Saturday’s fatal shooting — ⁠ whose tenure with Tacoma police ranged from 20 years to 9 months — were placed on paid administrative leave per department policy. Their names won’t be released until further along in the investigation, according to Cool.

CE spokeswoman Tanya Roman confirmed the shooting incident and said no ICE employees were hurt nor involved. She referred questions to Tacoma police. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Seattle division said it will be supporting the investigation.

Good thing he failed as hard as he did and noone else died.

[Gandalf]

It's funny seeing right wingers react to this after so long of declaring themselves ready to rise up against Obama.

Apparently the righteousness of violence against the government depends on the skin colour of the POTUS.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm glad that no one but the shooter died.

And yet, I can understand why he might have done what he did. The thought of Trump's concentration camps (and yes, that's what they are) remaining open at least another year and a half while we wait for the political process to remove Trump, of the people who will die, and be raped, and lose their families, and be psychologically destroyed by the torture being inflicted there, is sickening. So I understand the desire to lash out, to do something, anything, to end it now.

The problem is, what he did is ultimately pointless. We would need far more support than a few angry activists with guns to end this by force. If we had enough support to end it by force, we could probably end it by other means. Or it would lead to a civil war, which would cause even more destruction and suffering than the status quo. Either way, I suspect that all he's done is get himself killed, and make it easier for Trump to paint his opponents as being all violent extremists.

That said, if an illegal immigrant (or wrongfully arrested American or lawful asylum seeker) facing detention chose to resist arrest by force, I'd regard it as justified self-defense. It would also be pointless, and probably just get them killed, but I won't condemn anyone who refuses to go meekly to an illegal concentration camp.

And yeah, any Republican whining about this after condoning violence against Obama/liberals/etc. can go fuck themselves.

[Ralin]

The problem is, what he did is ultimately pointless. We would need far more support than a few angry activists with guns to end this by force. If we had enough support to end it by force, we could probably end it by other means. Or it would lead to a civil war, which would cause even more destruction and suffering than the status quo. Either way, I suspect that all he's done is get himself killed, and make it easier for Trump to paint his opponents as being all violent extremists.

It serves the purpose of causing ICE scum fucks to be that much more afraid and more likely to seek other employment for fear of the consequences, same as with businesses refusing to serve them or politicians who support them. It also potentially inspires other attacks and encourages people from not signing up to begin with. And just in general it means they get that much less work done for the day, have fewer vehicles available to do it with and makes their budget a lil’ bit more strained. Yeah it won’t fix things entirely, but neither did fucking John Rabe.

I'm guessing you'll say something about it playing in to right-wing propaganda, but, I mean. They were going to do and say the same things regardless. And as has been noted, they’ve been calling for and committing attacks for awhile now. This isn’t the 1860s and no one who hasn’t already decided who they think is right is going to be swayed by who threw the first punch, assuming they even acknowledge it was a question to begin with.

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem is, what he did is ultimately pointless. We would need far more support than a few angry activists with guns to end this by force. If we had enough support to end it by force, we could probably end it by other means. Or it would lead to a civil war, which would cause even more destruction and suffering than the status quo. Either way, I suspect that all he's done is get himself killed, and make it easier for Trump to paint his opponents as being all violent extremists.

It serves the purpose of causing ICE scum fucks to be that much more afraid and more likely to seek other employment for fear of the consequences, same as with businesses refusing to serve them or politicians who support them. It also potentially inspires other attacks and encourages people from not signing up to begin with. And just in general it means they get that much less work done for the day, have fewer vehicles available to do it with and makes their budget a lil’ bit more strained. Yeah it won’t fix things entirely, but neither did fucking John Rabe.

Making ICE afraid also makes them that much more likely to be trigger-happy when detaining migrants or dealing with protesters. And inciting more attacks as a goal only makes sense if you have already given up on any other outcome than civil war.

I'm guessing you'll say something about it playing in to right-wing propaganda, but, I mean. They were going to do and say the same things regardless. And as has been noted, they’ve been calling for and committing attacks for awhile now. This isn’t the 1860s and no one who hasn’t already decided who they think is right is going to be swayed by who threw the first punch, assuming they even acknowledge it was a question to begin with.

As I've said many times (and as the thinly-veiled incitement of terrorism crowd on this board has routinely ignored), the point is not to appeal to the Alt. Reich. By and large, they are not going to change no matter what we do, its true.

The goal is to appeal to those who are not committed Trumpers, but not prepared to support armed Left-wing revolution. Ie the majority of Americans. Especially those in government, and especially those in the armed forces. Because Antifa or whatever is not going to win a fight with the US military. Period. That's just as much a delusional power/revenge fantasy as the idea of a survivalist militia overthrowing the US government, just coming from the (theoretically) opposite direction (but probably attracting a lot of people with the same basic mindset). Any hypothetical armed conflict over the future of America will be decided by who the bulk of the military, police, and intelligence community sides with, end of story. And there are a lot of people in those institutions who are not committed Trump loyalists, but who would (rightly) see it as their duty to stop armed violence instigated by Left wing protesters.

Again, I go back to the Civil War and Lincoln. That was as just and necessary a war as has ever been fought, aside from WW2. But Lincoln made damn sure that the South were the aggressors, just like he made damn sure that he didn't declare emancipation until the public mood in the North shifted in favour of it. Because if he hadn't, he'd have lost the border states, and with them the war.

I hope we can resolve the current crisis without more violence that we've already suffered, but if we can't, I hope to God that the Left are not in the role of the aggressors. For pragmatic reasons at least as much as moral ones.

[Jub]

Making ICE afraid also makes them that much more likely to be trigger-happy when detaining migrants or dealing with protesters. And inciting more attacks as a goal only makes sense if you have already given up on any other outcome than civil war.

Given that you seem to think there's a strong chance Trump won't be leaving office in 2020 (be that by means legitimate or not) what is your proposed solution to the issue?

Also, would you have been against this style of a raid on a German concentration camp in 1935 and if you wouldn't have been, and given your opinion of Trump and his party, what's the difference here?

The goal is to appeal to those who are not committed Trumpers, but not prepared to support armed Left-wing revolution. Ie the majority of Americans.

Ah yes, appeal to that golden mean and hope the uninformed and uncaring masses vote correctly this time around. Will that help if Trump decides to contest the votes by every legal, and even some illegal, means open to him?

[The Romulan Republic]

Making ICE afraid also makes them that much more likely to be trigger-happy when detaining migrants or dealing with protesters. And inciting more attacks as a goal only makes sense if you have already given up on any other outcome than civil war.

Given that you seem to think there's a strong chance Trump won't be leaving office in 2020 (be that by means legitimate or not) what is your proposed solution to the issue?

I propose that we try the lawful means first, then non-violent resistance, and then violence only if the alternatives are exhausted. If Trump does attempt to unlawfully retain power by force, then that would be about the strongest possible casus belli.

My hope is to avert violence, but failing that, I want it to be clear who the aggressors are, so we have as much support on our side as possible. Because there are a lot of people, both in American and abroad, who are not Trump loyalists or neo-fascists, but not prepared to sanction an armed Left-wing uprising. Those are the people we'd need to win over.

A lot will be determined by what happens during the election- Who wins, by how much, whether there is credible evidence that the outcome is illegitimate, what the public response to the outcome is, what actions the loser takes and whether they concede the result, etc. That may take some time after the election to sort out. So for the time being, my answer to the question "should the Left support armed resistance" is "No, and I'll reconsider the question in February 2021."

Right now, I would suggest that the most productive thing an American can do is to campaign as hard as they can for the Democrats, because even if Trump tries to hold onto power by illegal means, the stronger our support is, the more obvious his actions will be, and the less likely it is that he'll have the support he needs to carry them out.

For a non-American such as yourself, my suggestion would be to volunteer for/donate to groups that help refugees, and to lobby the Trudeau government to revoke the safe third party agreement with the US.

Also, would you have been against this style of a raid on a German concentration camp in 1935 and if you wouldn't have been, and given your opinion of Trump and his party, what's the difference here?

One obvious difference would be that by 1935, Germany was thoroughly under Hitler's control, and there wasn't any real means of politically opposing him. That is not currently the case with Trump and the United States.

Ah yes, appeal to that golden mean and hope the uninformed and uncaring masses vote correctly this time around. Will that help if Trump decides to contest the votes by every legal, and even some illegal, means open to him?

This has nothing to do with the "golden mean". I am not arguing that the Center is right because it is in the Center. I am arguing that you need the support of more than a small radical Leftist fringe to change the government of the United States, by any means whether lawful or unlawful.

Do you actually have a rebuttal to the argument that the Antifa crowd would be unable to defeat the US military, and that we need to behave in a manor that will ensure the support of a significant fraction of the political, military, and law enforcement establishment if Trump attempts to hold power by unlawful means? Or are you just going to dodge the argument with attacks on my motives and character?

I don't want people to simply vent their rage (however justified that rage is) in a suicidal last stand, like this man apparently did. I want to win. That means sticking to our principles, and it means knowing which tactics and strategies are viable, and which are merely lashing out in a pointless gesture of despair.

[Jub]

My hope is to avert violence, but failing that, I want it to be clear who the aggressors are, so we have as much support on our side as possible. Because there are a lot of people, both in American and abroad, who are not Trump loyalists or neo-fascists, but not prepared to sanction an armed Left-wing uprising. Those are the people we'd need to win over.

I don't think the exact details of who fired the first shot will much matter in that case. In fact, I'd like you to show a recent (post-Cold War) example of an internal conflict where who fired the first shot has changed the political discourse or the level of aid given to the side that fired first. You have a lot of examples to choose from so if there is an example I expect that you won't have to dig too deeply to find it.

A lot will be determined by what happens during the election- Who wins, by how much, whether there is credible evidence that the outcome is illegitimate, what the public response to the outcome is, what actions the loser takes and whether they concede the result, etc. That may take some time after the election to sort out. So for the time being, my answer to the question "should the Left support armed resistance" is "No, and I'll reconsider the question in February 2021."

Given your opinion on the validity of the 2016 elections, why would you expect a different result if the 2020 election happens in a similar fashion and would you describe the level of action taken since that 2016 election to be adequate?

One obvious difference would be that by 1935, Germany was thoroughly under Hitler's control, and there wasn't any real means of politically opposing him. That is not currently the case with Trump and the United States.

You've called Trump's party Nazis and ICE his secret police before, does this mean that you're retracting your statements or that you merely think that Trump is less effective than Hitler was?

Do you actually have a rebuttal to the argument that the Antifa crowd would be unable to defeat the US military, and that we need to behave in a manor that will ensure the support of a significant fraction of the political, military, and law enforcement establishment if Trump attempts to hold power by unlawful means? Or are you just going to dodge the argument with attacks on my motives and character?

It's not about defeating the military or freeing every prisoner. If it was history would look upon WWII resistance groups (which also had no chance of defeating the German military) very differently. So, given your stance on this attack, as well as your comments on these sorts of attacks happening on a larger scale, do you believe that armed resistance groups are a futile effort?

I don't want people to simply vent their rage (however justified that rage is) in a suicidal last stand, like this man apparently did. I want to win. That means sticking to our principles, and it means knowing which tactics and strategies are viable, and which are merely lashing out in a pointless gesture of despair.

Would you have called out a similar attack carried out by, for example, a Polish Resistance member in a similar fashion?

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think the exact details of who fired the first shot will much matter in that case. In fact, I'd like you to show a recent (post-Cold War) example of an internal conflict where who fired the first shot has changed the political discourse or the level of aid given to the side that fired first. You have a lot of examples to choose from so if there is an example I expect that you won't have to dig too deeply to find it.

That strikes me as a difficult proposition to prove, because so many factors affect a nation's decision to intervene or not intervene in overseas affairs. But one obvious example would be the difference in which countries were prepared to follow America into Iraq, vs Afghanistan.

In any case, I'm thinking less about overseas aid (which is governed by complicated networks of alliances), than about domestic support. Which I made quite clear in my post, so I think that you're shifting the goal posts here. Hence my analogy to the Civil War.

Given your opinion on the validity of the 2016 elections, why would you expect a different result if the 2020 election happens in a similar fashion and would you describe the level of action taken since that 2016 election to be adequate?

No, I would not describe it as adequate, but there are several levels of response possible between Hillary Clinton's concession speech and the constantly-sabotaged investigations that have occurred, and armed revolt. Recounts, challenging the result in court, mass demonstrations and civil disobedience, all of these would represent steps beyond what occurred in 2016, but short of armed resistance.

No, I do not expect the same result. There are too many variables that could play out differently. Will the margin be wider? Will it be enough (as in 2018) to largely overcome the attempts to rig the outcome? If Trump "wins" by illegitimate means, will it be more obvious, and will our nominee contest it rather than conceding, as Hillary did (IIRC, Obama was reported to have convinced her to do so)? Will it be a case of Trump legitimately winning the vote, even if he had illegal aid and voter supression to do so, like last time? Or will it be outright voter fraud? How will an investigation proceed differently with a Democratic House and possibly Senate? Recall that Trump came within a few tens of thousands of votes in three states of defeat. If any of several things (Bernie or Bust, the email investigation, Anthony fucking Weiner, etc.) had been just a little different, the result might have been different as well. Trump cheated, and he still had to role all sixes to win.

I expect Trump to cheat. It does not follow that 2020 must be a carbon-copy of 2016, or that the only alternative to that is violent resistance. And even if it came to that, the election would matter, in terms of building the strongest possible justification for resistance, and ensuring the broadest possible support.

You've called Trump's party Nazis and ICE his secret police before, does this mean that you're retracting your statements or that you merely think that Trump is less effective than Hitler was?

Trump has thus far been less effective than Hitler's Nazis, likely in part because he is operating in a more established republic, and with a less desperate and radicalized populace. He's done terrible things, and I don't doubt that he means to do far more terrible things (perhaps even as terrible as what Hitler did), but that he does not yet have the absolute power of Hitler is self-evident fact, and one I have never contested.

It's not about defeating the military or freeing every prisoner. If it was history would look upon WWII resistance groups (which also had no chance of defeating the German military) very differently. So, given your stance on this attack, as well as your comments on these sorts of attacks happening on a larger scale, do you believe that armed resistance groups are a futile effort?

No, because those groups' resistance took place as part of a global war against Nazism and fascism. Even if the resistance groups could not defeat the Germany military in a head-to-head fight, they could weaken and undermine it until the powerful nations that opposed it were able to destroy it, and provide meaningful aid to those nations' forces.

Would you have called out a similar attack carried out by, for example, a Polish Resistance member in a similar fashion?

No, because the situations are not the same, for reasons including those I have already explained. You are talking about actions taking by resistance groups in occupied countries during a state of open global warfare, after all conventional political means of redress (elections, courts, etc.) had already been destroyed to a far greater degree than in the contemporary United States, and for who's members the choices was often between resistance and being exterminated. To treat that as equivalent to the current situation is, frankly, either dishonest or delusional.

[Jub]

That strikes me as a difficult proposition to prove, because so many factors affect a nation's decision to intervene or not intervene in overseas affairs. But one obvious example would be the difference in which countries were prepared to follow America into Iraq, vs Afghanistan.

In any case, I'm thinking less about overseas aid (which is governed by complicated networks of alliances), than about domestic support. Which I made quite clear in my post, so I think that you're shifting the goal posts here. Hence my analogy to the Civil War.

'Because there are a lot of people, both in American and abroad, who are not Trump loyalists or neo-fascists, but not prepared to sanction an armed Left-wing uprising. Those are the people we'd need to win over.'

You specifically mentioned people abroad as people you want to win over, so answer the question.

No, I would not describe it as adequate, but there are several levels of response possible between Hillary Clinton's concession speech and the constantly-sabotaged investigations that have occurred, and armed revolt. Recounts, challenging the result in court, mass demonstrations and civil disobedience, all of these would represent steps beyond what occurred in 2016, but short of armed resistance.

So we should peacefully protest while people die in cages without even basic items like beds, blankets, and toothpaste?

I expect Trump to cheat. It does not follow that 2020 must be a carbon-copy of 2016, or that the only alternative to that is violent resistance. And even if it came to that, the election would matter, in terms of building the strongest possible justification for resistance, and ensuring the broadest possible support.

I never brought it forward as the only option, I'm simply trying to find out where your exact position on the topic is given your rhetoric about Trump's administration and ICE.

No, because those groups' resistance took place as part of a global war against Nazism and fascism. Even if the resistance groups could not defeat the Germany military in a head-to-head fight, they could weaken and undermine it until the powerful nations that opposed it were able to destroy it, and provide meaningful aid to those nations' forces.

So you're saying that people shouldn't even prepare for the possibility? After all, a call to arms and the formation of a leftwing militia doesn't have to mean immediate action.

No, because the situations are not the same, for reasons including those I have already explained. You are talking about actions taking by resistance groups in occupied countries during a state of open global warfare, after all conventional political means of redress (elections, courts, etc.) had already been destroyed to a far greater degree than in the contemporary United States, and for who's members the choices was often between resistance and being exterminated. To treat that as equivalent to the current situation is, frankly, either dishonest or delusional.

I'm simply making sure the board can see exactly where you lie on this so the next time you start to spout off about Nazi's and Trump becoming a dictator for life we can be clear that you actually mean he's a low rent Mussolini with less clout and not worth engaging in more than peaceful protest against. Your level of vitriol compared to how big of a threat you see Trump as seems to vary wildly from thread to thread and situation to situation.

[The Romulan Republic]

You specifically mentioned people abroad as people you want to win over, so answer the question.

And I answered that point, although it was not my main one.

You naturally ignored my response.

So we should peacefully protest while people die in cages without even basic items like beds, blankets, and toothpaste?

If its the most effective tactic at the moment, yes.

Keep in mind that a civil war would kill far more people, and probably disproportionately among the poor and vulnerable.

I never brought it forward as the only option, I'm simply trying to find out where your exact position on the topic is given your rhetoric about Trump's administration and ICE.

I trust that I have clarified it then.

So you're saying that people shouldn't even prepare for the possibility? After all, a call to arms and the formation of a leftwing militia doesn't have to mean immediate action.

No, I'm not saying that. I think that that everyone (excluding certain cases like small children, felons, the violently mentally ill, etc.) has the right to bear arms and to train in how to defend themselves. And while it might be better if that weren't the case, while that right exists and the white supremacists take full advantage of it, I suggest that the Left do likewise.

I also don't think it would necessarily be a bad idea for Blue State governors to start considering the possibility of post-election violence, and quietly making sure that their police and National Guard forces are ready, and commanded by trustworthy officers, leading up to election day.

Forming organized militias is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it means you have the infrastructure in place if it becomes needed. On the other hand, militias tend to attract trigger-happy people who are looking to start a fight, so a "call to arms" and forming militias is likely tantamount to somebody taking it that one step further and firing the first shot. I don't have an easy answer to that dilemma, I acknowledge.

I'm simply making sure the board can see exactly where you lie on this so the next time you start to spout off about Nazi's and Trump becoming a dictator for life we can be clear that you actually mean he's a low rent Mussolini with less clout and not worth engaging in more than peaceful protest against. Your level of vitriol compared to how big of a threat you see Trump as seems to vary wildly from thread to thread and situation to situation.

Ah, I see. You don't actually care about the potential fascist takeover of America and ethnic cleansing of immigrants and minorities*- you just see it as an opportunity to indulge your favorite hobby of playing my personal hall-monitor/stalker. Even if it means making arguments in support of terrorism so you can have the satisfaction of calling me a hypocrite.

I apologize to the board for wasting time on this ass hat.

*For the record, my stance has consistently been that Trump is an evil man, with Neo-Fascistic views and ambitions, who poses an existential threat if unchecked, but who could still potentially be checked by a variety of means.

[Jub]

And I answered that point, although it was not my main one.

You naturally ignored my response.

You brushed the question aside and gave a non-answer. Let me ask again if you believe who fires the first shot will matter when it comes to the international response to a US civil war?

If its the most effective tactic at the moment, yes.

Is it the most effective method, can you prove this?

<snip bits about militias and national guards>

That clarifies things.

[RogueIce]

At the end of the day, the President of the United States is an office, not a person. If Trump loses the 2020 election, then on January 20th, 2021 he will cease to be POTUS no matter what he says.

In which case TRR is right about whether or not the US government, military and law enforcement decide to abide by the Constitution and Law or some personal loyalty to Trump. If the former, then it won't matter: Trump will no longer be the President and he can sulk all he wants about it, nobody's following his orders. Period, end of story, the guy can tweet all he wants but eventually will fade from the public consciousness.

As for legitimacy of the vote, that's both objective and subjective depending on your views. Legally, the popular vote doesn't count for dick, only the Electoral College. Obviously, a lot of people disagree with this. But if a candidate wins the EC and loses the PV? Tough cookies to the loser, that candidate is now President-elect or remains President, depending. And pretty much all of the government apparatus will basically go along with this, personal feelings aside. Concession speeches are a nice gesture but not legally required.

There can be court challenges and all that jazz, but hey good thing we have a couple months between Election Night and Inauguration Day to sort it all out.

Ultimately though?

The vast majority of people will just accept whatever results come from Election Night and/or whenever the Supreme Court puts out the decision on whatever court challenges arise, if it even gets that far. There may be protests and shit, but widespread civil violence? Pretty doubtful, TBH. I mean, worst case: four more years of Trump, but who even knows how the Senate and House shake out. He could be a lame duck or it'll be a repeat of the Republican incompetence of 2017-2018, and hey we survived all of that just fine.

Either way he's gone by 2025 because he really wouldn't have the support to pass a Constitutional Amendment to go beyond a second term. And his most fanatical supporters aren't near numerous enough to outnumber those who will abide by the rule of law, even if for no other reason than plenty of others in the GOP would like their shot at the Presidency and won't be content with President for Life Trump. So it's a pretty overblown worry, in all reality.

[Zaune]

As I've said many times (and as the thinly-veiled incitement of terrorism crowd on this board has routinely ignored), the point is not to appeal to the Alt. Reich. By and large, they are not going to change no matter what we do, its true.

The goal is to appeal to those who are not committed Trumpers, but not prepared to support armed Left-wing revolution. Ie the majority of Americans. Especially those in government, and especially those in the armed forces. Because Antifa or whatever is not going to win a fight with the US military. Period. That's just as much a delusional power/revenge fantasy as the idea of a survivalist militia overthrowing the US government, just coming from the (theoretically) opposite direction (but probably attracting a lot of people with the same basic mindset). Any hypothetical armed conflict over the future of America will be decided by who the bulk of the military, police, and intelligence community sides with, end of story. And there are a lot of people in those institutions who are not committed Trump loyalists, but who would (rightly) see it as their duty to stop armed violence instigated by Left wing protesters.

Again, I go back to the Civil War and Lincoln. That was as just and necessary a war as has ever been fought, aside from WW2. But Lincoln made damn sure that the South were the aggressors, just like he made damn sure that he didn't declare emancipation until the public mood in the North shifted in favour of it. Because if he hadn't, he'd have lost the border states, and with them the war.

I hope we can resolve the current crisis without more violence that we've already suffered, but if we can't, I hope to God that the Left are not in the role of the aggressors. For pragmatic reasons at least as much as moral ones.

Bold of you to assume anyone who hasn't already decided which side they're going to take when -not "if", when- the Right feels bold enough to do away with so much as democracy theatre are waiting because they're uncertain about who the right side is. Anyone still on the fence after the US government started building literal concentration camps is either waiting for a clear winner to emerge so they can claim to have been backing them from the start, or hoping that as long as they keep their heads down and their mouths shut then neither side will deliberately target them.

The latter position being one I have some sympathy for, incidentally. It's hard enough to find the motivation to just give up your spare time for activism if it's going to count for Sweet Fanny Adams, never mind put your life and freedom on the line.

[Vendetta]

At the end of the day, the President of the United States is an office, not a person. If Trump loses the 2020 election, then on January 20th, 2021 he will cease to be POTUS no matter what he says.

This is one of those things where you don't actually know what's going to happen until you test it.

In principle the rest of the government should just carry on treating the person who actually did win as President and ignoring him, but that relies on the rest of the government abiding by the rule of law and the principles of governance that underpin it.

And Mitch McConnell doesn't do that. He ignores the principles of governance when they're invonvenient for the Republican party, like not holding votes on things that he is bound by his position to vote on because they're bad for the Republicans (letting Obama appoint a justice) or for Trump (releasing the Muller report despite a unanimous vote in the House).

It is not impossible at this point that if Trump loses and refuses to admit it the Senate will continue to act as if he is President, because Mitch McConnell has the functional power to not accept any legislation if he doesn't want to.

[RogueIce]

This is one of those things where you don't actually know what's going to happen until you test it.

In principle the rest of the government should just carry on treating the person who actually did win as President and ignoring him, but that relies on the rest of the government abiding by the rule of law and the principles of governance that underpin it.

And Mitch McConnell doesn't do that. He ignores the principles of governance when they're invonvenient for the Republican party, like not holding votes on things that he is bound by his position to vote on because they're bad for the Republicans (letting Obama appoint a justice) or for Trump (releasing the Muller report despite a unanimous vote in the House).

It is not impossible at this point that if Trump loses and refuses to admit it the Senate will continue to act as if he is President, because Mitch McConnell has the functional power to not accept any legislation if he doesn't want to.

What are they going to do, declare him President for Life? The Senate can't do anything about the election. Anyway...

1) There's a big difference between legislative obstructionism and civil war, like some people are going on about in here.
2) McConnell is being an obstructionist when it comes to House bills right now anyway, so short of Republicans taking back the House not much will change regardless of who wins the White House.
3) McConnell himself is up for election in 2020, so he may not even be an issue.

[Vendetta]

So McConnell rolls on and treats the Democratic winner as illegitimate and refuses to hold any vote on anything they or House Democrats advance for four years, effectively denying that they are the President in any meaningful sense, what happens?

(And whilst it's theoretically possible he won't be there in 2020 it's not something to found your future expectations on).

[RogueIce]

So McConnell rolls on and treats the Democratic winner as illegitimate and refuses to hold any vote on anything they or House Democrats advance for four years, effectively denying that they are the President in any meaningful sense, what happens?

(And whilst it's theoretically possible he won't be there in 2020 it's not something to found your future expectations on).

In a just world, the GOP loses hard in 2022 because people are finally sick of the obstructionist bullshit.

As a practical matter though, he's already doing this shit with Trump in office since the Democrats took back the House. So let's say after the elections it's still the status quo: Democrat House, Republican Senate, President Trump. He'd still be doing the same shit anyway.

At that point Trump "governs" via Executive Order, something several Democratic candidates have also put forward.

So honestly unless the Senate flips - or at least McConnell gets the boot and there's a new Majority Leader who is less of a dick (or enough GOP Senators break party loyalty) - it really won't matter who wins the Presidency. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Vendetta]

Yeah, but the question is what does McConnell do if Trump doesn't win.

In a potential future where Democrats hold the House and Presidency but not the Senate, McConnell can pretend that the Election didn't matter and refuse to advance any Democratic legislation to a vote in the senate as long as he is the Speaker.

So in that hypothetical future where Trump didn't win, but doesn't accept that he didn't win, McConnell can basically treat that as true and at least paralyse the legislature and prevent the actual winner from doing anything.

And he's already shown that the only thing preventing him from doing so, the general ideal of good governance of the nation, is not in fact enough to prevent him from doing so.

[The Romulan Republic]

As I've said many times (and as the thinly-veiled incitement of terrorism crowd on this board has routinely ignored), the point is not to appeal to the Alt. Reich. By and large, they are not going to change no matter what we do, its true.

The goal is to appeal to those who are not committed Trumpers, but not prepared to support armed Left-wing revolution. Ie the majority of Americans. Especially those in government, and especially those in the armed forces. Because Antifa or whatever is not going to win a fight with the US military. Period. That's just as much a delusional power/revenge fantasy as the idea of a survivalist militia overthrowing the US government, just coming from the (theoretically) opposite direction (but probably attracting a lot of people with the same basic mindset). Any hypothetical armed conflict over the future of America will be decided by who the bulk of the military, police, and intelligence community sides with, end of story. And there are a lot of people in those institutions who are not committed Trump loyalists, but who would (rightly) see it as their duty to stop armed violence instigated by Left wing protesters.

Again, I go back to the Civil War and Lincoln. That was as just and necessary a war as has ever been fought, aside from WW2. But Lincoln made damn sure that the South were the aggressors, just like he made damn sure that he didn't declare emancipation until the public mood in the North shifted in favour of it. Because if he hadn't, he'd have lost the border states, and with them the war.

I hope we can resolve the current crisis without more violence that we've already suffered, but if we can't, I hope to God that the Left are not in the role of the aggressors. For pragmatic reasons at least as much as moral ones.

Bold of you to assume anyone who hasn't already decided which side they're going to take when -not "if", when- the Right feels bold enough to do away with so much as democracy theatre are waiting because they're uncertain about who the right side is. Anyone still on the fence after the US government started building literal concentration camps is either waiting for a clear winner to emerge so they can claim to have been backing them from the start, or hoping that as long as they keep their heads down and their mouths shut then neither side will deliberately target them.

I can understand feeling that way, but bluntly, I think you are wrong. I certainly hope that you are, because if you divide the country into "people who are prepared, right here and now, to support an armed Leftist revolution", and people who are not worth engaging with, then you are accepting from the outset that you will have... oh, I'd guess offhand somewhere between five and twenty percent support, max. And that is a high-end estimate, in my opinion.

If you are right, that everyone who's going to choose a side already has, then you have lost, and that's the cold hard truth. But I don't believe that. I believe that the average American doesn't follow events that closely, is probably somewhat in denial about how bad it really is, but could be persuaded to openly endorse one side or the other at some point in the future. And the most important ones to have the support of would be members of the military, intelligence, and law enforcement community who put duty above ideology- and who will therefore potentially turn on an illegitimate Presidency, but not one that has a fig leaf of legal legitimacy, however horrible.

In any case, its not so much about whether they're on the fence about concentration camps being bad. There are a lot of people who think the current situation is deplorable but aren't ready to go to war over it. Myself for one.

The latter position being one I have some sympathy for, incidentally. It's hard enough to find the motivation to just give up your spare time for activism if it's going to count for Sweet Fanny Adams, never mind put your life and freedom on the line.

Indeed.

[Zaune]

I divide it into "people who are prepared to materially oppose an armed Fascist revolution that we can no longer talk about as purely hypothetical" and people who aren't worth engaging with, to be precise. Though I'm not convinced that comes to a more useful number.

And in any case it probably doesn't matter, because there are two likely endpoints to this saga and they both suck: Either Trump gets a second term, in which case I'd be surprised if he doesn't go full Featherstone and order ICE to start hosing down the cages with machine guns, or the United States experiences the kind of constitutional crisis where the Army starts taking sides. It's a toss-up which option would kill fewer innocent people, alhough you could possibly make a case that the second would kill slightly more guilty ones. I certainly wouldn't bet on any of my friends and family (or my brother) living through either one.

And if by some miracle neither of those happen, whoever ends up in the White House has to oversee prosecuting half the Republican state officials in the South for sedition over conspiring to suppress the black and/or poor vote and deal with the fact that state and county-level law enforcement has been systematically hijacked by the goddamn Klan, and with the GOP probably still having enough of a presence in the other branches to make it difficult to give the FBI some Predator drones. And the mind boggles as to who their next candidate will be.

[The Romulan Republic]

I divide it into "people who are prepared to materially oppose an armed Fascist revolution that we can no longer talk about as purely hypothetical" and people who aren't worth engaging with, to be precise. Though I'm not convinced that comes to a more useful number.

And in any case it probably doesn't matter, because there are two likely endpoints to this saga and they both suck: Either Trump gets a second term, in which case I'd be surprised if he doesn't go full Featherstone and order ICE to start hosing down the cages with machine guns, or the United States experiences the kind of constitutional crisis where the Army starts taking sides. It's a toss-up which option would kill fewer innocent people, alhough you could possibly make a case that the second would kill slightly more guilty ones. I certainly wouldn't bet on any of my friends and family (or my brother) living through either one.

And if by some miracle neither of those happen, whoever ends up in the White House has to oversee prosecuting half the Republican state officials in the South for sedition over conspiring to suppress the black and/or poor vote and deal with the fact that state and county-level law enforcement has been systematically hijacked by the goddamn Klan, and with the GOP probably still having enough of a presence in the other branches to make it difficult to give the FBI some Predator drones. And the mind boggles as to who their next candidate will be.

The best outcome is that there's a high enough Democratic turnout to overcome any attempts at rigging (as in 2018), and that its clear-cut enough that even if Dickless does try to refuse to leave office, the Courts and the military both largely ignore him. I expect there will almost certainly be some violence regardless of the outcome*, because of how polarized it is and how both sides are primed (albeit with far more justification on the Democrats' side) to see it as fraudulent if they lose, but its the difference between a few riots and maybe a spike in bombings/mass shootings, and a full-blown coup or civil war.

Of course, then the real work begins- systematically undoing every major thing Trump did, and going beyond that to enact reforms that will prevent the next Trump from pulling this shit in the future.


*One thing I would advise is that people go to the polling station in groups if possible, and bring their cell phones if permitted by law*, to discourage/record any attempts at voter intimidation or people being unlawfully prevented from voting. Another materially useful non-violent act people can take.


*Photography inside polling places is prohibited by law, with very good reason (its supposed to be a secret ballot to prevent people from being coerced or influenced in how they vote), but I'm not sure of the rules around recording in a line up outside. This is something to research.

[TimothyC]

I just noticed the typo in the thread title. Instead of "contrated" it should read "contracted." Would a mod be so kind as to fix that for me?

[RogueIce]

Yeah, but the question is what does McConnell do if Trump doesn't win.

In a potential future where Democrats hold the House and Presidency but not the Senate, McConnell can pretend that the Election didn't matter and refuse to advance any Democratic legislation to a vote in the senate as long as he is the Speaker.

So in that hypothetical future where Trump didn't win, but doesn't accept that he didn't win, McConnell can basically treat that as true and at least paralyse the legislature and prevent the actual winner from doing anything.

And he's already shown that the only thing preventing him from doing so, the general ideal of good governance of the nation, is not in fact enough to prevent him from doing so.

But I mean, he's already refusing to put things through from the House as it is? And this isn't much different from the obstructionist shit they did back under Obama?

Now, if McConnell literally says, "[Democratic-nominee] is illegitimate, all hail the true President, Donald Trump!" I would be worried. But I suspect he'd acknowledge the President as the President...but block the 'Socialist AgendaTM' anyway, because the modern GOP are a bunch of sore losers who can't into compromise.

Obviously this whole "bring governing to a screeching halt because we don't have full control" is fucking terrible and I wish they could grow the fuck up and re-learn this whole compromise thing, but unfortunately that's not where we're at. I'm hoping, eventually, we can pull it back from the hyper polarization of late, but only time will tell.

Or we'll just get cycles of single-party rule that not everyone is happy with, because this country isn't hardcore right or left enough to really be happy with the Dems or Reps going full agenda all the time when they take the Presidency and Congress and we'll keep seeing this happen: one side gets in, does their thing, then there's a split Congress in the mid-terms/second Presidential election, the other side wins it all for the next Presidential election, split Congress come mid-terms/etc., rinse and repeat.

[Gandalf]

Why should McConnell "grow the fuck up?"

It seems what he's doing keeps getting enough votes.