Very Odd

[JRT]

I find it very odd that no one has yet started a thread to discuss the shameful events of yesterday.

 

[hotrhymez]

My opinion: storming Capitol buildings is THE WORST IDEA EVER. One person is dead because of it!

 

[tango]

I find it very odd that no one has yet started a thread to discuss the shameful events of yesterday.

I find it very odd that you'd start a thread complaining about the lack of threads, when you could have just started the thread you apparently think should be here.

 

[ValleyGal]

I find it very odd that no one has yet started a thread to discuss the shameful events of yesterday.

Me too. In fact, I never come to this forum, but thought it might be interesting to read American Christian's thoughts on the situation. In times like this, the American-Canadian culture difference is highlighted, and I find it fascinating how different we are.

 

[Andrew]

I find it very odd that you'd start a thread complaining about the lack of threads, when you could have just started the thread you apparently think should be here.

My exact thought as well

 

[Lamb]

I find it very odd that no one has yet started a thread to discuss the shameful events of yesterday.

I'll give you my take on what I saw unfold.

I was watching FoxNews because it's the only channel that actually dares to show Trump's rally in full instead of showing a portion and then cutting away to make their condescending remarks (cough CNN cough).

My husband joined me in watching the President speak and once 1PM started creeping closer, which was when Congress would begin their certification of the electoral votes, we wondered when the President would actually shut up. He kept talking. And talking.

President Trump NEVER commanded anyone to storm the Capitol as some news outlets have reported. Personally I hope he sues them for slander and libel (since it was both spoken and written). What he said was that they needed to march on the Capitol and show strength. That's NOT inciting a riot. That's not telling them to stop the certification.

What transpired is not a shock to those of us who have been reading conservative news posts that allow comments. For months I've seen whisperings of a Revolution and a Civil War. So I knew something was coming...I just never knew when it would actually transpire.

Fox News never broke away and showed us the images as they received them, talking to the people around them as well.

What we saw was that the Police did NOTHING to stop the people from marching onto the property! They allowed it and we were shocked and I said to my husband, "I wonder if those police voted for Trump and were showing their support?" That's the first shocking part...that they weren't stopped.

You'll see some later videos where some of the secret service attempted to stop the people from going too far, and that's their job. Good for them to make the attempt. But DC police did not do their job.

We've known for weeks that there would be a huge crowd going to the rally. How could they have not fully prepared for this? The reason is because typically Republicans are not rioters! Do you remember over the summer "the summer of love" one politician quipped, where Liberals quoted Martin Luther King repeatedly about violence being necessary? They promoted the riots, looting, and fires in Democratic cities to the point where it became acceptable to do those law-breaking things!

It was shocking for us to watch as people walked casually through the hall statues. One reporter noted that it was as if they were taking a tour and that's what we saw. People walking calmly inside. It wasn't all force and fighting as some news channels are showing.

Do you know what happens when large groups of people gather and some people lead the way? The others think it's okay to follow...so they do. It's not as if the entire crowd had a goal of crime and destruction. They thought they had a purpose and saw that people were actually allowed by police to pass through...so they followed the rest of the group to get onto the property!

In the later afternoon reporters even asked people if they knew what was happening inside the Capitol and the people had no clue. That right there shows you that the majority of the people were there for the rally and to peaceful protest. They brought their children and their dogs.

There should have been more security in advance. There should have been more intelligence to know that there were side groups (and yes, some are Republican people who wanted violence) planning on infiltrating the building.

FoxNews did a search yesterday and easily found posts all over social media posted days before the event with plans on what to do and where to go. These types of plans were just like the plans made by Democrats for their "protests" where some side groups had nefarious intentions and not just peaceful protests.

Americans know that both sides have groups of people who are angry and dissatisfied with what is happening in the country.

Here's the thing...they aren't big enough to really make a change beyond being seen. Most Americans are too lazy to do anything. We sit around and hope someone else makes the change for us. I'm sorry if that offends people but it's true. We have become too complacent.

The storming of the Capitol should not have happened. It could have been prevented to some degree.

Biden has too much work to try to unify the country and with his health being as it is I doubt he's the man for the job. Kamala is too divisive in her own nature. So who will save our nation?

 

[hedrick]

Yes, you've got to wonder why police weren't prepared, and didn't react. I believe there's going to be an investigation. It will be interesting to see what it turns up. It probably won't be a single decision that we can hang someone for, but rather a pattern of mistakes. That's how things usually turn out. I can't help wondering whether Capitol police treated it differently because it was an event where Trump was speaking. Psychologically you think of an event supporting the president differently from a group of outsiders demonstrating. But if that's what happened, we'll surely find that they were ignoring their own intelligence reports.

There's some indication that the President resisted involving National Guard, though by that time things had already gotten out of hand.

 

[Josiah]

OBVIOUSLY, UNDENIABLY this was a horrible and disgusting act that NO ONE ON THE PLANET defends or supports. Trump has condemned it and said those involved "will pay" (whatever that means), EVERY Republican in Congress is on record condemning it.


But here's what I find.... interesting: The very hypocritical way Liberals (and their press mouthpiece) is handling this.

+ They call it a "RIOT" - liberals have not called ANYTHING any liberal does a "riot" in over 50 years. No matter how much damage, no mater how many laws broken, no matter how much property is destroyed, no matter how many are killed - it's a "protest" (at WORSE, "civil disobedience"). But when it's Republicans, it's a "RIOT." Hum.....

+ When it's BLM or ANY leftest thing, no matter how violent, no matter how many laws broken and lives lost and property destroyed, there is a brief condemnation of the violence (maybe) and then endless pleas for all to "understand the rage" and "pay attention to the injustice" Notice that
that's entirely missing. The Libs and the Press don't want any focus on the reason for their rage, the reason for their anger.... indeed, they insist this isn't a protest of anything.

+ When it's some liberal riot, people killed, property destroyed, the Libs insist we can't "inflame" them.... police should stand by and let them destroy, police should just smile, government leaders should say NOTHING that will anger or frustrate them and thus inflame the situtation. BUT when it's Republicans, the Libs insist Trump be removed from office (ABSURD but done ONLY to inflame and frustrate), the TV was nothing but inflaming. True - the protesters went home and have done nothing but clearly, obviously, the Libs did every thing they could to inflame the protestors - exactly what they so boldly insist MUST NEVER be done when it's liberals who are angry, liberals who are frustrated, liberals who are protesting.


Now, I am NOT - not at all, not a bit - defending what the protesters did. I condemn it EXACTLY as I condemn similar things done by BLM protestors. I'm just noting the HYPOCRASY of how the Libs and their mouthpiece, the press, is responding to the protest. And yes, it's meant to do one thing: Inflame and frustrate those protesters even more.


- Josiah




.

 

[hedrick]

This article contrasts responses. Rioters breached US Capitol security on Wednesday. This was the police response when it was Black protesters on DC streets last year. The big difference is in how authorities prepared. The last sentence in the article suggests that the White House decided that the response should be limited to civilian police. It will be interesting to see if that is confirmed. but even then, there could have been more preparation.

 

[tango]

Now, I am NOT - not at all, not a bit - defending what the protesters did. I condemn it EXACTLY as I condemn similar things done by BLM protestors. I'm just noting the HYPOCRASY of how the Libs and their mouthpiece, the press, is responding to the protest. And yes, it's meant to do one thing: Inflame and frustrate those protesters even more.

(cut for brevity)

I agree with this summary and with your other points.

It's remarkable how right-wing protestors are "an affront to law and order" while left-wing protestors can loot and destroy and literally burn down buildings only to be described as "mostly peaceful". If left-wing people who claim to be outraged over racial justice issues decide to loot small businesses owned by black families that's a perfectly valid expression of outrage. It's perfectly valid to burn down whitey's business to express outrage over racial injustice because whitey is, well, white and therefore he/she/they must be the problem. Never mind the fact that whitey probably serves all members of the community equally, they must be the problem.

But hey, the party of peace and love shows the true colors of their leadership.

 

[JRT]

Me too. In fact, I never come to this forum, but thought it might be interesting to read American Christian's thoughts on the situation. In times like this, the American-Canadian culture difference is highlighted, and I find it fascinating how different we are.

Years ago the Canadian historian Pierre Burton published a collection of essays entitled "Why We Act Like Canadians". The short answer is history but he did make a telling observation. To the question "what are you about?" an American would say "life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness" while a Canadian would say "peace. order and good government".

 

[Lamb]

Years ago the Canadian historian Pierre Burton published a collection of essays entitled "Why We Act Like Canadians". The short answer is history but he did make a telling observation. To the question "what are you about?" an American would say "life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness" while a Canadian would say "peace. order and good government".

Define "good government"?

 

[tango]

Years ago the Canadian historian Pierre Burton published a collection of essays entitled "Why We Act Like Canadians". The short answer is history but he did make a telling observation. To the question "what are you about?" an American would say "life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness" while a Canadian would say "peace. order and good government".

I guess this is a good reason for more open borders. If someone lives north of the border and would prefer "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", or someone lives south of the border and would prefer "peace, order and good government", they can move to where they would be happier.

Of course it's not as if the two are mutually exclusive. We could certainly use some good government this side of the border, it's been in desperately short supply for at least a decade and shows no signs of improving any time soon.

 

[JRT]

Define "good government"?

That is a tall order. Saying "of the people, by the people and for the people" would be a good start. This could include a whole range of actions like equitable access to health care for everyone and a fair distribution of wealth across the nation to name two.

 

[tango]

That is a tall order. Saying "of the people, by the people and for the people" would be a good start. This could include a whole range of actions like equitable access to health care for everyone and a fair distribution of wealth across the nation to name two.

You'd have to define "fair distribution of wealth" as well. Oh yes, and "equitable access to healthcare".

 

[ValleyGal]

That is a tall order. Saying "of the people, by the people and for the people" would be a good start. This could include a whole range of actions like equitable access to health care for everyone and a fair distribution of wealth across the nation to name two.

Interestingly, I would also add paternalism. Let me be clear, though. I am not talking about a "daddy" state. Rather, I am talking about colonialism. Generally speaking, the US was colonized by the bad-boy cowboy rogue pushing west to escape the law, but in Canada, the law went ahead of the colonizers to pave the way and ensure its safety (not getting into the damage done to First Nations here). In Canada, we see it as the government's responsibility to take care of its people, and we have the paternal (federal) and maternal (provincial) governments to take care of their citizens. This is also a patriarchal system in which the federal government has much control by instituting policies that apply to all provinces, so there is consistency across the country. The US gives way more autonomy to each state (makes me wonder how they are "united" states).

You'd have to define "fair distribution of wealth" as well. Oh yes, and "equitable access to healthcare".

I don't believe our distribution of wealth is "fair" because the income assistance program does not keep up with inflation rates. However, I believe it's much more fair than in the US. Fair distribution of the wealth certainly lines the big corporate pockets and politicians, but it also ensures that a certain amount of public funds is re-invested in the economy by providing enough money to those who are "underprivileged" so they can still spend on those big corporations and also feed and clothe themselves at the same time. Part of this fair distribution of wealth includes access to healthcare - everyone in our country, whether homeless or in a 200 million dollar highrise condo in Vancouver, is provided with a basic access to healthcare and most medications - based on federal policies. As a BC resident, I can get medical care if I am on vacation in New Brunswick, or moving between provinces. We are all covered, all the time, no matter where we are in the country. For those who can afford it, there are extended benefits to cover other healthcare costs such as EMT, private hospital rooms, meds not covered under the basic plan, vision and hearing care, chiro, massage, alternative health, etc.

Hopefully that answers some of those questions.

For the average Canadian, peace, order, and good government pretty much satisfies our pursuit of happiness and certainly supports life and liberty! We are consistently rated as one of the top countries in life satisfaction surveys.

 

[tango]

Interestingly, I would also add paternalism. Let me be clear, though. I am not talking about a "daddy" state. Rather, I am talking about colonialism. Generally speaking, the US was colonized by the bad-boy cowboy rogue pushing west to escape the law, but in Canada, the law went ahead of the colonizers to pave the way and ensure its safety (not getting into the damage done to First Nations here). In Canada, we see it as the government's responsibility to take care of its people, and we have the paternal (federal) and maternal (provincial) governments to take care of their citizens. This is also a patriarchal system in which the federal government has much control by instituting policies that apply to all provinces, so there is consistency across the country. The US gives way more autonomy to each state (makes me wonder how they are "united" states).

I guess the eternal question is what options exist for someone who doesn't want the hand of government over their life. Which, after all, was a good chunk of the reason America declared independence from England in the first place.

The key thing here is that it isn't a question of right/wrong or good/bad, more a question of personal preference. There's nothing wrong with wanting a society like you describe but there's also nothing wrong with wanting a society based more on personal freedom and personal responsibility, with less government involvement if it goes wrong. It's just that it's increasingly difficult to find such a society.

I don't believe our distribution of wealth is "fair" because the income assistance program does not keep up with inflation rates. However, I believe it's much more fair than in the US. Fair distribution of the wealth certainly lines the big corporate pockets and politicians, but it also ensures that a certain amount of public funds is re-invested in the economy by providing enough money to those who are "underprivileged" so they can still spend on those big corporations and also feed and clothe themselves at the same time.

Where terms like "fair" are used things start to get difficult. It's not fair that the person who works hard is taxed to fund the person who is simply lazy. At the same time it's not fair that the child with billionaire parents gets a headstart in the world that the child born to a drug addict who sold her body to pay for a fix and doesn't even know who the baby daddy is can only dream of. The trouble is that "fair" looks different depending on which side of the line you're on.

An eternal question is whether the government is the best placed body to address it and indeed whether "fair" is even a standard that can ever be achieved, not least because so many people will disagree on what it means to be fair.

Part of this fair distribution of wealth includes access to healthcare - everyone in our country, whether homeless or in a 200 million dollar highrise condo in Vancouver, is provided with a basic access to healthcare and most medications - based on federal policies. As a BC resident, I can get medical care if I am on vacation in New Brunswick, or moving between provinces. We are all covered, all the time, no matter where we are in the country. For those who can afford it, there are extended benefits to cover other healthcare costs such as EMT, private hospital rooms, meds not covered under the basic plan, vision and hearing care, chiro, massage, alternative health, etc.

Healthcare seems to fall into the same patterns of provision problem as income. Using the concept of fairness, given how much of our health is little more than a cosmic lottery it's not fair that someone who contracts a horrendous disease ends up bankrupt simply because life dealt them a dud hand. I think of the couple I know whose child required numerous rounds of cancer treatment before finally giving up the ghost and dying at the ripe old age of 12. Clearly it's not fair that they should be financially ruined for what's little more than a cosmic fluke. At the same time the person who is so morbidly obese they could lose half their body weight and still be morbidly obese, who cruises around on their mobility scooter stuffing their face with jumbo-sized popcorn and ice cream can hardly claim it's not fair when other people feel disinclined to fund their obesity-related conditions. (To be clear, in any individual situation it's hard to know whether weight gain caused mobility issues or mobility issues caused weight gain but either way eating your own body weight in ice cream isn't going to help).

As in the first paragraph, there's nothing wrong with wanting to be part of a society where everybody pays into a system and the system pays out if you need it. The eternal question is how to provide for people who don't want to be part of such a society, people who would rather not pay into the system and who accept that the system won't be there for them if they need it. Or perhaps even how to provide for people who would look to have some kind of insurance against catastrophic events (e.g. requiring cancer treatment or major surgery) but who darken the door of their doctor's office so seldom they would rather just pay their own way for minor things.

In the UK the NHS is theoretically there for you if you need medical treatment, wherever in the country you may be and you don't get a bill when you leave. The trouble with the NHS is that when it works it's remarkably good and when it doesn't work you'd think you were in some kind of tinpot banana republic. It's hard to have much faith in the system when a bathroom that has allegedly been cleaned daily has a bar of soap resting on the edge of the bath for literally two weeks, to give just one example.

Hopefully that answers some of those questions.

For the average Canadian, peace, order, and good government pretty much satisfies our pursuit of happiness and certainly supports life and liberty! We are consistently rated as one of the top countries in life satisfaction surveys.

I guess a lot also depends on how you define "liberty". If you'd rather use the money the government currently takes in the form of taxes to fund all the things you described, and use it to build a system more to your liking, I guess you're just out of luck? So effectively you're free to live as the government permits, which doesn't fit the definition of liberty for many people

 

[ValleyGal]

Tango, we have hijacked the thread. The differences between Canada and the US are fascinating to me, and based on that, I have a hard time understanding what is going on in the US with regard to Trumpism and the intense dedication to capitalism. There is a fine line, and as a moderate kind of person, those extremes fascinate me. People embrace the values in which they are raised, so dedicating taxes to those who are financially less fortunate is a value I embrace and as a social worker, have examined the whole concept of the "deserving" poor. But it is also why Americans are more individualistic, capitalistic, and more about "rights" than they are about how they use their rights when it comes to the right to help others. Iow, they seem to care more about their own liberties than about upholding the liberties of others, especially the liberty to live free of highly transmissible illnesses like Covid. Americans embrace the country's values of liberty and the pursuit of happiness - and life? yes - at least their own.

Aside from my fascination with the differences between how Canada and the US frame their beliefs, values, and social norms, I am also interested in "groupthink" - the mob mentality, and how so many are so easily persuaded into actions they would never do on their own. Most interesting is that Americans are so individualistic, yet they fall into groupthink just as easily as anyone from a more community-minded upbringing. I'm also interested in leadership, and watching how intensely devoted some people are to Trump (not just because he is Republican) blows my mind because from where I sit, there isn't much to devote to. Perhaps there have been other Republicans with more integrity and less narcissism, that are more worth devoting to, so why don't people become this intensely loyal to other leaders. Why Trump? and why to the point of deadly sieges?

Imo, what happened the other night didn't need to happen. People didn't need to die or get harmed. And their blood is on those who are responsible for inciting such violence. If only someone - anyone - could have used their influence to serve the People's needs rather than either sit by idly watching or feeding their own narcissistic needs at the expense of the People.

But that's my Canadian perspective. And no, not all Canadians think like I do, but most do.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

nm

 

[tango]

Tango, we have hijacked the thread.

We kinda have. @Lämmchen , is it worth breaking the thread into two discussions?

The differences between Canada and the US are fascinating to me, and based on that, I have a hard time understanding what is going on in the US with regard to Trumpism and the intense dedication to capitalism. There is a fine line, and as a moderate kind of person, those extremes fascinate me. People embrace the values in which they are raised, so dedicating taxes to those who are financially less fortunate is a value I embrace and as a social worker, have examined the whole concept of the "deserving" poor.

I think Trumpism and capitalism are very distinct things. I think some of the dedication to Trump comes from people who think he is some kind of messianic figure (this view appears to have at least some traction among the silly fringes of the charismatic church as well as others) and others who are thrilled at the idea of simply making liberals cry for the sake of, well, making liberals cry. Then there are people who support Trump not so much because they like him or what he does but because they are Republicans and prefer Trump to any of the Democrats on offer.

As far as capitalism and the concept of the un/deserving poor is concerned I think capitalism works, as long as we don't see the kind of crony capitalism currently on display in the US where large companies are protected from failure while small companies are not, and large companies can fund lobbyists to create endless layers of regulations to prevent smaller upstarts from challenging the dominant large companies, and so on. When huge corporations can spend billions of dollars on share buybacks and dividends only to run cap in hand to Congress when something unexpected happens (and in fairness the COVID problem is pretty high up on the "unexpected" scale but part of responsible financial management is keeping something in reserve against a shock to the system) something is badly wrong. At the same time the smaller companies and workers at the bottom end of the scale, who have yet to have a chance to see enough income to save anything meaningful for the future, are pretty much left out in the cold.

Where giving free money to the poor is concerned it's always very hard to differentiate between the "deserving poor" and the "undeserving poor", not least because the question can't even be addressed without coming to a conclusion as to who counts as "deserving". It's pretty easy to find examples of people who most would agree are deserving and equally easy to find examples of people most would agree are undeserving but it's the endless gray areas in the middle that cause the problems. From there the question becomes one of whether the poor are best served by private charity or public welfare, but the existence of public welfare requires taxation that soaks up at least some of the money that might otherwise have been given in the form of private charity.

One problem with public welfare is that it can so easily turn into a lever to manipulate a voter base. It's often said that the most dangerous person is the one with nothing to lose. If you give them just enough so that they have something to lose but not enough to give them any hope for the future you can control them. They can't escape from the trap you set for them but you can keep them afraid that voting for a change in regime will see them stripped of what little they have.

But it is also why Americans are more individualistic, capitalistic, and more about "rights" than they are about how they use their rights when it comes to the right to help others. Iow, they seem to care more about their own liberties than about upholding the liberties of others, especially the liberty to live free of highly transmissible illnesses like Covid. Americans embrace the country's values of liberty and the pursuit of happiness - and life? yes - at least their own.

This is where we have to ask just what liberty means. The coronavirus has highlighted, among other things, that many people are very bad at risk assessment. There's lots of talk about how we should all just stay home and hide but, as we've discussed on other threads, staying home isn't a zero-cost proposition. It's one thing to argue about reasons why my liberty should be curtailed so another person can live but the question always comes back to one of balance between individual freedom and society's overall freedom. As with so much else it's not a simple matter of right and wrong but of balance. I have a friend who is well into her 70s who recently had major heart surgery. Not surprisingly she is extremely cautious where the virus is concerned. I haven't seen her in months because she just doesn't want visitors, even immediate family. And I respect her wishes - I'm not going to just stop by because it would upset her. On the other hand, expecting everybody to stay home and give up their entire lives for an unknown amount of time because of the theoretical possibility that we might transmit something has to have an end game and, in the absence of such an end game, it's easy to see why people put their own liberty before rules that make no sense. And to be clear, for many people it's not just a question of simply saying "I'll do what I want and hang the consequences" but more of a desire to make our own risk assessments. We do this every day in a huge range of other settings but apparently where a virus that has a miniscule chance of killing the majority of us is concerned apparently we can't be trusted to make our own assessments.

Aside from my fascination with the differences between how Canada and the US frame their beliefs, values, and social norms, I am also interested in "groupthink" - the mob mentality, and how so many are so easily persuaded into actions they would never do on their own. Most interesting is that Americans are so individualistic, yet they fall into groupthink just as easily as anyone from a more community-minded upbringing. I'm also interested in leadership, and watching how intensely devoted some people are to Trump (not just because he is Republican) blows my mind because from where I sit, there isn't much to devote to.

Even as one who would identify as moderate Republican (my primary political leaning is libertarian, as you probably noticed ) I struggle with the cult-like devotion to Trump. I'd have chosen him over Biden simply because I dislike most of the Democrat agenda and find the far left more frightening than the far right, but don't care for him as a leader.

Groupthink is a worrying phenomenon. I'm not sure that a focus on individual freedom stops it, perhaps it merely gives a sense of ownership of decisions (I'll choose which group to think with, thanks very much). It reminds me of my teenage years when people expressed their "desire to be different" by doing exactly the same as everybody else.

Perhaps there have been other Republicans with more integrity and less narcissism, that are more worth devoting to, so why don't people become this intensely loyal to other leaders. Why Trump? and why to the point of deadly sieges?

In many ways I think the extreme and growing polarisation of US politics, paired with some of the silliness of the Democrats (even if it is the silly fringe of the Democrats) helped create Trump. You can only annoy the people for so long before they push back and the sense that the Democrats are endlessly about being politically correct at any cost (e.g. the "Amen and awomen" prayer in Congress) coupled with the growing cancel culture that increasingly seems to target anyone who thinks differently create conditions ripe for someone, anyone, who promises to end the madness.