Senator Cotton Suggests Protesters Should Be Thrown Off Bridges

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Is it just me, or has he been saying more violent, nutjob comments in the past 2 or 3 years (compared to his past)?

To be fair, Cotton has always been like this. He was the guy saying the US had an "under incarceration problem" when Trump was promoting the First Step Act in 2018.

And he was right, wasn't he? Haven't crime rates risen as incarceration fell? The narrative that Michelle Alexander etc presented in 2016 -- "The New Jim Crow" -- has clearly been disastrous for America.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Is it just me, or has he been saying more violent, nutjob comments in the past 2 or 3 years (compared to his past)?

To be fair, Cotton has always been like this. He was the guy saying the US had an "under incarceration problem" when Trump was promoting the First Step Act in 2018.

And he was right, wasn't he? Haven't crime rates risen as incarceration fell? The narrative that Michelle Alexander etc presented in 2016 -- "The New Jim Crow" -- has clearly been disastrous for America.

COVID was a temporary blip, violent crime crashed down last year, and is declining even faster this year.

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1229891045/police-crime-baltimore-san-francisco-minneapolis-murder-statistics

I get that you only like spending money if it leads to war, brutality, or imprisonment, never to actually help people, but damn, at least try to get the facts right. Maybe one day God will show you a halfway decent, less monstrous path.

"COVID" had nothing to do with it: crime fell when COVID happened. It was the summer of Floyd. And yes, crime is now coming back down because there a backlash forcing Democratic politicians to take action -- see Hochul putting troopers on the subways -- but the homicide rate for 2023 was still substantially higher than in 2019.

Seriously, classic data trick/example of not thinking through something: "violent crime crashed down last year, and is declining even faster this year." Uh, okay. How does crime compare to before you guys went on a libertine rampage through the laws of half the country?

Your last paragraph is just a slathering of ad hominems. Look, I'll put it to you this way: I care about the lives of law abiding citizens. I don't care all that much if it requires "brutality" to protect the lives of those who have done nothing wrong. Heck, I'll one up you: I want evil criminals to be executed. I think that if you commit a heinous crime like rape or murder, you deserve to die.

And if you think it is "monstrous" to say that, know that sophistry isn't going to cut it anymore. People are sick and tired of leftist nonsense. The left did this in the 1960s, and we solved it in the 1990s, and then the left tried to come back in the 2010s and tell us that it'd actually be a really good idea to let criminals out of jail, and guess what, gee whiz, crime rose. And it's all so tiresome because this is so consistent. The left does something. It fails. We are told that was a fluke. They do it again. It fails again. We are told it is a fluke. And so on so forth. For another example: In the 1970s we had inflation driven by money printing and overrun spending. Then in the 2020s we were told that was a fluke. Then Biden passed huge stimulus packages. Then inflation rose. Now we are told that was a coincidence. You may convince yourselves, but you can't fool me, and you won't fool the American people. That's why Hochul almost lost. That's why Trump is going to win in November.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

You need a strong and empowered police force with the support of judges and prosecutors to prevent vigilante violence.

Right. And when you abandon the state's granted power to enforce the law, that responsibility returns to the people. Vigilante violence sucks. But the people who want these criminals to get a pass should be ignored when they condemn people taking matters into their own hands. They have created the problem. They are responsible for the sake of anarchy. They relish it. They support it because they want us -- the people -- to be bound but not protected, and their friends -- the vagrants, the criminals -- to be protected but not bound. That must be rejected totally and completely.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

One of the most eye-opening moments of 2020 for me was when one of my acquaintances who I had always thought of as a go-to example of "I know someone who is as conservative as they come, but at least he supports democracy, opposes violence, and sees us all as fellow Americans" came out in support of people driving over BLM protesters if they got in their way. Of course, he then decided the election was stolen in November and then basically left all social media after January 6th after sharing a post that Big Tech was engaging in Orwellin censorship by taking away Trump's Twitter account.

Which is all to say, this is a radicalization pipeline. This is exactly how ISIS (and probably Hamas too, to some extent) wants its supporters to look at the world. In their case, it's just replacing peaceful protesters with members of other religions - two groups so historically connected that they are protected in the same breath in the Constitution.

George HW Bush sent in the military to deal with the LA Rioters while Trump didn’t have the courage to do what HW Bush did .

The BLM riots were a complete disgrace and their demands helped harm this nation

You're absolutely right that Donald Trump didn't do his job. There should have been boots on the ground. But blaming the man who was furthest right only gets us so far. I'm sure he's learned his lesson at this point, but even if he hasn't I'd rather have a President who was and is at least directionally against the rioters, the criminals, the thugs then one who is and was on their side.

And frankly, I mean it when I say I think Trump has learned his lesson. If he wins, the next four years will be wholesome for this country beyond belief. Even with executive powers alone, what the executive has wrought can be unmade. We can fire the bureaucrats. We can cripple Title 9, anti-trust law, environmental restrictions on building and fracking. We can gut the political prosecutors. The DEI state, the welfare state, all of it -- it can and will be undone. We will triumph.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

One of the most eye-opening moments of 2020 for me was when one of my acquaintances who I had always thought of as a go-to example of "I know someone who is as conservative as they come, but at least he supports democracy, opposes violence, and sees us all as fellow Americans" came out in support of people driving over BLM protesters if they got in their way. Of course, he then decided the election was stolen in November and then basically left all social media after January 6th after sharing a post that Big Tech was engaging in Orwellin censorship by taking away Trump's Twitter account.

Which is all to say, this is a radicalization pipeline. This is exactly how ISIS (and probably Hamas too, to some extent) wants its supporters to look at the world. In their case, it's just replacing peaceful protesters with members of other religions - two groups so historically connected that they are protected in the same breath in the Constitution.

George HW Bush sent in the military to deal with the LA Rioters while Trump didn’t have the courage to do what HW Bush did .

The BLM riots were a complete disgrace and their demands helped harm this nation

You're absolutely right that Donald Trump didn't do his job. There should have been boots on the ground. But blaming the man who was furthest right only gets us so far. I'm sure he's learned his lesson at this point, but even if he hasn't I'd rather have a President who was and is at least directionally against the rioters, the criminals, the thugs then one who is and was on their side.

And frankly, I mean it when I say I think Trump has learned his lesson. If he wins, the next four years will be wholesome for this country beyond belief. Even with executive powers alone, what the executive has wrought can be unmade. We can fire the bureaucrats. We can cripple Title 9. We can gut the political prosecutors. The DEI state, the welfare state, all of it -- it can and will be undone. We will triumph.

I don’t think Trump learnt his lesson though and I believe he learnt all the wrong lessons and at this point seems hell bent of just being a chaos agent . Like he has been obsessed with the idea that the 2020 election was stolen ever since he lost and has been making his campaign about revenge for that .  Also his foreign policy stances this time are just truly truly awful as well as he’s even been backing down from his anti China stances from his first term .

I will just say I’m happy to be living in a safe state this election cycle cause I have never ever been embarrassed by an election choice as I am by this one

Sure he has. Haven't you heard of Project 2025? Don't you see what's happened to the Espers of the world, and the Stephen Millers of the world? And frankly, China is much less of a problem than our domestic problems.  Should we be preparing to fight them for Taiwan? Sure, but we could lose Taiwan and it would still be less important than who wins the battle for America here. As Lincoln said, America can only be defeated from within. Focus on the big picture.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

...If he wins, the next four years will be wholesome for this country beyond belief. Even with executive powers alone, what the executive has wrought can be unmade. We can fire the bureaucrats. We can cripple Title 9, anti-trust law, environmental restrictions on building and fracking. We can gut the political prosecutors. The DEI state, the welfare state, all of it -- it can and will be undone. We will triumph.

Did you type all this bullsh!t out with one hand?

Two, please stop trying to normalize your habits.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

...If he wins, the next four years will be wholesome for this country beyond belief. Even with executive powers alone, what the executive has wrought can be unmade. We can fire the bureaucrats. We can cripple Title 9, anti-trust law, environmental restrictions on building and fracking. We can gut the political prosecutors. The DEI state, the welfare state, all of it -- it can and will be undone. We will triumph.

Did you type all this bullsh!t out with one hand?

It almost gave a bit of a creepy religious vibe. Very weird.

This is a widespread feature of Haley/Ryan's sort of ultra-dry Republican ideological orthodoxy in general, especially since in many people's minds it's fused with actual religious tenets derived from this country's ten thousand indistinguishable low-church denominations. At times it approaches Marxist-Leninist levels of treating policy proposals as quasieschatological imperatives.

Marxism's problem was its disregard for rights and liberties, not its ideological conception of there being right and wrong or some sort of, perhaps delayed, perhaps denied, but still extant destiny.

And I would protest that my views are not so orthodox, although some of the directions they have shifted in parallel the party as a whole. But I take no shame in admitting that I believe laissez-faire economics, freedom writ large, and the rule of (legitimate, particularly natural) law to be moral imperatives.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

...If he wins, the next four years will be wholesome for this country beyond belief. Even with executive powers alone, what the executive has wrought can be unmade. We can fire the bureaucrats. We can cripple Title 9, anti-trust law, environmental restrictions on building and fracking. We can gut the political prosecutors. The DEI state, the welfare state, all of it -- it can and will be undone. We will triumph.

Did you type all this bullsh!t out with one hand?

It almost gave a bit of a creepy religious vibe. Very weird.

This is a widespread feature of Haley/Ryan's sort of ultra-dry Republican ideological orthodoxy in general, especially since in many people's minds it's fused with actual religious tenets derived from this country's ten thousand indistinguishable low-church denominations. At times it approaches Marxist-Leninist levels of treating policy proposals as quasieschatological imperatives.

Marxism's problem was its disregard for rights and liberties, not its ideological conception of there being right and wrong or some sort of, perhaps delayed, perhaps denied, but still extant destiny.

And I would protest that my views are not so orthodox, although some of the directions they have shifted in parallel the party as a whole. But I take no shame in admitting that I believe laissez-faire economics, freedom writ large, and the rule of (legitimate, particularly natural) law to be moral imperatives.

An ideological pursuit of reactionary goals is not conservative at all, but rather a harebrained scheme to bring back some 1920s reactionary utopia, which never fully existed at all to begin with.

No, I don't want to return to the 1920s. I want to conserve the philosophical vision of our founding fathers, and apply the same techniques as the 1920s (actually, probably more 1890s*, since the income tax had been established by 20s) to achieve the ideal form of government.

*I'm also open to 1790s and 1830s, among other decades. Broader point is a limited government dedicated to protecting life, liberty, and property and otherwise staying out of citizens lives.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

You seem to define conservatism as preserving the status quo. That is one definition of conservative, but it is not the only one, and American Conservatism has never been dedicated to merely incrementalizing others policies, as some European "conservatives" have been. It has from day one been a revolutionary and utopian movement to achieve the maximum extent of liberty compatible with order and to achieve and preserve America as an exceptional city on a hill. If anything, it is the Democratic Party's mainstream wing, with its vision of "preserving" social order by making "concessions" to anarchy, welfarism, etc, and making America more like the rest of the world than an outlier, that is more small c "conservative."

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Our President ought to stand up for ordinary people.  And he ought to have the courage to not be strongarmed by any ethnic group utilizing political violence on American Soil to attempt to coerce foreign policy changes that are not in America's interest.

Why don’t you just say a damn slur at this point. You’ll get your point across a lot faster and clearer.

It's revealing that you don't think black people/minorities can be ordinary people too. You view them as a tool to subvert society, not as Americans equal to any others.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Let's be clear, if you throw someone over a bridge it's murder or attempted murder depending on the outcome. "I NEEDED TO GET TO WORK" is not self-defense. It's not even really about the inconvenience, people like Cotton just have a nature for violence and are looking for any excuse to kill someone who expresses views they don't like.

If someone tried to kidnap you, would you have a right to throw them off a bridge to stop them?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

...If he wins, the next four years will be wholesome for this country beyond belief. Even with executive powers alone, what the executive has wrought can be unmade. We can fire the bureaucrats. We can cripple Title 9, anti-trust law, environmental restrictions on building and fracking. We can gut the political prosecutors. The DEI state, the welfare state, all of it -- it can and will be undone. We will triumph.

Did you type all this bullsh!t out with one hand?

It almost gave a bit of a creepy religious vibe. Very weird.

This is a widespread feature of Haley/Ryan's sort of ultra-dry Republican ideological orthodoxy in general, especially since in many people's minds it's fused with actual religious tenets derived from this country's ten thousand indistinguishable low-church denominations. At times it approaches Marxist-Leninist levels of treating policy proposals as quasieschatological imperatives.

Marxism's problem was its disregard for rights and liberties, not its ideological conception of there being right and wrong or some sort of, perhaps delayed, perhaps denied, but still extant destiny.

Hmm? I mean maybe, but that's not really the limit of my criticism here. The old National Review guys' "immanentizing the eschaton" attack on Soviet communism (and, it must be admitted, communist-curious left-liberals in the midcentury US) was correct, actually, and it's just as true of a lot of what you're saying here. Just because this conception of America is deeply rooted in our political culture, which I agree that it is, doesn't mean that it's a good thing--either good in general or, bluntly, good for the United States. We're distinctive enough as a country in this-worldly ways without having to apply a sense of religious mission as well.

And I would protest that my views are not so orthodox, although some of the directions they have shifted in parallel the party as a whole. But I take no shame in admitting that I believe laissez-faire economics, freedom writ large, and the rule of (legitimate, particularly natural) law to be moral imperatives.

You'd benefit from reading Orwell's review of The Road to Serfdom. Or even from reading The Road to Serfdom itself, in which Hayek explains why, even from his famously laissez-faire starting position, the state has a necessary role in things like environmental protection and making sure citizens don't starve in the streets.

I have read the Road to Serfdom, fyi. One doesn't need to agree with everything an author says to appreciate much of it.