Arnold Schwarzenegger ‘s moving response to the attack on the Capitol.

If you have not watched this little talk, you should. A splendid big picture, historical and personal view of recent events wrapped in a blanket of loving patriotism and steely resolve.

82 thoughts on “Arnold Schwarzenegger ‘s moving response to the attack on the Capitol.

  1. Watched it yesterday and posted to a friend that it often takes an outside perspective to see what is plainly happening and express it in a context that makes it viscerally real. The cult will largely discount it, but if it opens even one mind to the abomination that is trump and his ilk it will have been worth it.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. What are you going to do with your life after Trump goes to Mar a Lago?

      BTW, Kristallnacht was an attack on Jewish owned private businesses, not government offices, so the better analogy would be the BLM and Antifa riots that attacked private property in cities across the country.

      That does not excuse the trespassing in the capitol building but if we’re going to use historical references, they should be relevant.

      Like

      1. Impressive attempt to find SOMETHING you could attempt to turn the tables with. Being a full time apologist for trump leads me to ask what YOU will be doing when he’s gone.

        FWIW I’ll be sipping cocktails in an open air bar overlooking a beautiful bahia in a little fishing village on a tiny Isla in the Caribbean, just like always…

        Liked by 4 people

          1. LOL!

            Given the massive 2020 swing against an incumbent President (something that is relatively rare) there is a pretty massive case of buyers’ remorse for Biden to surpass.

            This distinction between being FOR Biden versus AGAINST Trump may seem pithy to you, but, IMHO, it is virtually meaningless. I will happily stipulate that Biden was not the first choice of many or even most Democrats. As Mr. Roberts might say, “So what?”

            But, if you want to see 2020 as a referendum on Trump which he massively lost, there is no harm in doing so. In fact, that view of the election reinforces the practical result – President Biden has a MANDATE to reverse almost everything that Trump did.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. A mandate to reverse everything?

            OK, go with that.

            After 2022 we’ll keep a few Democrats around in museums so people will remember what they looked like.

            Like

          3. Interesting from a LIBERTARIAN. You guys taking over now? You can’t even run for dog catcher effectively.

            You are already in the museum Must be REAL lonely if you want a bunch of Democrats around.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “OK, go with that.”

            Well, the people have spoken and a mandate is a mandate, after all. Trump claimed one with FAR less reason.

            Your reverting to Napoleon’s maxim is based on the erroneous belief that reversing what Trump has done would be politically damaging because YOU won’t be happy. I suggest you check the polling on the various hot button issues where you like Trump’s policy. To name a few where what he has been doing is not actually popular . . .

            Immigration policy.
            DACA
            Attacks on the Affordable Care Act
            Environmental regulation.
            Protection of wild lands.
            Promotion of renewable energy.
            Tax breaks for the wealthy.
            Trashing of security and justice agencies.
            Disrespect of Congress.
            Rightwing judges.
            Tariffs.
            Abandoning of NATO.
            Abandoning the Paris Accord.
            Better gun control.
            Reproductive rights.

            There are PLENTY of areas for Biden to undo Trump’s work and gain political points by doing so.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. “What are you going to do with your life after Trump goes to Mar a Lago?”

        Well, I hope to be able to get out more, travel again and have much less time for this and other forums.

        But with respect to this forum, I am sure that you will continue to provide plenty of nonsense to rebut as you have just done with your BLM comment which is pretty obviously extremely lame whataboutism.

        Whatever attacks on private property that occurred with the social unrest arising from repeated police abuse of African-Americans was not politically motivated EXCEPT for that done by agents-provocateurs from the right. There were plenty of those if you believe what these Proud Boys brag about. Equating the bad behavior and looting of some people in their own neighborhoods with the violence of people who travelled across the country to attack our Constitutional order is a dog that will not hunt. IMHO

        So, I think the Governor’s invocation of KrystalNacht was apropos and your dismissing of his reference simply shows that you still do not get it and will continue to minimize the significance of these recent Fascist outrages.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Not even close.

          You can argue whether they were correct or not, but the Trump supporters were in DC to DEFEND the integrity of our elections.

          Kristallnacht was about hatred of the scapegoated Jews, certainly not about contesting an election believed, rightly or wrongly, to have been stolen.

          The Terminator has been in California too long, he sees everything in terms of personality, much like Trump.

          The BLM riots, on the other hand, were about racial hatred, blaming white business owners who had nothing to do with it for the deaths involving police and criminals often 1000 miles away.

          Their businesses were destroyed because they were white scapegoats, just like Kristallnacht

          Like

          1. You see everything in terms of race. And somehow YOUR race is always being victimized. When social and economic unrest breaks out, it is not just white business owners who suffer looting and damage. Inner cities where this almost always happens are served by white, black, Latino and Asian small businesses.

            For these modern American fascists such as Trump and his enablers, people of color play the same role as the Jews did for the Nazis – somebody to hate, fear and blame. They are “other” and not us. Just as the Jews were not “real Germans” people of color are not “real Americans.” Especially if they demand equal treatment.

            Objectively, the BLM movement is a legitimate political response to generations of government oppression. One of the broadest political movements in our history. Even though it has been overwhelmingly peaceful you would never know that listening to you, Trump or any of these fascist actors in Congress and on Fox News demonizing it.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Equating domestic terrorism and insurrection with defending the “integrity of our elections“ is a mind boggling leap of thought. I’d scoff at such nonsense if it wasn’t so troubling to realize you actually believe it. SMH.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “…Trump supporters were in DC to DEFEND the integrity of our elections.”

            We are learning more and more about the terrorists who invaded the Capitol. They were dressed in armor, armed with clubs, spears, sprays, knives and probably some guns. They brought plastic handcuffs.

            This was chatted up online for weeks, bouncing off of Trump’s lies about massive fraud, voting machines, dead voters, etc. As the lies were disproven, he kept up the endless repetition as if he were training dogs to sit, stay and attack. The edited video from the GA election was run as political ads while at the same time a hearing was held. Problem: the whole video showed the truth.

            So I don’t agree that the terrorists were defending anything. They were trying to keep Trump as president through force and terror.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. So, you are saying that the small number of people at the protest who broke in had prepared to do that long before coming to DC.

            That’s going to make Pelosi’s claim that the speech Trump gave that day incited insurrection pretty hard to sell.

            Like

          5. Why?
            If this had been coordinated by the terrorists to coincide with Trump’s call to be “wild”, followed by the exhortations at his rally to “show strength”, “trial by combat”, and “we are coming for you” as well as the “stop the steal” and “take back your country” you cannot exonerate the president.

            Remember, he had called for Proud Boys, et.al., to “stand back and stand by”. Well, this was the call for action.

            As more videos and arrests become known, this was not “just a few”, it was thousands out of which hundreds got inside and screaming for heads.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. “They were trying to keep Trump as president through force and terror.”

            The inability to accept self-evident and extremely well-documented truth is a symptom of the mind rot the skilled con man can induce.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. …” the Trump supporters were in DC to DEFEND the integrity of our elections.”…

            HORSEHIT! They were there to try and force the overturn of the most free and fair election we have seen in years. There were there to kidnap or kill government leadership. You weak defense of the actions of these ‘defenders” is disgusting. And to continue to defend them is close to criminal.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. “DEFEND the integrity of our elections.”

            According to several sources, including the courts, election officials in the several states, and even T****’s own AG and Cyber-election official, this was CLEAN and there was nothing to defend. The integrity of the elections was IN TACT.

            You continue to find ways to defend violent insurrectionists and I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why a self-proclaimed Constitution lover such as yourself does so.

            And spare me the states changed the rules for Democratic victory. They adjusted their laws to allow MORE voters to participate safely in the midst of a global pandemic,

            Liked by 1 person

          9. There’s your problem. You think other people see things the same way as you and just choose differently.

            But when people know that the MSM has been lying about things of which they have personal knowledge, they no longer believe the things you accept.

            When people with their views are cancelled or censored, they believe you are unable to dispute the things you hide.

            As I’ve written here several times, if you don’t want people to think you stole the election, stop acting like you have something to hide.

            Oh, and they didn’t ‘adjust’ their laws. They broke them.

            Like

          10. Well if they were broken, they were broken by the same GOP members who wrote them in PA. All of the fuss is because the outcome wasn’t what was desired by those who got his ass kicked in the election. PEROID.

            What is being hidden? All of the lawsuits filed by T****’s team or supporters thereof were given the opportunity to present evidence. They all kind of said “never mind” at that point because … wait for it… THERE WAS NO WIDESPREAD FRAUD! Nothing to hide by the several states. Just by T****’s toadies and legal eagles. (One being sued for defamation, one being considered for disbarment in NY. The smart ones got out when they realized what they were getting into.)

            Your little complaints about rules that were changed to allow VOTER PARTICIPATION, something you personally cannot stand .. unless it by like minded folks.. is a smokescreen to deny what was attempted by T****, the 140-plus members of Congress, and the RIOTERS (NOT trespassers) at the Capitol.: overturning the will of the MAJORITY of voters and the Electoral College.

            …”when people know that the MSM has been lying about things of which they have personal knowledge”… What lies? They have been telling the truth for the past 5 years. But too many people were gullible enough and got sucked into the T**** rabbit hole of lies, deceit, and failure. Facts are eh anathema to T****ists. You being one of them.

            If the GOP legislatures want to get a do-over on their election law fiasco, then go for it in the next session of the various state legislatures. But don’t stick in voter suppression, the go to of the GOP for decades. Fix what you broke.

            Who is having their views censored or cancelled? Calling for violence, inciting insurrection and calling for the killing of political leaders (Mike Pence being one of them) is not having a view cancelled or censored. It is a prevention of spreading the violence AGAIN.

            But go ahead and grab your musket, because you said T*** needs to go before Inauguration Day. The Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, the 3 percenters, et. al may find out and storm the compound.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “That’s going to make Pelosi’s claim that the speech Trump gave that day incited insurrection pretty hard to sell.”

            Why?

            The incitement has been going on for years and has greatly intensified in the aftermath of Trump’s decisive loss at the polls. That last “trial by combat” rally was not an isolated event. Besides, Yellow Bellies coming prepared for mayhem does not mean it was inevitable. They were waiting for marching orders at that rally and Trump, were he a defender of the Constitution, could have made it clear that violence was off the table. He did not. The opposite in fact.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. Actually, it was people like Zukerburg who set the stage.

            All that censorship and fact checking of opinion pretty much convinced people the fix was in/

            Like

          13. Fact checking of OPINION is always subjective.

            Underlying facts often have multiple interpretations, and deciding which are valid is the point of the debate, not something to rule on before the debate is allowed.

            But go for it. See how that works out for you.

            Like

          14. “Underlying facts often have multiple interpretations”…

            Really? Wow. Amazing how YOUR facts are just fine, but ACTAUL facts have “multiple interpretations”. Too bad you don’t feel that way about the Constitution. You are an absolutist there. But facts are facts, unless they are “alternative facts”.

            Debate was offered for fraud, the backbone of T****’s contesting the election results, when its attorney’s offered testimony, it as tossed on its face. Any other evidence was not presented by the attorney’s because, well, they had none to support the fraud argument.

            That is how the cases have been going from the beginning of the charade.

            Opinions based in lies are not valid opinions, period. If you believe otherwise, it explains a lot about you as an individual.

            BULLSHIT flag thrown.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. “As I’ve written here several times, if you don’t want people to think you stole the election, stop acting like you have something to hide.”

            Yes, you have made that comment many times. It is far from clear what you think you are talking about. It seems that state officials of both parties have reacted to this “stolen election” nonsense in very similar ways. It may be that their backs are up not because the have something to hide but because they do not like being accused of dereliction, corruption, incompetence, conspiracy or other malfeasance by liars and con men? Liars and con men who have a lot to say on Fox News but almost nothing of substance in court.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. Zukerburg [sic] set the stage? For the assault on the Capitol?

            By fact checking?

            You have reached a new and previously unthinkable level of absurdity. And that is assuming that this is not a new version of “Jews will not replace us.”

            That is quite the Catch-22 you have dreamed up there. If Trump is allowed to spread his lies then, of course, people will believe them. If Trump is blocked from spreading his lies then, of course, people will believe them.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. If Trump, or someone else, posts something you disagree with, and you refute it with verifiable fact, you might convince them they are wrong, and certainly will convince others who are in doubt.

            But if you censor them, or fact check without a convincing refutation, you will have confirmed them fight in most people’s minds.

            Why not allow an idea to be expressed unless you are afraid of it.

            Like

          18. …”fact check without a convincing refutation”…

            To my knowledge, every post that was marked as unreliable (NOT censored) had a link to check the FACTS. Just because you don’t like the facts does not change the fact that they are FACTAULLY accurate.

            Liked by 1 person

          19. “Why not allow an idea to be expressed unless you are afraid of it.”

            The word “idea” is NOT a synonym for the word “lie.” If you rephrase your question using accurate words, the answer is not difficult The dissemination of dangerous lies is harmful. For example, the widespread dissemination of the outright lie that the recent election was stolen from the rightful winner has lead DIRECTLY to the trashing of the Capitol and the deaths of five or six people – SO FAR. That is just one obvious example of why the private, for-profit operators of social media businesses believe that they have a duty to the country to keep such lies from being disseminated on their platforms.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. Not the point.

            It could be Koch, or the Saudi Royal Prince, you would not want someone opposite to your opinion buying social media and censoring YOUR point if view.

            But you’re fine with a liberal owning it and censoring those who disagree with you.

            Like

          21. Fact checking of OPINION is always subjective.

            Uh, that does not even make sense. You cannot fact check an opinion. The point Adam made very clearly is that you CAN fact-check the facts needed to support an opinion.

            And by the way, formulations like this “It is my opinion that it is a fact that the election was stolen” is not actually an opinion. It is a statement of fact that can be refuted by evidence or the lack of evidence.

            Liked by 1 person

          22. How about the statement, “The statistical improbability of the pattern of the vote count is an indication of fraud”

            That is one of the statements marked by Facebook as false.

            So, mathematicians are only allowed one interpretation of the existing data?

            Like

          23. Trump buys Facebook . . .
            Are you dishonestly mixing apples and oranges? Or do you not understand that the problem is LIES not advocacy for this or against that. Censorship of factual evidence that supports this or that policy is NOT what is happening to Trump. He is being denied access to social media because he LIES all the time and now his LIES are dangerous.

            Liked by 1 person

          24. Statistical improbability

            “The statistical improbability of the pattern of the vote count is an indication of fraud”

            That is a false statement when the pattern of the vote has already been explained by circumstances in the real world. For example, it might seem improbable that so much of the mail in vote was Democratic UNLESS you know that Democrats take social distancing seriously and Republicans don’t. If you know that but still make that mathematical claim you are lying.

            Liked by 1 person

          25. Only governments can censor. However, some of your moderators have a history of threatening to remove posts. Would you call THAT censorship?

            You have attacked opinions based in facts as wrong, when in fact, the truth supports the opinion. So, semantically speaking, you have tried to use alternative facts to tell someone their opinion is wrong.

            Liked by 1 person

          26. So? I would look at it as your “facts” being alternative.

            I have not threatened to remove posts based on opinion. I have ‘reminded’ posters to be civil and to stay on topic as personal attacks and deflection prevent an honest and reasoned discussion of the topic but never based on the argument made.

            Like

          27. “I have not threatened to remove posts based on opinion.”

            I didn’t say YOU, I said some of your moderators. See you can’t even get THAT fact straight.

            Like

          28. What a wonderful fascist?

            Because I knocked down your silly argument?

            If the benign explanation for a new pattern of voting is KNOWN then saying that the new pattern itself is evidence of fraud is very clearly false. That is not a matter of opinion or an indication of fascist leanings. That is just an epistemological truth.

            As for Prager University I have no idea what you are referring to. A quick Google makes me believe that this “University” lost its claims of censorship by YouTube and Google in court. Is that what you are referring to.

            Liked by 1 person

          29. So, only mathematicians who agree with you are valid and the rest are liars.

            Statistical interpretation can vary based on the same data. That’s why it’s called expert opinion and not fact.

            Like

          30. Are you off your meds or something?

            Once a phenomenon is explained it is no longer in the realm where ANY mathematics is probative of something else. This is not rocket science. Not even environmental science but you seem stumped. Is it that equal validity of “alternative facts” has become hard-wired in your brain?

            Liked by 1 person

      3. Trump was trying so hard to send federal agents, police, troops and the like to defend federal buildings in a couple of cities last summer.

        The Capitol was not a federal building evidently. At least for our president.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. Terrorism is terrorism. Period.

        The point of terrorism is to force either a change of government or its policies.

        Gangs searching for Congressmen and screaming “Hang Pence”, carrying plastic handcuffs to lead them out to the modern tumbril.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. …” the trespassing in the capitol building”…

        You seriously keep calling it trespassing even after the numerous videos of attacks on police, vandalism and plans to “Hang Mike Pence” or put a bullet in Pelosi’s noggin.?

        It was an ATTACK, NOT trespassing. It was a violent revolt against OUR Capitol and OUR democratic principles. I find it completely dishonest on your part to continue to refer to what happened last week as simple “trespassing”. I’m sure the injured officers, the dead officers’ (one committed suicide this weekend) families and the members of Congress who were forced to huddle in hideaways while being protected by the CP feel otherwise.

        Like

      6. “What are you going to do with your life after T****goes to Mar a Lago?”

        Better pick somewhere else for him to go. The members don’t want him and an agreement signed by T**** says he can’t make a residence there.

        There is a nice little place in the middle of SF Bay. Too bad it’s closed. Petersburg, maybe?

        Like

  2. A nice message. Is he teeing up a presidential run in 2024? (I don’t know–is he even eligible?)

    I do think it’s funny to see Paul using the words “blanket of loving patriotism and steely resolve.” The last four years, he’s dismissed similar content as populist and propagandistic.

    Like

  3. I frequently dismiss phony patriotism when it is used as a smokescreen for White Supremacy, Fascism, and racism. The kind of patriotism practiced by self-described “real Americans.”

    What many “conservatives” are unwilling to understand is that we “leftists” are just a patriotic as anyone but we understand that our country has yet to completely live up to our founding ideals. We also understand the point made by Teddy Roosevelt and repeated in this video. Loyalty to the country is not always the same as loyalty to the President.

    To answer your question, Arnold is not eligible for the Presidency. He was born in another country.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. To Arnold’s request: No thank you.

    Arnold wants me to believe or pretend that my fellow Americans are Nazis. I won’t do it.

    Like

      1. RE: “So what?”

        If you’re asking about my effect on the world, or what consequences I can bring about, the answer is probably “nothing.” I’m just a lowly tech writer, retired.

        If you’re asking what my comment means because you don’t understand it, here: The superior patriotism Arnold tries to promote in his video doesn’t look like patriotism to me. It looks like blind obedience to a big lie.

        The big lie is the idea that the 2020 election somehow exemplifies the proper functioning of democracy in a republic. To my mind it does not, and I will not pretend that it does.

        Like

        1. The “Big Lie” is one you made up for yourself. All anyone has actually said is that it was not impacted by massive fraud that changed the result. It was not “stolen.” And that is not a “Big Lie.” It is the simple truth. And before you ask me to prove that it was NOT stolen let me say that the burden is on the accuser to prove that it WAS. Trump tried in court 50 or 60 times and failed. I doubt that you can succeed.

          With all due respect, your real problem with the election is that you lost. That could not be more clear since even as you decry it, you cannot point to what was wrong about it, other than the outcome.

          And, by the way, our election apparatus is far from perfect and that is a fact that Democrats recognized quite some time ago when they tried to appropriate funds to help state and local authorities do a better job. Appropriations that the could not get past Republican obstruction.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. “It looks like blind obedience to a big lie.”

          And that pretty much sums up the cult like devotion to Trump.

          Through all the legal channels, he could not demonstrate fraud or rigging of the election. Considering the volume of suits and the volume of judges at all levels and political affiliations, the Rule of Law as citizens agree to abide by prevailed.

          If changes need to be made, then we should address that in the legislatures, courts and other venues that, again, we all agreed to abide by.

          Extorting, threatening and intimidating state officials, Republican no less, is not the Rule of Law.

          Americans realize they can’t get everything they want anytime they want it. There are 330 million others who might have different ideas.

          That is America.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Then, to be clear, I will not assume — as Arnold implies I should — that all and every random American I meet or just hear about might be a Nazi.

            Like

          2. He obviously implied no such thing.

            In the psychology field we talk about listening/reading for “ammunition” as opposed to making an attempt to gain understanding. It is a device by which individuals stay in their preconceived mental boxes from which they seldom escape.

            Just sharing…..

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Good grief, Mr. Roberts. The Governor implied no such thing. Why would you even think that? It is a bizarre take away from his careful and thoughtful assertion of American principles and values prompted by the violence of a mob of people who had clearly abandoned them.

            Is it that THEY are Trump supporters and YOU are a Trump supporter and therefore you take any criticism of these terrorists as a criticism of you? You react so bizarrely that one has to wonder if that is the case.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. RE: “In the psychology field we talk about listening/reading for ‘ammunition’ as opposed to making an attempt to gain understanding.”

            I’m sure that’s true. In my field — technical communications — we tend to abjure emotional appeals and other propaganda techniques.

            Like

          5. ” . . . we tend to abjure emotional appeals and other propaganda techniques.”

            The lack of self-awareness and of what it takes to be a Trump supporter in that claim is simply amazing.

            Liked by 2 people

  5. The cynic in me says, “Fluff piece.”
    But I’ve never thought of Arnold as insincere… except when he was chasing women around the movie set or in the pool house with the maid, but then come to think of it, he was probably sincerely horny.

    Anyway, nice sermon.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. He was much better playing Conan. Paul wrapping his arms around a Republican Conan actor? Lol, stranger things have happened I guess.

    Like

    1. I have always been a Democrat but, believe it or not, I have not hated Republicans. I greatly admired the first President Bush, for example, and feel his decision to get out of Iraq when he did was a magnificent example of statesmanship – putting the good of the country over his own political prospects. Of course, I am referring to the sort of Republicans who have now been expunged from the current Republican party of Trump. I have no use for any of those who are not “RINOS.”

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s