http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/twitter-pokes-fun-oregon-militia-homoerotic-fanfic-article-1.2488808

But, the Bundy’s ranch is in Nevada not Oregon. They took a protest about the extension of prison sentences for two ranchers convicted of arson, and started a new protest about BLM Land management and ownership. I guess they jumped at an opportunity, but according to the graph you shared their case would have been much stronger in Nevada where they actually do have a beef.

Speaking of that beef in Nevada. The Bundy’s have been growing their beef for cheaper than their neighbors by grazing on public land without paying the fees. If I were a law-abiding rancher I’d be pissed at them for that and pissed at BLM for backing off two years ago.

In spite of some hilarious attempts, it has never been successfully argued that campaign contributions are not a cynical means of controlling or coercing public policy. But in the past, it wasn’t the sort of thing people liked to talk about.

Today, it is different. Campaign funding isn’t just something political professionals talk about in whispers. It is now proudly proclaimed, shouted from the roof tops. Raising money is not just a secret necessary evil, it is part of the campaign boasts of candidates, repeated by the press as evidence of their viability and even of their public acceptance and appeal. Campaign contributions are no longer seen as a means of buying elections, they are now a sign of the popularity and vigor of a candidate. Politicians and parties used to not like to talk about their donors. Now they are proud of them.

This change was subtle, but it was fast. No one is ashamed any more of getting a big cash contribution, or of giving one.

I think you’ve described the dynamic of Republican politics for the last several decades to a T. As I recall it, the need to swing right during the primary season has steadily grown since Nixon’s Southern strategy. Reagan was pretty consistent between the primary and the general and his presidency, but since then the contrast between a candidate’s rhetoric during the primary versus rhetoric during the general has become too huge to ignore. It not only hurts the prospects of the Republicans during the general election, but it causes fracturing in the party because conservatives recognize that they’ve been played to get their primary votes. When the general election rolls around, they hold their noses and vote for Mitt or the Mitt-equivalent, but they understandably hate it. (For my side, we’ll get to Bernie in a minute.)

That manipulation chicken has really come home to roost this election. The base is rebelling against the establishment that it sees as having betrayed it, and the result is Trump and Trumpism. The base hates the GOP almost as much as the Democrats.

I honestly don’t think it’s the same on the Democratic/Left/Liberal side. The Party hasn’t been pushed relentlessly left for decades like the GOP has; in fact it’s been dragged right, toward the supposedly virtuous “center” over the same period, giving rise to the belief that America as a whole is getting more conservative (actually just older, but that’s another story). Our problem, speaking now as a Progressive, is that the Democratic Party needs to be dragged much farther left. Farther left in absolute ideological terms, but also farther in pragmatic political terms, to counter the GOP’s swing to the right. I think if the corporate media gave Bernie Sanders equal coverage with Hillary we’d have a downright alluring story to tell voters, compared to the cynicism and chaos on the Right.

You know, I think a little paranoia about our political system is in order. People aren’t imagining their disenfranchisement from power in American politics. The truth is we’ve become an oligarchy, in which what really matters, and what gets translated into government policy, is what the 0.01% want. If the government seems sometimes to do what you or I want, it’s just a coincidence, because some faction of the elite wanted it too. With the rise of the Super PACs, our politics has become a matter of which billionaire’s agenda you want to back.

It can be overwhelming.

Despite my post above, I don’t want to see anybody get hurt. As SDG has pointed out, there are women and children involved. And the men (gun-toting fools, each of them) have parents and siblings and children who would be devastated by their loss.

Citizens who don’t like the direction government is headed have a choice: they can, if they’re idiots, grab a gun and try to force someone’s hand. Or, if they’re able to deal with things in a mature way, they can get involved in the political process and make their influence felt in a way that’s altogether less likely to result in gunfire and grievous bodily harm.

From what I’ve read they have a couple of women and kids in there. If the women chose to be there than that’s their choice but bringing in minors is inexcusable. For one they’ve put them in the line of fire and second they’ve added a risk of turning the thing into a war when the kid takes his parent’s bluster at face value.

Ruby Ridge turned into a firefight when the officers shot the teenager’s dog in front of him. The kid was pissed and started firing at the officers and promptly got himself killed.