By Matt Underwood Mike Pence’s recent assertion that violent January 6th rioters, particularly those who may have been pardoned by former President Trump, “should never get a dime” strikes a chord, especially considering the context of the day’s events. It’s a sentiment that, while perhaps overdue for some, highlights a stark contrast to the actions and attitudes of others involved in that tumultuous period.
The idea that individuals who participated in the violent storming of the Capitol, threatening public officials and attempting to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, should receive any financial support, let alone from taxpayers, is frankly preposterous. These were not peaceful protesters; they were individuals engaged in sedition, many of whom expressed outright hostility and a desire for violence.
Pence himself was a target of that anger, with chants of him being hanged echoing through the crowds. To suggest that those who sought to harm him, to overthrow a democratic process, should be rewarded in any way is an affront to the principles of justice and accountability. The notion of pardoning such individuals in the first place is a separate, deeply concerning issue, one that undermines the very foundations of our legal system.
It’s a complex situation when you consider the different factions and motivations at play. Some argue that any pardon should preclude financial claims, while others believe that no pardon should have been offered at all. The idea of pardons being “sold” to criminals and corrupt individuals, as some have speculated, further complicates the ethical landscape and erodes public trust.
For many, Pence’s statement, however belated, is a step in the right direction. It signifies a recognition that the actions of January 6th were not merely a political disagreement but a direct assault on democracy. This sentiment, that these individuals should receive no financial benefit, is echoed by many who believe that their legal sentences are what they deserve, not a windfall.
However, it’s also understandable why some express skepticism regarding Pence’s newfound stance. Having served in an administration that was often characterized by chaos and a disregard for established norms, and having stood by Trump for so long, his current pronouncements can feel like a political calculation rather than a deeply held conviction.
The commentary suggests a yearning for accountability, not just for the rioters, but for those who enabled or encouraged such behavior. The idea that pardons could embolden further criminal acts on behalf of an administration is a valid concern, and the hope for future accountability for any “treasonous pardons” is a powerful one.
It’s interesting to observe that in a political landscape often defined by extremism, Pence’s comments are perceived by some as the only “reasonable” thing to come from a Republican in a while. This, in itself, speaks volumes about the current state of political discourse. The call for all January 6th rioters to face legal charges for their actions is a common thread.
The contrast drawn between the “sensible” first administration, where “grown-ups” supposedly kept Trump in check, and the current administration, filled with “syphocants” and those who aim to make Trump appear more reasonable by comparison, is a stark one. This framing suggests a deliberate strategic shift towards a more unhinged leadership.
The suggestion of deporting seditious traitors to countries that might want them, rather than allowing them to benefit from this country, resonates with a sense of national loyalty and a rejection of their actions. The surprising discoveries of other crimes, including those involving minors, among many of the arrested rioters further fuels the perception of their depravity.
There’s a strong undercurrent of frustration that Pence didn’t exhibit more courage earlier, especially given the personal danger he faced on January 6th. The sentiment that he “kissed the guy’s ass” who tried to have him killed is palpable, and the question of his relevance in today’s political discourse is frequently raised.
The comparison to a time when Pence might not have publicly acknowledged Kamala Harris as a better candidate than Trump, despite the near-death experience, highlights a perceived lack of conviction. The idea that ten years in prison is insufficient punishment for their actions underscores the severity with which their participation in the riot is viewed by many.
The persistent narrative that Trump himself has suggested the FBI was involved in “ushering in” rioters, while the rioters themselves were calling for his name and erecting a noose, paints a picture of twisted reality and misplaced blame. The reliance on tax dollars to fund such outcomes is seen as a gross mismanagement of public resources.
The characterization of those who disagree with Pence’s sentiment as “disgusting, pedophile-worshipping, fascist cult members” indicates a deeply polarized view, where any deviation from a particular ideology is met with extreme condemnation. The observation that some politicians find their courage only when it’s politically expedient is a sharp critique of perceived hypocrisy.
The statement that “not one damned dime” should go to these individuals is a clear and resounding declaration. The idea of a “conscription fund” to buy the loyalty of insurrectionists for future coup attempts is a chilling metaphor for the perceived intentions behind any potential financial support.
The simple fact that these individuals should not be free, let alone in a position to receive money, is a widely held belief. The perceived need for Pence to seek his “Mother’s” permission to speak further emphasizes the criticism of his past behavior and his perceived lack of independent agency.
The image of people trying to hang him, yet his response being a hesitant suggestion that they “shouldn’t get money, I guess,” is seen as pathetic and indicative of a weak moral compass. The constant barrage of metaphors describing the low bar Pence has cleared, from the “basement” to the “Mariana Trench” and even “Hell,” illustrates a profound disappointment in his actions and character.
Yet, amidst the criticism, there’s also acknowledgment of his refusal to bend to pressure and subvert the democratic process on January 6th. This distinction, of standing up for democracy against unhinged forces, is recognized, even if his past complicity in the lead-up to that day is not forgotten. The events of January 6th are seen not as an accident but as a strategic outcome of the environment that Pence, as part of the administration, helped create. The irony of Trump’s FBI potentially facing scrutiny while the rioters potentially receive pardons is noted. The bar for decency and ethical conduct is depicted as having been irrevocably shattered.