Riots in DC outside capitol building

[LiconaFan97]

Now the previous defense secretary Mark Esper was one of those Trump recently suddenly fired (11/2020) and replaced with someone completely unqualified but loyal to him above all else.

We shouldn't forget that even Barr ran for the hills three weeks ago. It's possible that was just because of the pardons, though.

[seanD]

MM seems absent. I wonder if he was one of the nutcases storming the capital.

Wow, dude, really? You really want to go there? That's pretty slanderous, even for you.

[mossrose]

My disgust for the idiots that would follow Trump into Hell grows day by day.

Of course you know that nobody is going to hell for following Trump. People go to hell because of their unbelief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Saviour of all who will believe in Him.

The people you are referring to may very well go to hell, as may Trump, nobody knows but God. But they will not go there because of the man they follow.

Get a grip.

[oxmixmudd]

Wow, dude, really? You really want to go there? That's pretty slanderous, even for you.

You have no sense of humor ...

[oxmixmudd]

Of course you know that nobody is going to hell for following Trump. People go to hell because of their unbelief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Saviour of all who will believe in Him.

The people you are referring to may very well go to hell, as may Trump, nobody knows but God. But they will not go there because of the man they follow.

Get a grip.

It is a metaphor mossy. A metaphor for following Trump to their own destruction ... like the people headed to jail over their acts of sedition on wednesday.

[seanD]

You have no sense of humor ...

I believed it because of your past derangement. It was very plausible.

[Gondwanaland]

..

[oxmixmudd]

I believed it because of your past derangement. It was very plausible.

Well, there is nothing implausible about MM being in DC to protest the EC. But I would tend to think he is above storming the capital.

I do find it amusing you speak of my 'past derangement' as if my concerns about Trump trying to take power by force were somehow not plausible.

Given what happened yesterday one would think some of you would be lamenting your own lack of insight into the character of the man ...

BtW - I seriously doubt he is actually done with that - but I will be quite elated if I turn out to be wrong.

[seanD]

Well, there is nothing implausible about MM being in DC to protest the EC. But I would tend to think he is above storming the capital.

I do find it amusing you speak of my 'past derangement' as if my concerns about Trump trying to take power by force were somehow not plausible.

Given what happened yesterday one would think some of you would be lamenting your own lack of insight into the character of the man ...

BtW - I seriously doubt he is actually done with that - but I will be quite elated if I turn out to be wrong.

I should probably clarify myself. I meant it was plausible to me that you actually believed it and weren't just joking, not that I believed it was plausible MM actually went there.

[oxmixmudd]

I should probably clarify myself. I meant it was plausible to me that you actually believed it and weren't just joking, not that I believed it was plausible MM actually went there.

Fair enough.

[NorrinRadd]

It seems that many are finally seeing political rioting from the other side and don't like it. We've been watching political rioting for 4 years with people killed, government buildings stormed, attempted arson, explosives thrown, attacks made, billions of dollars of damage, etc. For four years we've watched people excuse, ignore, play down, justify, and blame shift that violence, especially in the last year. We've seen those telling lies, those encouraging, those supporting the violence be applauded, be supported. We've seen politicians and celebrities pay the bail and defense of those participating in the violence. So, now, they want to act as if political violence is new and shocking? They want to act as if after all the low (and high) key support that this violence has gotten that the other side should ignore your precedent and just sit down quietly? I don't support Trump, never have. I don't support this riot, but these last 4 years, especially the last 1 make all the democrat cries ring hollow. They supported violence and disruption, now they get to see the terror they inflicted on the country from the other side and are appalled.

The thing is though, they don't recognize the connection. They ignore it, call it "whataboutism", etc. They forget, they NORMALIZED this behavior. The took the side of rioters when the police broke up riots. They blamed the police, and not the instigators for the violence and deaths that happened. Now, when the other side is using their tactics, they blame the entire group, they say that the one in the lead and not the cops is responsible when the cops kill one.

They created the situation where this sort of behavior is tolerated, and acceptable, and they cry when it happens from the other side.

In Biblical parlance, they are reaping the whirlwind from the wind they've sown.

[NorrinRadd]

... 3 more tacked on to try to make it seem 'worse', even though they died from "medical emergencies" (no one can seem to tell me what those were...... ) ...

Probably CoViD.

[NorrinRadd]

No one on the left is justifying looting, violence and actual rioting.
The left argues that demonstrations are an appropriate response to documented unfair treatment by police and the judicial system.

There is no justification for the actions taken yesterday in response to lies about "stolen elections".

No conservatives oppose "demonstrations," even in cases where "unfair treatment" is merely alleged, so drop that dishonest implication.

[NorrinRadd]

I actually saw an interesting article about increasing the number of justices on the SC to 27 (not all at once! ) to de-politicize it. Most cases would be heard by 9 selected randomly and there would be the possibility for re-hearing in front of all 27 in certain circumstances. It would guarantee that every president would get to nominate some justices and avoid the strong urge to nominate the youngest judge you can get your hands on. It sounds like a pretty good idea to me. It would presumably allow the SC to take more cases too.

Between that and mandating 18 year term limits to ensure 2 justices per presidential term this seems preferable this seems like a preferable way to try to salvage the court.

A better but more difficult way would be to amend the Constitution to remove or blunt the power of Marbury v. Madison. The one unelected branch should not be the final arbiter, but should itself be subject to review and overturn by the two elected branches.

[NorrinRadd]

I gave a fleeting thought to trying to catch a ride to the event. Hearing about the dearth of decent toilet facilities, I'm glad I quickly abandoned the idea. I'm on the Frequent Pee-er program.


A long-time friend of mine, who is a local pastor, attended the rally with his wife. He posted a 20-minute video testimony on Facebook about the adventure.

They had a very enjoyable time, apart from the aforementioned lack of restrooms. Figured there were many hundreds of thousands of people present. Met nice people from literally all over the world. Spent time praying with many of them. Described Bad Orange Man's speech as "rip-roaring."

They were only distantly aware of the controversial activities. They were in the process of trekking back to their van when they noticed a bit of commotion on the Capitol steps. A bunch of "yay-hoos" sitting and standing there where they didn't belong. (He speaks a bit more Pennsyltuckian than I do.) Then shortly after that, they noticed a flurry of police activity. They had virtually no cell service or 'net access, so they didn't know what was going on. They "heard" that Anti-fa was stirring up trouble. They hadn't met any crazy people among the Trump supporters, and they didn't take anything POTUS said as inciting violence, so they believed it.