US Capitol rioters await Trump pardons

[Guitar's Cry]

. . . Are you speaking of our Founder's attitude and actions toward mother England, or another group of patriots? . . . The winners kinda get to determine what's a glorious revolution versus an unlawful questioning of the powers that be.

Mother England still hasn't brought our Founding Father's to account for their lawless revolution even as I suspect a number of those who took part in the "disruption" of the powers that be will one day be Senators and Congressmen in a Republican majority of the future. History and law are determined by the victors (not just Victor Davis Hansen). The Country has said MAGA will determine these things for at least the near future.



John

We could ask Samuel Adams what he, a rebel against England, thinks:

"...in monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

Shays' Rebellion - Person: Samuel Adams

 

[John D. Brey]

So, you do not support the peaceful transfer of power? Elections have consequences.

No element of the media's focus and machinations has been more focused than telling everyone, point blank, that Trump is unelectable, and that he won't be elected, save one, their unrelenting claim that the 2020 election wasn't mired by antics that clearly and undeniably altered the course of the election.

Elections have consequences. Yes. But lying and presenting it as truth, when it's false, also has consequences.

Tuesday night was the first installment of those consequences. I suspect uncovering the truth of the full extent of what happened in 2020 will also have important consequences. And I suspect the people coming to power as of Tuesday night are fully aware of how important it is that the America people come to know that the same forces that tried to paint a Trump victory Tuesday as impossible, used their willingness and power to distort truth, to claim the 2020 election wasn't mired by grotesque and dishonest actions that justified President Elect Trump's unwillingness to initially accept the results of that abomination. Elections have consequences. Consequently, we shall see to what extent the President Elect wants to show the nation the truth of what occurred four years ago?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

We could ask Samuel Adams what he, a rebel against England, thinks:

"...in monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

Shays' Rebellion - Person: Samuel Adams

Naturally I'm not as eloquent as Adams, nevertheless, I would say, in the spirit of our Founders, that what men might realize or render treason, the forces of the omnipotent God might render a glorious revolution against the corruption of law and reason. Which is to say that men can argue and fight and debate contrary opinions of things of the highest importance. But God's omnipotence, or if you prefer, fate, gets the final say.

Omnipotence, or fate, has elevated Donald Trump high above the legacy media who label him Hitler, and who turned a blind eye to the antics that kept President Elect Trump out of the White House four years ago. So let it be written; so let it be done.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

As to your comment about 'Mother England," LMOA. Who the **** cares about the monarchy back then?

In my opinion, your statement is perceptive and important since I suspect it establishes a giant link between those who voted MAGA versus those who voted for Vice President Harris.

Interesting. I don't see the connection.

MAGA's very nom-de-plum "make America great again," puts great emphasis on the "again." When does the "again" refer to? It refers to our Founding, our foundation, our Founding Fathers: our Constitution. The whole point of "conservatism" is to conserve what sprouts out of the foundation. To keep America great, and or, to return her to greatness whenever forces attempt to create a different nation by disrespecting the founding Fathers, documents, and religio-cultural norms and standards.

The modern Democrat Party fosters an unabashed desire and attempt to change the nature of the Nation to something that has never existed before. The desires of the Democratic Party are good, very good. And that's where their energy and votes come from. They desire a more inclusive nation. They desire a nation unified with all other nations, almost to the point of being contra nationalism altogether. They don't want any sexual proclivity to be reckoned better, more moral, more healthy to the nation, than any other. They want all racial equities eliminated.

Where the rubber meets the road is the fact that conservatism, and MAGA, believe that our Founding Father's were wise enough, enlightened enough, to know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Much that the Democrats seek, Republicans desire just as much, but with the belief that many good intentions, political, or otherwise, lead not to what is desired, but to its complete opposite.



John

 

[Heyo]

Do you think the rebels who murdered tens of thousands of Mother England's police force merely for trying to put down an unlawful revolution should face no consequences? Every one of our Founding Fathers, including the likes of Jefferson, would have voted MAGA the other day.

So we agree that the US was always, and its citizenry is still criminal and rebellious at heart? They not only don't care if they vote for a criminal, they actually prefer the crook instead of the cop?

Which is to say, Democrats now know they don't just hate President Donald Trump, they hate the Country and people who love him (to include those who's ideas he's upholding: our Founding Fathers).

Just to spell it out, the ideas of the Founding Fathers were criminal, misogynistic, racist and fully in line with overturning the government.

Democrats want America to be something its never been. They've never really liked the Country as anything other than a place where, because of the freedoms that exist here, they can try to turn a Country whose very foundations they despise, into a Country they can be proud of for the first time. You know, like how Michelle Obama said the first time she was proud of this Country was when her husband was elected President.

The Founding Fathers must have turned in their graves when they learned that a black man became president. That was never intended to happen.

Republicans love the Country at its core, and in its foundations. Many Democrats love the Country only when they steer it away from its foundations, and core values. Michelle Obama loved the Country for the first time not when she read about its foundations, and core values, in school, but when her husband was empowered to try to change the core values in order to make the Country a better place by undermining its foundations and core values. Hussein's attempt is the soil out of which MAGA sprouted. Obama's actions are the fertilizer that grew MAGA. Every time he speaks he fertilizes another shiny sprout of the MAGA movement.

Making the country a better place, what an absurd idea. It was just fine in 1776 when there were only 13 states and slaves and wives knew their place. Make America Great like that, Again.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Naturally I'm not as eloquent as Adams, nevertheless, I would say, in the spirit of our Founders, that what men might realize or render treason, the forces of the omnipotent God might render a glorious revolution against the corruption of law and reason. Which is to say that men can argue and fight and debate contrary opinions of things of the highest importance. But God's omnipotence, or if you prefer, fate, gets the final say.

Okay. In the case of a representative democracy, reason demands that with rebellion against perceived election interference, quality evidence must be presented. Otherwise, the entire system cannot function. That is corruption. That is why Adams condemns this in harsh terms. You can invoke God all you wish, but that doesn't hold in court, and if there is a God hopefully they're okay with bearing false witness in this case.

Omnipotence, or fate, has elevated Donald Trump high above the legacy media who label him Hitler, and who turned a blind eye to the antics that kept President Elect Trump out of the White House four years ago. So let it be written; so let it be done.

Omnipotence, or fate, also elevated Hitler.

 

[Shaul]

Pardon me. But are you saying they'll have to wait for a Trump pardon.



John

No, I didn't say that at all. I wrote that if Biden were smart (a big ask, I know) he would pardon or commute the J6 convictions now before Trump takes office.

 

[John D. Brey]

Okay. In the case of a representative democracy, reason demands that with rebellion against perceived election interference, quality evidence must be presented. Otherwise, the entire system cannot function.

Sometimes the democratic institutions are in on the election interference to such a degree that they have no reason to allow the quality evidence that would undermine their plot. Sometimes, after denying even a fair hearing on the matter, they even turn the justice system loose on the person attempting to argue that there was election interference.

Omnipotence, or fate, also elevated Hitler.

Yes it did. And he played his allotted role in the history of that day even as President Trump will play his in current history. Time will tell if those comparing President Trump to Hitler are prescient or merely demagogues?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

So we agree that the US was always, and its citizenry is still criminal and rebellious at heart? They not only don't care if they vote for a criminal, they actually prefer the crook instead of the cop?

Sometimes cops are criminal. And sometimes criminal cops treat saints as crooks.

Just to spell it out, the ideas of the Founding Fathers were criminal, misogynistic, racist and fully in line with overturning the government.

And yet many would argue that they established the Constitution and basis for the greatest bastion of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known.

The Founding Fathers must have turned in their graves when they learned that a black man became president. That was never intended to happen.

And yet many would argue that they established the Constitution and basis for the greatest bastion of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known.

Making the country a better place, what an absurd idea. It was just fine in 1776 when there were only 13 states and slaves and wives knew their place. Make America Great like that, Again.

There's a fundamental difference between weeding out those problematic issues that can be weeded out, versus throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Many on the left say that the USA is wholly bad from its conception and inception and must be leveled and built back better. I suspect there are some serious problems and falsehoods in that ideology.


John

 

[Heyo]

Sometimes cops are criminal. And sometimes criminal cops treat saints as crooks.

Saint Donald? Really?

And yet many would argue that they established the Constitution and basis for the greatest bastion of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known.

And yet many would argue that they established the Constitution and basis for the greatest bastion of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known.

A basis on which rights and freedom were built later on. The original constitution didn't have voting rights for most people, the right to bodily autonomy, the right to marry the person they want.
The fundamentalists want to go back to the time when the Constitution was just a basis, reversing all the rights that made the US appear to be the "greatest bastion of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known". (Which was never the case, but close enough to make everyone believe the propaganda.)

There's a fundamental difference between weeding out those problematic issues that can be weeded out, versus throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Many on the left say that the USA is wholly bad from its conception and inception and must be leveled and built back better. I suspect there are some serious problems and falsehoods in that ideology.

That's pure projection. It's the right who wants to get rid of the rights and liberties fought for by the left. And so far they have succeeded on multiple occasions.

 

[John D. Brey]

A basis on which rights and freedom were built later on. The original constitution didn't have voting rights for most people, the right to bodily autonomy, the right to marry the person they want.
The fundamentalists want to go back to the time when the Constitution was just a basis, reversing all the rights that made the US appear to be the "greatest bastion of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known". (Which was never the case, but close enough to make everyone believe the propaganda.)

What nation should the US attempt to mimic? Who do you see as the greatest bastion of freedom and prosperity. Whom should we be plagiarizing?



John

 

[Heyo]

What nation should the US attempt to mimic? Who do you see as the greatest bastion of freedom and prosperity. Whom should we be plagiarizing?

There are several options, but I'd go for Norway.

 

[John D. Brey]

It's the right who wants to get rid of the rights and liberties fought for by the left. And so far they have succeeded on multiple occasions.

Hey man. The Right, is in the very word "rights." You can't have one without the other ---semantically or otherwise. "Rights" started with the Right; you know, the Magna Carta and all that jazz.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

There are several options, but I'd go for Norway.

In the second law of thermodynamics, you can have a large bastion (so to say) of negative entropy in one particular area while the rest of the system is careening toward equilibrium. But this doesn't mean the area where the store of negative entropy exists is manufacturing it. It simply means either that it's guarding what it has, or importing it from some other place, since negative entropy is never created, only guarded or imported.

Case in point. I once had an extremely heated exchange with a leftist Aussie who championed all the leftist social programs that Australia has that America doesn't. I pointed out to him that the USA can't afford all the social programs Australia has since we're carrying the burden of their national defense. We saved them from the Japanese in WWII, and are prepared to defend them from others currently.

It's easy for Norway or Australia to have left-wing social spending if the negative entropy that exists in nuclear silos in the USA is imported by Norway and Australia. If the nuclear silos in the USA didn't exist, if the US military wasn't spending trillions of dollars to police the world, if Norway and Australia had to pay for their own defense, their bankruptcy would bankrupt their leftist agenda.

General Douglas MacArthur said all wars are fought over undefended negative entropy. Any nation that has negative entropy without defending it will lose it. Can Norway defend its negative entropy from Russia and China by using the stores of negative entropy that exist within is borders? Or are they importing some of what's needed, to guard what they have, from nuclear silos in the USA?

Mao Zedong said freedom flows from the barrel of a gun. We could amend that, so to say, to point out that negative entropy is stored in nuclear silos.



John

 

[Stevicus]

What nation should the US attempt to mimic? Who do you see as the greatest bastion of freedom and prosperity. Whom should we be plagiarizing?



John

I think it may be more of a question of whether our government actually follows the stated principles as might be found in official or historical documents, or if there's a disconnect between what our leaders say versus what they actually do. Do they mean what they say? When Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal," did he really mean that? It sounds good and might make people feel warm inside, but if it's not practiced in good faith on a societal level, then it just turns into an empty slogan.

Most politicians are lawyers, and the funny thing about lawyers is that they'll look for loopholes and technicalities and bog things down in procedure. They don't seem to look at the Constitution in terms of supporting the rights of the people, but more a way of looking for "what can we get away with and still be legal?" The irony of it all is that, throughout history, many rights have had to be secured because it took other lawyers to remind the government of what the Constitution actually says.

So, in other words, plagiarizing another society would do no good, not if the people entrusted with stewardship over the government and legal system are a gaggle of corrupt sleazeballs and pettifogging martinets. If a government does not follow its own stated principles as they are written on paper, then it becomes a hollow institution.

 

[John D. Brey]

I think it may be more of a question of whether our government actually follows the stated principles as might be found in official or historical documents, or if there's a disconnect between what our leaders say versus what they actually do. Do they mean what they say? When Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal," did he really mean that? It sounds good and might make people feel warm inside, but if it's not practiced in good faith on a societal level, then it just turns into an empty slogan.

Most politicians are lawyers, and the funny thing about lawyers is that they'll look for loopholes and technicalities and bog things down in procedure. They don't seem to look at the Constitution in terms of supporting the rights of the people, but more a way of looking for "what can we get away with and still be legal?" The irony of it all is that, throughout history, many rights have had to be secured because it took other lawyers to remind the government of what the Constitution actually says.

So, in other words, plagiarizing another society would do no good, not if the people entrusted with stewardship over the government and legal system are a gaggle of corrupt sleazeballs and pettifogging martinets. If a government does not follow its own stated principles as they are written on paper, then it becomes a hollow institution.

Your argument engages the question of "originalism" versus "living constitutionalism." That question expands to engulf much of the debate between the Right versus the Left. Furthermore, the question of originalism versus constitutionalism hinges on the physical laws of thermodynamics.

Originalism interprets the second law (negative entropy is never created) to imply that all the good (negative entropy) that can come out of the Constitution had to be in it in the first place, since negative entropy is never created, only guarded. On the other hand, living constitutionalism implies (in a round about way) that negative entropy can be created in, or by, "living" organisms. Living constitutionalism sees even a written text, dead letters (in Pauline terms) as living entities able to produce negative entropy rather than just storing and guarding what already exists.

Conservatism, in a general sense, wants to conserve the negative entropy that exists, while liberalism, believes living organisms can create new pools of negative entropy. If the latter is the case, then the Constitution is merely a framework manifesting the brilliance of the men who wrote it, even though, in the dead letter, it's inert and worthless without being interpreted and re-interpreted by living readers of the document. Googling the terms:

Originalism​

This method interprets the Constitution based on the original intentions of the framers, as they were understood at the time of the Founding. Originalists believe that the Constitution's text has a public meaning that has not changed over time. They often oppose amendments because they believe changes to the Constitution would detract from the original intent.​

​

Living constitutionalism​

This method views the Constitution as a living document that can be used to guide the current government. Living constitutionalists support amendments and view the Constitution as a malleable expression of the will of the people.​

​

Conservatives tend toward originalism, while liberals are more like living constitutionalists.



John

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Sometimes the democratic institutions are in on the election interference to such a degree that they have no reason to allow the quality evidence that would undermine their plot. Sometimes, after denying even a fair hearing on the matter, they even turn the justice system loose on the person attempting to argue that there was election interference.

And sometimes conmen can't accept they lost, so create false narratives while they seek to do the very thing they are claiming.

Given that there were no accusations of a "rigged election" this time and the people accusing 2020 as "rigged" won, with no evidence of a "rigged election" in 2020, it has to be concluded that Trump was the perpetrator of actual election interference. How do you trust him?

 

[John D. Brey]

And sometimes conmen can't accept they lost, so create false narratives while they seek to do the very thing they are claiming.

No doubt.

Given that there were no accusations of a "rigged election" this time and the people accusing 2020 as "rigged" won, with no evidence of a "rigged election" in 2020, it has to be concluded that Trump was the perpetrator of actual election interference. How do you trust him?

To some extent truth is in the eye of the beholder. Many of my liberal friends told me quite bluntly that they hated President Trump so vehemently that if the election was stolen, the end justified the means. I would say many who came to power with President Biden's win held a similar opinion and executed it through legal means (denying, for instance, any legal challenge to the election).

The media immediately spoke of Trump "lying" about the election being stolen when in most other cases their professionalism made them point out that Trump "claimed" this or that. The legacy media, like my liberal friends, were so invested in a Biden victory, that they lost all semblance of journalistic integrity. It was no longer that Trump and his people "claimed" the election was stolen (in keeping with journalistic standards of integrity). Suddenly, the media became the arbiter of the truth: it was so unthinkable that Trump win, that whatever caused his loss was the truth in their eyes.

It's not journalist's responsibility, nor is it in their power, to tell us who's lying and who isn't. There are limits on the purpose and power of journalism. They present the facts as best they can, and let the voters decide. When they lost all semblance of journalistic integrity, and started telling the voters who is lying and who's telling the truth, the wise electorate read that rightly, so to say, and took a sharp turn to the Right.



John

 

[Guitar's Cry]

No doubt.



To some extent truth is in the eye of the beholder. Many of my liberal friends told me quite bluntly that they hated President Trump so vehemently that if the election was stolen, the end justified the means. I would say many who came to power with President Biden's win held a similar opinion and executed it through legal means.

The media immediately spoke of Trump "lying" about the election being stolen when in most other cases their professionalism made them point out that Trump "claimed" this or that. The legacy media, like my liberal friends, were so invested in a Biden victory, that they lost all semblance of journalistic integrity. It was no longer that Trump and his people "claimed" the election was stolen (in keeping with journalistic standards of integrity). Suddenly, the media became the arbiter of the truth: it was so unthinkable that Trump win, that whatever caused his loss was the truth in their eyes.



John

Regardless of what media or friends had said, the important thing is what Trump said and did. Remember, that directly led to the January 6th Capitol Riot.

 

[Heyo]

if the US military wasn't spending trillions of dollars to police the world

... there wouldn't have been an arms race and most of the wars of the 20th century wouldn't have happened. Nobody voted for the US to be the world police, and the people of Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, most of Latin America and others know exactly what to think about a bully who declared himself to be the police.