Well? Now what?

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,512
4,173
743
#61
This is my view:

If you gave a pass to or sympathized with those who rioted, looted, damaged property, and murdered during the protests last Summer because you wanted to be seen as down with “the cause”, you should probably sit this one out.

Violent protest is unacceptable, period. Thus those that participated in the damage and violence should he held accountable some way. Same way I felt last summer.

In general though, there are 4 people dead today. 4 of God's image bearers.
This whole country needs more reasons to stand together than stand apart and I think it should start with this fact. Our political parties need to be full of people wanting the best for us and not for themselves. Many of us that supported Trump, did so because we felt that this country was getting better with his policies. So many things he did were underreported by the media. I mean, when you have a large minority group smear and belittle some from that minority just because they liked a policy Trump was talking about and they wanted to talk to him about it, then something is wrong in this country.
I personally think the Democrats and media had Hillary on the throne ready to accept the presidency and the he came along and win. It pissed them off and they have stopped at nothing to try and keep normal everyday people from knowing anything good about him. To the point that they actively made up lies about him, and then tried to smear those that supported him.
All of you here that are now broad brushing those that supported Trump, are just part of the problem. The majority of us didn't want violence and didn't participate in it because we have thought it wrong when others did it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
I don't remember anyone ever voting for ANTIFA. I also don't remember an ANITFA coup to stay in power.
Missed the point entirely.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,512
4,173
743
#62
Oklahoma had the out of state money trying to change things multiple times in the last decade.
I don't agree with medicinal marijuana the way it's been handled, but it's law. But it also had outside money helping it's cause this time around. I believe it is a very flawed setup that was put in place to get recreational passed in the near future.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
I don't see recreational getting passed here anytime in the near future. Unless the Dems in Washington legalize it at a national level.

Anybody that wants weed can get it now.
That's my point, pretty bad legislation. It'll be used as reasoning for just passing rec. May not pass, but it seems obvious that medical in this form was only a temp stop on the way to rec.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,658
241
1,693
Denver
#63
Missed the point entirely.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You are one to talk about smearing and such. I remember you spreading photoshopped pictures of Ahmaud Arbery in boots instead of running shoes.

You are a serial gaslighter. You are literally an enabler of this coup attempt. So you coming on here and lecturing people like they own ANITFA like you own MAGA is super pathetic.

MAGA is owning this 100%. Trump is still enabling it. You all enabled Trump at every level of the government. MAGA owns the GOP. MAGA is owning a coup attempt. Deal with it.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
17,871
20,313
1,743
#64
Posts edited by me for brevity....not to change the substance of anyone else's post.

......but this, to me, is a whole other level. To think that a mob of idiots could literally overrun the US Capitol building is absolutely, positively ridiculous & should concern everyone.

You had the #2 & #3 persons in our government, in the same location at the same time, & people overrunning the building. That absolutely cannot happen & is a direct national security threat that you can bet your last dollar was seen around the world. Heads should & will roll over this massive, massive failure & I agree, if prosecution is warranted, go after them.
Yeah, the fact that they were so easily able to access what I feel is probably the 2nd most important building in our country is mind boggling, embarrassing and terrifying all at the same time.
The really sad thing to me about where we are as a society is the fact that the Capitol building had to be locked up tight to keep any of the nation's people out of "The People's House" during regular business hours on such a momentous day.

I understand why it was secured. It saddens me that we have come to that point.

Citizens United being amended is where we should start, IMO. How many billions of US wealth was spent on campaigning in order to get us to this point? This is what was purchased.
Problem is, Citizen's United is a Supreme Court decision of constitutional import....not legislation or something else. Would require a new case in controversy for the courts (and ultimately SCOTUS) to possibly overrule their prior decision or a Constitutional amendment to "amend"
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
17,871
20,313
1,743
#65
I keep hearing people say that he pushed them towards the Capitol and whipped them into a frenzy. My understanding was they were on their way to the Capitol because he was going to speak, not that he had already spoke. I have to admit, I stayed away from a lot of media, social and otherwise, to avoid the in the moment bs that usually comes out when no one has all the facts.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
He made a speech telling them to go to the Capitol. At one point, he asked them to march over there with him. This was after Rudy G made his "trial by combat" comment. Then moments before the break-in, he had tweeted that Pence was not going to back him.

Your "understanding" is completely wrong and reflects a longstanding tendency you have to minimize misconduct from folks on your "side"....either based upon what you "understand" happened or just based upon dead wrong falsehoods and allegations you got from the social media "Trumpesphere".

Which is particularly ironic given this post....

This is my view:

If you gave a pass to or sympathized with those who rioted, looted, damaged property, and murdered during the protests last Summer because you wanted to be seen as down with “the cause”, you should probably sit this one out.

Violent protest is unacceptable, period. Thus those that participated in the damage and violence should he held accountable some way. Same way I felt last summer.

In general though, there are 4 people dead today. 4 of God's image bearers.
This whole country needs more reasons to stand together than stand apart and I think it should start with this fact. Our political parties need to be full of people wanting the best for us and not for themselves. Many of us that supported Trump, did so because we felt that this country was getting better with his policies. So many things he did were underreported by the media. I mean, when you have a large minority group smear and belittle some from that minority just because they liked a policy Trump was talking about and they wanted to talk to him about it, then something is wrong in this country.
I personally think the Democrats and media had Hillary on the throne ready to accept the presidency and the he came along and win. It pissed them off and they have stopped at nothing to try and keep normal everyday people from knowing anything good about him. To the point that they actively made up lies about him, and then tried to smear those that supported him.
All of you here that are now broad brushing those that supported Trump, are just part of the problem. The majority of us didn't want violence and didn't participate in it because we have thought it wrong when others did it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You simultaneously:

-Call out people for giving a pass or sympathized with rioters during the summer protests while giving a pass and/or sympathizing and/or make excuses for those miscreants yesterday. If you approved of "once the looting starts, the shooting starts" proclamations by Trump and Trumpets, you should probable sit this one out and stop saying anything but exactly that.

-Accuse others of "broad brushing" those that supported Trump....right after broad brushing those that do not support Trump, the media, and Democrats.
 

ODMcB

Sheriff
Jun 20, 2012
2,576
942
743
#66
Posts edited by me for brevity....


Problem is, Citizen's United is a Supreme Court decision of constitutional import....not legislation or something else. Would require a new case in controversy for the courts (and ultimately SCOTUS) to possibly overrule their prior decision or a Constitutional amendment to "amend"
I'm asking, not arguing...
Why can't they pass a constitutional amendment to it? I think today is a much different day than the past.
 
Jul 25, 2018
4,247
1,151
243
49
Boulder, CO
#67
I'm asking, not arguing...
Why can't they pass a constitutional amendment to it? I think today is a much different day than the past.
You think the same people who've taken their government salaries throughout this period of hardship for so many are gonna lead the way on passing an amendment? The same people that can't even pass a balanced budget amendment?

I love your optimism.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,164
17,014
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#68
Look in to how much of that money ends up in the hands of friends and family of the candidates. If the politicians ever willingly give that up, my first reaction would be shock, followed by suspicion....where are they planning on getting it instead.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
17,871
20,313
1,743
#69
I'm asking, not arguing...
Why can't they pass a constitutional amendment to it? I think today is a much different day than the past.
Supreme Court has no role or authority in "passing a constitutional amendment" to their decisions under our Constitution. Constitution defines how it is amended....and the SCOTUS aren't involved at all.

The Citizen's United decision is over 10 years old. The Supreme Court is restricted to deciding actual cases in controversy by the Constitution. That case is no longer in actual controversy because it was long ago decided. Supreme Court isn't authorized to issue "advisory opinions" or to issue out of the blue "constitutional amendments".

Can you imagine the chaos of the Nine Justices on SCOTUS could just declare something unlawful or unconstitutional or specifically constitutional out of the blue with no actual lawsuit or anything? They'd be a super-legislature of 9 people serving for life. Or imagine the chaos of never having finality to a decision of the court because they could go in at any time and just change their ruling.
 

ODMcB

Sheriff
Jun 20, 2012
2,576
942
743
#71
Supreme Court has no role or authority in "passing a constitutional amendment" to their decisions under our Constitution. Constitution defines how it is amended....and the SCOTUS aren't involved at all.

The Citizen's United decision is over 10 years old. The Supreme Court is restricted to deciding actual cases in controversy by the Constitution. That case is no longer in actual controversy because it was long ago decided. Supreme Court isn't authorized to issue "advisory opinions" or to issue out of the blue "constitutional amendments".

Can you imagine the chaos of the Nine Justices on SCOTUS could just declare something unlawful or unconstitutional or specifically constitutional out of the blue with no actual lawsuit or anything? They'd be a super-legislature of 9 people serving for life. Or imagine the chaos of never having finality to a decision of the court because they could go in at any time and just change their ruling.
What? I never said SCOTUS has that power...I'm thinking we crossed the stream somewhere.
Constitutional Amendment Process | National Archives

I get that it was a SCOTUS decision...
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,043
3,432
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#73
So what happens next? These people accomplished something that’s hasn’t been done in 150 years. The elite power structure along with the elected power were in fear for their lives! There were many more that wanted to take part. There’s obviously something broken with us as a whole. Even before the insurrection there were calls by higher up politicians and media for compiling lists for retribution against Trump and his supporters. If we keep dividing, pushing, bullying and allowing so much unearned arrogance to permeate, the next time they’ll bring guns.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
17,871
20,313
1,743
#75
What? I never said SCOTUS has that power...I'm thinking we crossed the stream somewhere.
Constitutional Amendment Process | National Archives

I get that it was a SCOTUS decision...
I think we have crossed the stream somewhere....probably because I thought by “they” passing a Consitutional Amendment was referring to SCOTUS.

Of course, the Constitution could be amended in a manner that would effectively overrule the Citizen’s United.

Of course, that is much easier said than actually done...we’ve actually only done it 17 times since the Bill of Rights.

And, honestly, I don’t think all those folks on the Hill right now are all that interested in getting big money out of American politics.
 
Jul 25, 2018
4,247
1,151
243
49
Boulder, CO
#76
wi
I think we have crossed the stream somewhere....probably because I thought by “they” passing a Consitutional Amendment was referring to SCOTUS.

Of course, the Constitution could be amended in a manner that would effectively overrule the Citizen’s United.

Of course, that is much easier said than actually done...we’ve actually only done it 17 times since the Bill of Rights.

And, honestly, I don’t think all those folks on the Hill right now are all that interested in getting big money out of American politics.
Uh, I think that's a winner right there.