One step forward, maybe?

[Charles Austin]

Can’t we assume that over 8,000 people in West Virginia listened to him?

[JEdwards]

The capitol thing had no support from any conservative voice, at not anyone anyone listens to.

Derrick Evans, a then-Republican member of the WV House of Delegates, was arrested for his participation in the riot. Mr. Evans received over 8,000 votes in November.

Also, while no one in Trump’s inner circle specifically asked supporters to break into the Capitol, threaten Members of Congress, and commit vandalism, and kill a police officer, it’s hard to believe protestations of being “shocked, shocked” after the crowd was told to prepare for “combat”, to march to the Capitol, to “show strength”, and to never give up. Pastor Stoffregen has never, to my knowledge, specifically denied a single article of the Book of Concord, so if you want to assert that the riot had “no support” from Trump, I eagerly await your endorsement of Pastor Stoffregen as a thoroughly orthodox, confessional Lutheran.

Finally, Senator Sasse has said on the record that White House staffers told him that the President was “delighted” when the protesters stormed the Capitol:

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/8/22220840/sasse-trump-capitol-storming-impeachment?_gl=1*1h2d4ih*

Hmmmm. Do you know anyone who has ever listened to Mr. Evans? I’ve never heard of him until your post.

8000+ people voted for him. As it happens, I went to Marshall University, which is near Mr. Evans’ district, so it’s possible that I do.

[peter_speckhard]

A former state rep who got 8,000 votes is now a prominent national voice? Or a convenient straw man?

[peter_speckhard]

What might be a step forward would be taking a step back and reassessing. As I said elsewhere, the tolerance for hypocrisy among leaders has dwindled, and partisan inconsistency going forward will exacerbate everything. People need to say about last week's protestS and riots what they said about other riots in 2020, or, if not, then apologize for not having said about the other riots what they say about these riots. But people won't be scolded by politicians and commentators for doing what they would be applauded for doing by those same politicians and commentators if only their policy preferences were different.

[Charles Austin]

Peter, this is not about “other riots.“ This is about the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol and on the Congress. Stepping back is not a good idea.
Laws were broken. Senators and members of Congress were put at deathly peril. This attack was totally different from the disturbances of 2020, totally different from any laws that were broken during those disturbances.
There are no parallels here, Unless one wants to retreat into the airy, heady realm of theoretical philosophy.
Rather than wondering why those who may have supported the disturbances earlier in 2020 didn’t condemn those disturbances, I wonder why those were so quick to condemn those earlier demonstrations are so reluctant to denounce these and seek proper application of law and order.
This was a violent attack on our Capitol and our legislators. And on the foundation of our democracy.
And we are learning more and more about the origin of and the motivation for and the encouragement given to these assaults.

[peter_speckhard]

Peter, this is not about “other riots.“ This is about the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol and on the Congress. Stepping back is not a good idea.
Laws were broken. Senators and members of Congress were put at deathly peril. This attack was totally different from the disturbances of 2020, totally different from any laws that were broken during those disturbances.
There are no parallels here, Unless one wants to retreat into the airy, heady realm of theoretical philosophy.
Rather than wondering why those who may have supported the disturbances earlier in 2020 didn’t condemn those disturbances, I wonder why those were so quick to condemn those earlier demonstrations are so reluctant to denounce these and seek proper application of law and order.
This was a violent attack on our Capitol and our legislators. And on the foundation of our democracy.
And we are learning more and more about the origin of and the motivation for and the encouragement given to these assaults.

Okay, so steps forward can only happen within the carefully determined parameters of what one side finds relevant. I think taking a step back in order to chart a way forward has more promise than bludgeoning everyone into a conversation controlled exclusively by one side.

[David Garner]

Peter, this is not about “other riots.“ This is about the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol and on the Congress. Stepping back is not a good idea.
Laws were broken. Senators and members of Congress were put at deathly peril. This attack was totally different from the disturbances of 2020, totally different from any laws that were broken during those disturbances.
There are no parallels here, Unless one wants to retreat into the airy, heady realm of theoretical philosophy.
Rather than wondering why those who may have supported the disturbances earlier in 2020 didn’t condemn those disturbances, I wonder why those were so quick to condemn those earlier demonstrations are so reluctant to denounce these and seek proper application of law and order.
This was a violent attack on our Capitol and our legislators. And on the foundation of our democracy.
And we are learning more and more about the origin of and the motivation for and the encouragement given to these assaults.

Okay, so steps forward can only happen within the carefully determined parameters of what one side finds relevant. I think taking a step back in order to chart a way forward has more promise than bludgeoning everyone into a conversation controlled exclusively by one side.

If we can't agree that an attack on the capitol is bad, and also leftists taking over an entire city block in Seattle is also bad, and that both smack of insurrection and are therefore illegitimate, then we simply cannot have a conversation.  It is honestly that simple.

People who want to focus on one and ignore the seriousness of the other are not trying to have a conversation.  They are simply trying to score political points, which ought to be doing some of that edging we've been hearing about here.

[Dan Fienen]

Peter, this is not about “other riots.“ This is about the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol and on the Congress. Stepping back is not a good idea.
Laws were broken. Senators and members of Congress were put at deathly peril. This attack was totally different from the disturbances of 2020, totally different from any laws that were broken during those disturbances.
There are no parallels here, Unless one wants to retreat into the airy, heady realm of theoretical philosophy.
Rather than wondering why those who may have supported the disturbances earlier in 2020 didn’t condemn those disturbances, I wonder why those were so quick to condemn those earlier demonstrations are so reluctant to denounce these and seek proper application of law and order.
This was a violent attack on our Capitol and our legislators. And on the foundation of our democracy.
And we are learning more and more about the origin of and the motivation for and the encouragement given to these assaults.

The disturbances at the Capitol was different from the disturbances across the country this past year. The amount of damage done in the Capitol disturbance was much less than the amount of damage caused by arson, looting, and other destruction. The loss of life in the Capitol disturbance was less than that during the other disturbances. In the other disturbances the people threatened and who loss much were ordinary people, considered much less important than those threatened in the Capitol. The violence during the past year was understood and sympathized with if not condoned by many governmental persons, how many in positions of authority have sympathized with the violence at the Capitol? So yes, there are differences about those violent acts.

As an attempt to actually overthrow the government of the United States, it was pitiful. Yes there are those who would like to do that, and likely some of those caught up in and instigating the riot against the Capitol may well have been of that mind. Even if they had successfully captured and held the Capitol, that would not have overthrown the government. Laws were broken and those who broke those laws should be held accountable, as is happening. There is a nationwide manhunt for those who participated in the riot with many more resources being dedicated to the process than was ever used to find those who instigated violence during the past year. Another difference between the two.

[Charles Austin]

David Garner writes:
If  we can't agree that an attack on the capitol is bad, and also leftists taking over an entire city block in Seattle is also bad, and that both smack of insurrection and are therefore illegitimate, then we simply cannot have a conversation.  It is honestly that simple.
I comment:
No. We agree that both are bad. We just do not agree that both are equal. Then there is a matter of timing, right now our government is under assault. That block in Seattle seems to be rather calm these days.
David Garner:
People who want to focus on one and ignore the seriousness of the other are not trying to have a conversation.  They are simply trying to score political points, which ought to be doing some of that edging we've been hearing about here.
Me:
No again. I repeat, both are serious but both are not equal. An assault on our Congress is not comparable to a disturbance on a block in Seattle.
My concern is for today tomorrow and the next 10 days. Much more needs to be discussed long-term.

[David Garner]

Peter, this is not about “other riots.“ This is about the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol and on the Congress. Stepping back is not a good idea.
Laws were broken. Senators and members of Congress were put at deathly peril. This attack was totally different from the disturbances of 2020, totally different from any laws that were broken during those disturbances.
There are no parallels here, Unless one wants to retreat into the airy, heady realm of theoretical philosophy.
Rather than wondering why those who may have supported the disturbances earlier in 2020 didn’t condemn those disturbances, I wonder why those were so quick to condemn those earlier demonstrations are so reluctant to denounce these and seek proper application of law and order.
This was a violent attack on our Capitol and our legislators. And on the foundation of our democracy.
And we are learning more and more about the origin of and the motivation for and the encouragement given to these assaults.

The disturbances at the Capitol was different from the disturbances across the country this past year. The amount of damage done in the Capitol disturbance was much less than the amount of damage caused by arson, looting, and other destruction. The loss of life in the Capitol disturbance was less than that during the other disturbances. In the other disturbances the people threatened and who loss much were ordinary people, considered much less important than those threatened in the Capitol. The violence during the past year was understood and sympathized with if not condoned by many governmental persons, how many in positions of authority have sympathized with the violence at the Capitol. So yes, there are differences about those violent acts.

Indeed.  In fact, not only condoned, but actively encouraged.

[David Garner]

I was told in some quarters that peaceful demonstration is ineffective and "direct action" (meaning destruction, harm, violence) is the only way to achieve change.  Granted, not by Democratic leaders (though some of those did in fact encourage and cheer on), but still.  There was a far greater acceptance of this sort of behavior over the summer.

Now we're told it's impeachable and people who engage in it should be deplatformed and silence.

[Charles Austin]

Well then here’s another question to you, Mr. Garner. Are you listening to the protesters when they protest? Or do you only listen when they start breaking things?

[Dan Fienen]

Well then here’s another question to you, Mr. Garner. Are you listening to the protesters when they protest? Or do you only listen when they start breaking things?

David can answer for himself. But do you listen to protesters when they protest, or do you only listen when they start breaking things or are saying things that you already sympathize with?

[David Garner]

Well then here’s another question to you, Mr. Garner. Are you listening to the protesters when they protest? Or do you only listen when they start breaking things?

If we can't agree that . . . leftists taking over an entire city block in Seattle is also bad . . . and . . . illegitimate, then we simply cannot have a conversation. 

Excuse making is the art of a partisan, not someone wanting a conversation.  For one, nobody is criticizing protesters here.

[Charles Austin]

And again we drift.
My main concern is the next ten days. Word "out there" is that supporters of The President are planning more activities not unlike those of last Wednesday.
This ought to be a priority concern. I remain convinced that the right words from the president could turn aside some serious trouble. He would have to say "Don't come. Stay home. Do not protest at the inauguration." And he might have to say "It's over, our side lost." If he keeps saying what he has been saying for the past two months, I fear trouble lies ahead.
Much is in his hands.
Peter says he "believes" something was wrong with the election. But no proof has satisfied numerous courts. Politically, we do not take serious action only on what we (or some) "believe." And if we are to show any respect for our government and our system of governing ourselves, it is now time to move on, not driven solely by what we may "believe" to be true.
At least I think that should apply for the next ten days. Everyone say it together: "Biden is the president-elect. He won the election. If there were irregularities, they did not illicitly throw the election his way. He won. Nothing can change that fact."