Attacking the legitimacy of the supreme court is overthrowing democracy.

It’s AOC. She is literally Marjorie Taylor Green, but on blue team. Asking her opinion on something like this, you are going to get a very predictable answer. She is a political zealot.

This isn’t really anything new since whenever executive orders became a thing. With executive orders, a president can start a war or force the entire population to stay home or wear masks in public. I think it’s way too much power and needs to be scaled back big time. But here we are anyway.

I can’t believe people in here openly advocating to assassinate supreme court justices. You all need to step away for a bit, take a few breaths and go talk to some real people.

Good luck

Politician attacks establishment when the establishment doesn’t prosecute her political opposition to the extent she wants.

Insurrection is fine when your team does it

Fear seems like the go-to strategy when you have the weaker candidate. During the Obama elections, the only thing Republicans could do was try to scare people into voting for them, since they knew they couldn’t beat him. The strategy turns from focusing on the strength of your own candidate to focusing on the flaws of the opposing candidate. Democrats entire strategy at this point is maximizing fear of Trump. Not sure why it’s so hard for them to get rid of Biden and put up a real candidate, but it looks like a flaw in the nomination process.

It’s more about an opportunist taking advantage of an ideological movement. The same thing happened with blm.

Well in any event, the government did not in fact hold people down and vaccinate them like shepherds do with their sheep. They also don’t shear us and make clothing from our hair, or butcher us for food. So the shepherd analogy isn’t meant to be literal in every sense.

My view states specifically that the government is not the same as God.

I’m saying that the government is not the same as the Shepherd and that your analogy is flawed.

There are 115,000 schools in the united states. 107 incidents halfway through the year, so 214 approximately by the end of the year, comes out to .19 percent chance of this happening at your school, but that’s only if you assume that it’s evenly distributed, which it certainly is not. I’d guess that if you are in an inner city school with the associated higher crime rates, then your risk is much higher.

But also if you look at numbers of deaths, school shootings isn’t even on the charts. Homicide deaths in general are in second place (but close to suicide deaths) at 10 out of 100,000 kids, and school shootings are a tiny fraction of that. There are 43 million adolescents (10-19) in the united states, so 29 deaths are about .7 percent of the total homicide deaths. Or put another way, your kid is 150 TIMES more likely to die from a regular homicide than from a school shooting.

But still, there is some small risk of a shooting happening and you wanting to know if your kid is safe. So I guess the question is if the tradeoff is worth it. Seems to me like that would not be a good reason not to ban cell phones. Like there might be reasons a cell phone ban is a bad idea, but that isn’t really one of them.

I’m still not seeing how that justifies forced vaccinations.

I feel like school shooters are rare enough that a policy about cell phones wouldn’t need to factor them in.

Yes well the nature of government is changed now, so the divine right of kings would be more like the divine right of the democratically elected government, including all of the limits, checks and balances established by that government. As such, a government exceeding its own authority, as determined by itself, is not within the established divine rights.

And so your argument about forcibly vaccinating the populace (as though they were sheep), and it being justified by a divine right to rule, does not hold up unless laws were written specifically to allow that. But even that might be exceeding the scope of current western governments and would certainly be challenged along those lines.

I guess it’s political in that it is an acknowledgement that Jesus is the highest authority, higher than governments on earth. I don’t think it’s saying that the king of the land (or the government) is Jesus. Most Christians view government as being subjects of God, subject to God’s authority. The government makes laws that are within its scope to do, but cannot exceed that scope. The constitution was written with this in mind, very intentionally, as a way to limit the power of government, although they used the term natural law I think, which Christians interpret as God’s authority.

But that said, obedience to government is a duty and obligation for Christians as well.

I’m still not really sure what your point is, so I’m kinda just spewing what I know on that general topic.

OK so in your analogy, the government is the shepherd, which is Jesus? Pretty sure that’s not how Christians view the government…

You can’t jump to full authoritarian without going through the first steps. I actually don’t understand your second point at all though, about being a Christian.

When it comes to laws, I agree that the whole point of laws is to benefit society and that people who don’t want to follow the laws are subject to an authoritarian response. In the case of covid vaccines, the law stopped short of requiring them by law. It nearly did so through executive mandates, but not quite. But even if it were so, dehumanizing language like “plague rat”, and it being a step towards a dark societal path, is not the same as consequences for breaking the law in the context of what a healthy society looks like. ANY dehumanizing language is bad and dangerous and there are no exceptions.