Go against trump and get your house burned down...JFC...

[wcmagumba]

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5o6k7jvowuyaquloafzn3cfw/post/3m2i4ztmmlc2d?ref_src=embed&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.democraticunderground.com%252F100220700148

[dpibel]

4. What a card you are!

WarGamer (17,981 posts)
2. Maybe it was a B-2 stealth strike or a space laser?

But how's a fella supposed to resist making great jokes in a situation like this?

[BannonsLiver]

11. It's definitely on brand.

I have no idea what happened to this persons home but I’m wary of people who rush in to dismiss it or make light.

[WarGamer]

12. Are you also wary of people who dream up wild theories?

[dpibel]

13. Wild theories?

WarGamer (17,982 posts)
12. Are you also wary of people who dream up wild theories?


You think right-wing violence is a wild theory here?

Oh, my dear! The fantods must be upon you!

[BannonsLiver]

20. Of course. But in some cases they aren't theories. They're facts observed by others as well.

Last edited Mon Oct 6, 2025, 07:30 PM - Edit history (3)

Part of a long, very well-established pattern. I’m also wary of people who portray themselves as something they’re not.

[paleotn]

5. Yeah! Houses just blow up all the time. Especially when the occupant has just pissed off Donnie Dumbass!

Oh....wait.

[Cirsium]

8. Oh stop it

The administration and sycophants and mouthpieces have been ramping up attacks on judges who defy Trump. That is true.

That judge defied Trump. That is true.

24 hours after the latest round of vitriol from the White House and right wing media, her house burned down. That is true.

"Where's the proofs it was an attack???" Good grief.

Where is your proof it wasn't? The burden of proof is on them, not on us. I would think that would be abundantly clear to all of us by now.

[calimary]

9. Lots of good points in this post.

I too would think that would be totally obvious to all of us by now. We tried. And those of us who couldn’t get there at least were willing to give it time. Many of us were ready to be pleasantly surprised. But he’s squandered that, as he has the good will and hopefulness many Americans felt toward him. Seems to me that any further “give him the benefit of the doubt” efforts deserve to be deep-sixed.

[Oeditpus Rex]

15. Who are 'them' who bear this burden of proof?

[Cirsium]

16. Those in authority

Those in authority. Those with power. Always. Pretty foundational concept.

[Oeditpus Rex]

17. So, 'Those in authority'

have to prove they didn't set this house on fire? That's exactly the opposite of the basis of our judicial system, in which prosecutors have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) the suspects did commit the crime(s) of which they're suspected and have been formally charged.

[Cirsium]

19. You seem confused

I am not talking about "our judicial system."

We aren't prosecutors. We are not in power. Those in power are inciting violence.

[Oeditpus Rex]

21. And the burden of proof

that they didn't do it is on them because they've done it before? Am I correct that that's your argument?

[Cirsium]

22. No

The burden of proof is on those in power. What is so difficult to understand? The entire point of the presumption of innocence, Habeas corpus, Miranda rights, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, copyright law, trial by a jury of your peers et al is to protect the powerless from the powerful. The rich and powerful don't need such protections.

Good grief, if people don't grasp that, then it is no wonder the country is sliding into a fascist nightmare.

Maybe this will help:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

See the problem?

[Oeditpus Rex]

24. Sigh... okay, I'll try it this way:

In the case of this house burning down, who are Those In Power abd who are The Powerless?

[Cirsium]

25. Seriously?

In the case of this house burning down, we do not yet know how it happened. You know that, you know that I know that, and I haven't said anything to the contrary.

Are you unclear about who is in power? It is the man who is relentlessly attacking judges who try to apply the law to protect the powerless from his lawless attacks. Only if you remove the power imbalance from the discussion, which is unfortunately a common error, can it seem like Trump is the one being accused or harassed by the state, that Trump is the one being threatened, that Trump is the one being kidnapped and detained, that Trump is the one being denied due process, and therefore needs us to give him the benefit of doubt.

The president of the United States is continually threatening to harm anyone who gets in his way. He is encouraging his followers to threaten, harass and harm those who get in his way. People who get in his way are in fact being harmed - at the direction of the most powerful person in the country.

I hope that whoever is eventually accused of this particular crime is afforded due process under the law. Should Trump and his acolytes ever be brought to justice, I hope that they are afforded due process under the law.

Trump is inciting violence, openly, forcefully. Violence against those he targets is happening.

[Oeditpus Rex]

29. So...

Last edited Wed Oct 8, 2025, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

You conclude, with only circumstantial evidence ("The president of the United States is continually threatening to harm anyone who gets in his way" ) and before any investigation that Trump had the house set on on fire.

Is that correct?

[Cirsium]

30. You know it isn't

I said the burden of proof is not on us. You disagreed. You thought we should have proof before we speculated that Trump's calls for violence against various people just might be connected somehow to actual violence against those he has targeted.

This is not as complicated as you are trying to make it out to be.

Trump is responsible, just as a parent is held responsible if their child is injured, just as a teacher or a day are worker or a nurse is held responsible for those in their care. Imagine if a nurse, or a teacher, or a parent were continually threatening the people over whom they had power, and the the ones they were threatening were in fact harmed.

[Oeditpus Rex]

31. No, I do not know that

In fact, I find it impossible to discern any of what you mean, since you keep denying that what I understand is what you mean. Therefore, I'll stop trying and move on with other things.

[yellow dahlia]

3. Wow! I just followed the Bluesky thread,

and looked up some other reporting online.

Wow! Was this targeted? We don't have all the evidence yet...but.

[SheltieLover]

26. Will anyone ever get real evidence out of SC?

[yellow dahlia]

27. I am expecting we can trust SLED more than the current FBI.

[paleotn]

6. Well...isn't that convenient.

[Captain Zero]

18. Natural gas explosion? Just a coincidence it's the day after Miller trashes her

Whata coinky - dink.

[spanone]

7. K&R

[UTUSN]

14. K&R

[Ms. Toad]

23. I have not found a single reliable report that there was a pre-fire explosion.

The early reports claiming there was an explosion before the fire were in places like New York Post, Hindustanian Times, Daily Mail, etc. Currently, the investigators have indicated there is no evidence of a pre-fire explosion (according to media which bears some relation to the truth).

Is it possible the fire was set - definitely. And I'm sure there are plenty of Trump supporters who are thrilled about it. Is it likely there was an explosion? Not according to anything I've seen. So I'm going to wait until the investigation is further along before I blame it on the right wing wackos.

[BBbats]

28. Well........................................

They were Damn quick to blame the Dems for Charlie Kirk weren't they?