Dying on the hill called principle

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  3 months ago  •  413 comments

Dying on the hill called principle
"Donald Trump cannot escape responsibility by being willfully blind

I do admire people who stand and in this case fall on principle.

There is no question that Donald Trump lost his mind over the 2020 election. He took note of the way he was being blamed for the pandemic during the election. He also took the advice of Dr Fauci and shut down a thriving economy. He was deeply concerned about the rule changes being made in voting, despite state legislatures sitting idly by while voting rules changed. Trump campaigned in the final months like no candidate has ever campaigned. His opponent was kept away from spotlight. The media framed the narrative. Both candidates got more votes that any other individual to ever run for the office of president and in the end they finally got him. Trump lost. Trump's temper got the better of him and the rest should have been history, except what happened on Jan 6th is all democrats have to cling to going into the November midterms.

We can all agree that Donald Trump should have told his supporters to go home on Jan 6th, especially after he was specifically given such advice. It doesn't take a paragon of virtue to understand that principle. How far does one go on advocating such a principle? 

Right now the American people are suffering and they have been suffering by degrees ever since the pandemic hit the US. The election of Joe Biden gave far-left activists a golden opportunity and they took it through their proxy Biden. Their policies produced record high gas prices, 9% inflation, an open border policy that has flooded the country with migrants as well as Fentanyl (from China, no less) and last but not least, the attempt at indoctrinating the US military and young school children in the heinous doctrine known as CRT. Can somebody please tell me how all of that rates against a president's inept attempt at overturning an election?

Nonetheless, some are willing to die on the hill of principle. 

From   The Daily Wire :

A total of 52% of likely primary voters in the state said they supported Trump-endorsed Harriet Hageman, with only 30% showing support for Cheney, according to a Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy survey conducted on behalf of the Casper, Wyoming, Star Tribune.


The poll, conducted July 7-11 among 1,100 likely voters, showed 11% undecided, with no other candidate reaching double digits in support. Republican state Sen. Anthony Bouchard, the next highest-ranking candidate, received 5% support. The race between Cheney and Hageman has been receiving national attention for months, but the survey marked “the first independent, public, in-state poll” conducted so far. Early voting has already begun, with the primary set for August 16.

The poll also revealed more than two-thirds of Americans disagree with Cheney serving on the Jan. 6 Committee.

https://hannity.com/media-room/lights-out-for-liz-cheney-trailing-by-double-digits-in-wyoming-primary/?utm_source=socialflow


One last question:

Whatever possessed her to do it?

 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    3 months ago

“Don’t cry because it’s over. Smile because it happened.”..... Dr. Seuss

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    3 months ago

I will give you credit for one thing. You dont let anything , including common sense, intrude upon your predispositions. 

Donald Trump claiming voter fraud was always the plan. Obviously it would be more imnportant if he lost, but he was going to make the claim even if he had won the electoral count and lost the popular vote. We can know this is so because he has done it in every election he has ever been involved in. In 2016 Trump said the only way he could lose is if the Democrats cheated. He said he would wait to see who won before he accepted the results in 2016. Even in the GOP primaries that year Trump claimed he was cheated on the rare occasion when he lost in a particular state. 

This is powerful evidence that Trump never intended to accept the results in 2020. If it wasnt mail in voting that bugged him it would have been something else. 

Wake the fuck up. 

As far as Trump trying to overhrow the US government, the committee has done a great job of proving that. And yes it is more important than transitory inflation or gas prices, neither of which are really Joe Bidens fault anyway. . 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 months ago
As far as Trump trying to overhrow the US government, the committee has done a great job of proving that.

Not according to Merrick Garland.  No action seems likely.

You wake the Fuck up. They are hoping he runs again, otherwise the dems are out in 2022 and 2024

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 months ago
They are hoping he runs again, otherwise the dems are out in 2022 and 2024

What are you going to do when he runs again. Blame Biden for it? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    3 months ago

I'll vote for him again and hope for the best.

As for Biden...we can thank him for showing us all what the main danger to the country is.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.3  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    3 months ago
I'll vote for him again and hope for the best.

Aye. That explains the extreme spin in your opinion. And Hannity posted a poll? Unprincipled, it is.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 months ago
Not according to Merrick Garland. 

Would you care to provide a link to his statement?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.5  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    3 months ago

“I'll vote for him again and hope for the best.”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how far we have fallen.

Willing to vote for an obviously fractured individual in the ‘hope’ for constructive leadership.

Saying little for the opposition…continually floundering in bringing disparate camps under a coalesced message.

We find ourselves in a leadership vacuum…one sans vision, sans eloquence, and sans any conviction to their principles other than the juvenile pointing of fingers. 

Third and fourth party, anyone? A moderate conservative and liberal group to counter the lunatic fringes?

Therein lies our true hope. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    3 months ago
I'll vote for him again and hope for the best.

Irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic.   

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.6    3 months ago

Three new names for me.

So, you'll be voting for inflation, open borders and rampant crime?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.8  JBB  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.5    3 months ago

Liz Cheney may have to run as an independent to make sure Trump is unelectable, as Ross Perot did Bush Sr and Dole...

The more Cheney is abused by the gop the more likely this is!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.5    3 months ago
illing to vote for an obviously fractured individual in the ‘hope’ for constructive leadership.

Isn't that the rationale for voting for Biden? 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.10  afrayedknot  replied to  JBB @2.1.8    3 months ago

“Liz Cheney may have to run as an independent to make sure Trump is unelectable…”

As she should, and especially if DeSantis is the nominee, as he is even more dangerous. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @2.1.8    3 months ago
Liz Cheney may have to run as an independent

As an independent or Democrat.  Her own state kicked her out of the Republican Party.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.7    3 months ago
So, you'll be voting for inflation, open borders and rampant crime?

What I will not do is vote for Trump for obvious reasons.

I have been arguing that people like you should not defend Trump because doing so (collectively) gives him the means to potentially run again.   If you (collectively) would honestly criticize Trump instead of dishonestly defend him we might have at least a semi-decent R nominee.

As for the Ds, I have stated repeatedly that neither Biden nor Harris should run.   I have stated repeatedly that all I wanted from Biden is to keep the doors open for four years and provide a means for us to have a decent set of choices in 2024.

You never seem to remember this.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    3 months ago
"As for Biden...we can thank him for showing us all what the main danger to the country is."

#45 and all of his supporters and enablers.  

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.14  evilgenius  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.12    3 months ago
...we might have at least a semi-decent R nominee.

At this point I'm not sure who that could be. Populism demands purity.

As for the Ds, I have stated repeatedly that neither Biden nor Harris should run.

Here again with the wide schism between moderates and progressives I can't think of anyone for the party to coalesce around.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.14    3 months ago

The lack of good candidates has plagued us for decades.   Ultimately, what decent person would want to run for office?   Nowadays one cannot be elected without engaging in duplicity.   The good ones (e.g. Condoleezza Rice) tend to not be lying sacks of shit.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.16  evilgenius  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.15    3 months ago
Ultimately, what decent person would want to run for office? 

And that's a problem.

Nowadays one cannot be elected without engaging in duplicity. 

I see Paul Ryan is coming out with a new book. jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.17  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.15    3 months ago
The lack of good candidates has plagued us for decades.

Sorry, disagree to an extent.  Obama is an example of a good candidate, with the background, knowledge, and desire to do the job well.  Other than him though, you are correct, the ones that run for office (from both sides of the aisle) almost always do it to push their own agendas as opposed to doing what is best for the country.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.17    3 months ago

Obama was entirely inexperienced (fast tracked without gaining real experience) when running for his first term.   He won on charisma. 

However, given what we have seen recently, I would welcome a 2024 Obama candidate because such is vastly superior to a Biden, Harris, Pence and especially Trump.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2.1.19  Greg Jones  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.10    3 months ago
"As she should, and especially if DeSantis is the nominee, as he is even more dangerous."

Now you're getting it. Carrier of the MAGA banner...with none of the baggage

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.20  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.15    3 months ago
Ultimately, what decent person would want to run for office? 

If the choices are only indecent candidates, then why does anyone vote them into office in the first place?

Were they decent when they first entered politics?

Were they indecent, but deemed the lessor of two evils?  

Do we now have a very corrupt government because we have managed to vote for indecent people for decades?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.20    3 months ago

The electorate is largely ill-informed, easily persuaded (fooled), and apathetic.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.22  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.20    3 months ago
Do we now have a very corrupt government because we have managed to vote for indecent people for decades?  

Interesting article about "the Swamp".  It's from Forbes so I hope it is deemed credible by the partisans.

Revolving-Door Riches: How Obama-Biden Officials Cashed In During The Trump Years (forbes.com)

How lucrative is the swamp? A first-of-its-kind analysis shows 77 officials who served under Obama and Biden boosted their assets by an estimated 270% from 2017 to 2021

Most people have heard of Washington’s revolving door, which allows politicos to cash in on their government service by roving between the private and public sectors, leveraging their government connections and know-how. Distaste for the revolving door, and the potential conflicts of interest it creates, is one of the few things that can unify Republicans and Democrats. Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden both enacted rules to try to limit those interested in passing through the revolving door.

Yet officials on both sides of the aisle have also taken advantage of the revolving door. A first-of-its-kind analysis, conducted by Columbia University’s Brown Institute for Media Innovation, MuckRock and Forbes, identified 151 officials who left the government in the final days of the Obama administration, then returned under Biden. We were able to track down  before-and-after sets of financial disclosures for 77 of those officials , allowing us to see how their personal finances changed when they passed through the revolving door.

OFFICIAL OUTPERFORMANCE

The stock market soared 70% from 2017 to 2021, helping boost household assets across the country by 38%. Life was especially good for those passing through the revolving door, however. They juiced their holdings by an estimated 270%.

The data is clear. The officials’ median assets increased an estimated 270% over four years. By comparison, total household assets increased 38% nationwide from 2017 to 2021, according to  data published by the Federal Reserve . The S&P 500 went up 70% over the same period. The figures highlight why it’s so tempting for public officials to leverage their government experience for private gain. “This shows what the revolving door is all about,” says Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a left-leaning think tank that advocates for corporate accountability and lobbying reform. “People swing through the revolving door to enhance their personal wealth.”
 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.23  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.21    3 months ago
The electorate is largely ill-informed, easily persuaded (fooled), and apathetic.

If this is representative of the mentality of the people who are motivated enough to vote, then why it is important that we make sure the ones who have no ID, no transportation, and little education are voting?  Who does this benefit?  The health of our government or crooked politicans?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.1.24  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.21    3 months ago
The electorate is largely ill-informed, easily persuaded (fooled), and apathetic.

So....The Voter is at Fault .

Is "THE Media", where MOST Voters get their info from, The Biggest purveyors of helping to make Voters Ill-informed, Apathetic ?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.25  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.22    3 months ago
Interesting article about "the Swamp".

More....

Revolving-Door Riches: How Obama-Biden Officials Cashed In During The Trump Years (forbes.com)
BLACKOUT IN THE WHITE HOUSE
In addition to the 77 revolvers identified in this analysis, we found another 74 people who worked in the Obama White House, went to the private sector, and are now working inside the Biden administration. But unlike most other departments, the White House does not keep public financial disclosures from previous administrations. Instead, the records go through a complicated transfer process to the National Archives.
Although we requested public financial disclosures of these officials eight months ago, the National Archives and the Obama Presidential Library, now in possession of these records, have not released the records, citing procedural challenges. Public financial disclosures have a six-year retention period, meaning that records filed in 2016 could be soon destroyed if they are not released in time. The Project on Government Oversight, a D.C. think tank dedicated to government transparency, is also working to get the files. “Too many things require requests and staying on top of the government,” says Jeff Hauser, director of the Revolving Door Project at the Center for Economic Policy and Research. “It should not be this difficult.”
 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.26  Jack_TX  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.5    3 months ago
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how far we have fallen.

You noticed.

Willing to vote for an obviously fractured individual in the ‘hope’ for constructive leadership.

Frankly, I vote for the person least likely to accomplish whatever their (usually terrible) ideas are.

Third and fourth party, anyone? A moderate conservative and liberal group to counter the lunatic fringes? Therein lies our true hope. 

I think a moderate conservative or liberal candidate would be enough.  But we can't seem to get them through the primaries, where the insane extremists hold sway.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.27  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.17    3 months ago
Sorry, disagree to an extent.  Obama is an example of a good candidate, with the background, knowledge, and desire to do the job well.

In 2008, Obama was the least qualified candidate nominated by a major party in decades.   Now...it all turned out OK, but let's don't pretend he knew shit when he first got the job.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.28  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.18    3 months ago
However, given what we have seen recently, I would welcome a 2024 Obama candidate because such is vastly superior to a Biden, Harris, Pence and especially Trump.

Depends on who that is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.28    3 months ago

Certainly.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.30  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.18    3 months ago
Obama was entirely inexperienced

Agreed, but I never mentioned experience as a trait that I looked for.  New young blood is what is needed.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.31  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.27    3 months ago
In 2008, Obama was the least qualified candidate nominated by a major party in decades.

He was the leased EXPERIENCED candidate, not the least qualified.  And he still had more experience than Trump did.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.30    3 months ago
New young blood is what is needed.

I agree with that.   Younger, at least — say 45 to 65.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.33  afrayedknot  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.26    3 months ago

“…where the insane extremists hold sway.”

To their only credit.

It all happens at the precinct level…a place where candidates are vetted…and only vetted to secure a place on the ballot.

When we complain about the lack of quality candidates, one only need look at the gerrymandered districts that only serve to ensure a predetermined vote, whether a local, state or national election.

The effort to hold ‘sway’ is the end all…one just need to follow the $$$.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.34  afrayedknot  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.24    3 months ago

“The Biggest purveyors of helping to make Voters Ill-informed…”

Yup…fox ‘news’ has done more to define this age of disinformation than any other media outlet as they are the best…only interested in doubling, tripling, and exponentially dumbing down. They are singularly vested in ultimately meaningless cable ratings…facts are but collateral damage. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.1.35  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.34    3 months ago
Yup…fox ‘news’ has done more to define this age of disinformation

Just Fox huh !

Partisan blindness ?

You watch Fox ?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.36  Jack_TX  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.33    3 months ago
When we complain about the lack of quality candidates, one only need look at the gerrymandered districts that only serve to ensure a predetermined vote, whether a local, state or national election.

We've had exactly two presidents in the last 100 years that were not previously either a vice-president, a US senator, a US Army general or a state governor.    None of that can be gerrymandered.

The problem is that we're no longer willing to tell the people in our own parties that they're batshit and they need to sit the fuck down and behave.  

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.37  afrayedknot  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.35    3 months ago

“Just…”

..,ignore the gist of the comment lest one feel challenged to actually address it.

Tis an endless effort to throw grenades, but if one is unable to pull the pin, it becomes yet another lobbed dirt clod…

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.38  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.32    3 months ago
I agree with that.   Younger, at least — say 45 to 65.

Definitely.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.39  afrayedknot  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.36    3 months ago

“None of that can be gerrymandered.”

Agreed.

But it at the precinct level where the ‘batshit’ are bred, thrive, and multiply. Only to be rewarded by those elected in the vainglorious effort to be re-elected…hence the drawing of districts; local, state, or congressional, to ensure the continuation of power.

It is as surely a bottom up as a top down conundrum.

The only thing each party has in common…continue to incessantly blame one another to no one’s benefit, and be content in the inevitable taking of turns. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.40  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.11    3 months ago
Her own state kicked her out of the Republican Party.

The State GOP kicked her out of the republican party of the state she is suppose to repersent the people of said state .

Corrected that for you , she was never a resident of Wyo until she decided to make a run for office in the state( first time was for a federal senate seat which she dropped out when it showed she wouldnt be elected for reasons mentioned below) , she has more connection with the state of Virginia , than Wyo, simply owning a summer place in state does not a resident of the state make and she didnt own that until she decided to run for office .

 My personal opinion is she is too far right for me , and she is nothing more than a political carpet bagger .

If she runs 3rd party independant ( which i usually vote) in the general , i will vote for the republican in the general .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.41  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.40    3 months ago
If she runs 3rd party independant ( which i usually vote) in the general , i will vote for the republican in the general .

So Mark, can we use this as evidence that you are a through and through republican? Or, let me ask you: How do you justify not standing with a principled conservative (who you characterize as "far right") when MAGA won't even compromise with liberals or call an insurrection what it is?

Let's cut out the suspense. You are MAGA conservative. Why? Because that is what "the republican in the general" will be in Wyoming as par for the course.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.42  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @2.1.41    3 months ago
So Mark, can we use this as evidence that you are a through and through republican?

You could , but as usual you would be wrong in the way you "read " people . Just as you would be wrong to lump me as MAGA. Im not MAGA but i sure as hell am not with the left or what they stand for in reality . which to me stinks too much like the failed ideology of marxism , that one should have been thrown out with marx and his bath water .

 i say she is too far "right " for MY  tatstes , its been reported she voted 90% of the time in favor of the disgraced ones policies . and he was definitely too far batshit crazy to the right for me , thankfully i never voted for him to be in office , as i have always said .

remember , i said i usually vote 3rd party independent, i usually look for a moderate if they are available  , my second choice if we go ranked choice in voting , would be republican , thankfully i usually have other choices , as for democrat ? NOTHING i have seen for 30 years has appealed to me about that party, IMO they are as batshit crazy as the far right in the opposite extreme , and more likely to become totalitarian , when i dont vote for them , i actually am voting in my best interests , which usually means i am voting against most democrats interests . So let them be pissed off .

 You are of course entitled to your opinion ( we all are ) , what your NOT entitled to do is try and tell me what my opinion should be , or be harrassed because it doesnt fit your little pigion hole , you can keep your opinion , i will keep my own .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.43  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.42    3 months ago
i actually am voting in my best interests , which usually means i am voting against most democrats interests . So let them be pissed off .

First, let me thank you for reminding me that some people can move across lines and draw lines selfishly for themselves without any consideration for the guy sitting across from them or. . . holding off and on yearly discussions with him or her online. :)

Second, if you support the republican in general in Wyoming, you will be enabling and counted in the ranks of the "disgraced and batshit crazy one" (your words), to which he will thank you for your indirect/direct endorsement. Damn Mark, it appears you are fatefully doomed to support a lying SOB one way or another.

How. . . sad? /s

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.44  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @2.1.43    3 months ago
Second, if you support the republican in general in Wyoming, you will be enabling and counted in the ranks of the "disgraced and batshit crazy one" (your words),

IF i end up having to vote republican in the general this year , i will join the 70-80% of the voters in this state , if Cheney doesnt run as an indy i will likely vote for a 3rd party and join the 4-5 % of wyoming voters , ever look and wonder why the state of wyo has not sent a democrat to DC for congressional office since before 1977? the answer is not enough democrats and not any reputable candidates by voter standards .

As for the rest of it , continue to chase unicorn farts with a mason jar , it matters to me not .

And thank you , for verifying  my statement , trying to tell ME what my opinion should be , thats something you never have been entitled to do , nor ever will.

you walked right into that one like i knew you would and of your own free will.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.45  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.44    3 months ago

Hey, in this particular case, Mark, whatever keeps your boat afloat. I am happy to keep the ships running in their lanes and you should be clear to launch! ;)  Your path is clear of clutter and anything that obstructs you from your destination. Happy travels and those occasional farts!

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.1.46  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.37    2 months ago
ignore the gist of the comment

The gist wasn't..... You Blame FOX  for all the Voters woes ?

 
 
 
Diablo Imperius
Professor Guide
2.1.47  Diablo Imperius  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.35    2 months ago

AFrayd is just parroting the party line.  They really hate it when someone tells the truth.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.2  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 months ago
I will give you credit for one thing. You dont let anything , including common sense, intrude upon your predispositions.

Are you complaining about some sort of patent infringement?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 months ago
And yes it is more important than transitory inflation or gas prices, neither of which are really Joe Bidens fault anyway. .

The majority of voters disagree with you. The economy and inflation are far greater worries than Jan. 6.

Is ANYTHING ever Biden's fault?

I suppose you like 9% inflation rates.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3    3 months ago

Its cute to watch you pretend you know what the hell you're doing on here.   Comedy gold. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.1    3 months ago
Its cute to watch you pretend you know what the hell you're doing on here

I was thinking how weird it was that you simply try to ignore polls proving me right.

Even Democrats know we are headed in the wrong direction under your hero Joe.

At least SOME Democrats are finally starting to get it.

And after the midterm autopsy of the Democratic Party loss of the majority, maybe you will finally understand that the economy is more important to people than Jan. 6.

Or not.

Maybe you'll stick with your theory that America is a racist country and that the economy doesn't matter to voters.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.4  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago
I will give you credit for one thing. You dont let anything , including common sense, intrude upon your predispositions. 

You are the last fucking person to lecture anyone on this. You are the example used by everyone when it comes to TDS.

Wake the fuck up. 

Take your own damn advice!

As far as Trump trying to overhrow the US government, the committee has done a great job of proving that. And yes it is more important than transitory inflation or gas prices, neither of which are really Joe Bidens fault anyway. . 

Only in rampant TDS land is the Jan 6th committee relevant. They have been caught repeatedly editing video; editing/omitting text; and coaching witnesses (they only allow testimony of those that back their get Trump at all costs ideology). 

Midterms will prove you wrong. People are blaming Brandon for high gas prices; inflation; the wide open Southern border; illegal immigration; crime; the botched Afghanistan withdrawal- and abandoning US citizens there. Brandon is happy you used his talking point on "transitory"- recession is coming; and all Democrats can do is talking about spending trillions more. They get their wish and the recession will turn into a full blown depression.  

Clock is ticking Democrats. Time to pay the piper for trying to destroy this country.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 months ago
We can all agree that Donald Trump should have told his supporters to go home on Jan 6th

Instead he encouraged them to practice their 1st amendment right to peacefully protest.   

the attempt at indoctrinating the US military and young school children in the heinous doctrine known as CRT.

The idea of pushing such garbage to the US fighting forces is retarded at best (but then again look who we are talking about).  They have far more important things to worry about train for.  If it weren't for the virtual classes these parents would have been completely oblivious to the harm being done to their children.  School boards have attempted to silence parents speaking out against the travesty that CRT really is.

One last question:

Whatever possessed her to do it?

I guess she wanted to be part of the "winning" crowd.  Sadly, she was wrong.  And now will suffer with the rest of the Democrats.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    3 months ago
Instead he encouraged them to practice their 1st amendment right to peacefully protest.

He did say go in peace. Thus far that line has not been allowed at the Jan 6th Committee hearings.


The idea of pushing such garbage to the US fighting forces is retarded at best (but then again look who we are talking about).  

Yup, retarded at best and a national security issue at worst:




I guess she wanted to be part of the "winning" crowd. 

I don't see that crowd doing anything to help get her reelected. I guess outside of the Committee chamber she's just another Republican.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.1  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 months ago

She is a republican who is not "hoping for the best" with Donald Trump by allowing him to do it again. And my how you all stand with a lying 'wonderkin' while pushing away from a principled conservative. It says everything we need to know about MAGA conservatives.

And Donald used a "peace" line once, as a throw-away line. Sure, you know what a "throw-away" line is in a speech right? I will tell you: not serious. Not carrying any weight.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 months ago

There is now testimony that Trump wanted and intended to go the capitol on Jan 6. Why? It is known that he wanted the mob to pressure Pence into helping Trump steal the election. So what would his presence add to that?  Were they suppose to achieve that aim by singing kumbaya on the capitol steps? 

And if he wanted peace so much, why was he engrossed in tv coverage of the riot (on his behalf) to the extent he did nothing to try and stop it?

You cant answer any of these questions. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @3.1.1    3 months ago
She is a republican who is not "hoping for the best" with Donald Trump by allowing him to do it again.

At an enormous personal cost. BTW, they can't stop him without prosecuting him.


 And my how you all stand with a lying 'wonderkin' while pushing away from a principled conservative.

Even if he lied 24/7, he still was a good President. As for Cheney, I'm not pushing Liz away. I'm not registered as a voter in Wyoming.


 It says everything we need to know about MAGA conservatives.

It says everything we need to know about progressives. They prefer America 2021-2022 over America 2017-2020.


And Donald used a "peace" line once, as a throw-away line. Sure, you know what a "throw-away" line is in a speech right? I will tell you: not serious. Not carrying any weight.

Deleting it from clips used during the hearings is damning.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 months ago
Thus far that line has not been allowed at the Jan 6th Committee hearings.

It won't be permitted.  Those 3 words completely negate what the TDS Committee.  But then again, Pelosi hand picking members already negated it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    3 months ago
Even if he lied 24/7, he still was a good President.

He did lie 24/7 and he is the worst presidnt in US history.  It is staggering how little weight you give to integrity. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    3 months ago
He did lie 24/7 and he is the worst presidnt in US history.

That makes him just like every other politician.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    3 months ago
There is now testimony that Trump wanted and intended to go the capitol on Jan 6.

I'll say one thing for you, you sure are totally focused on one subject. (Remember what the article was about?) So, here we go again with this committee, which isn't going to get you a damn thing in November.


 Why?

So, you're climbing into the mind of Trump again?


It is known that he wanted the mob to pressure Pence into helping Trump steal the election.

That's disingenuous. You know a lot of the people who went there were there to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the election. There were fringe elements that entered the Capitol building. Try to separate the two.


So what would his presence add to that? 

It could have simply been a farewell. Who knows?  


Were they suppose to achieve that aim by singing kumbaya on the capitol steps? 

So, you intend to convict him on what you think his intentions were?  


And if he wanted peace so much, why was he engrossed in tv coverage of the riot (on his behalf) to the extent he did nothing to try and stop it?

Using the same logic, then why say go in peace, if he wanted a riot?


You cant answer any of these questions. 

I just did.

The big question remains:

WHY WON"T GARLAND INDICT HIM?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.7    3 months ago

Your comments are ridiculous, but Newstalkers protects your "freedom of speech" so congratulations. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    3 months ago
It is staggering how little weight you give to integrity.

It is staggering how little weight you give to the wellbeing of the nation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.8    3 months ago
Your comments are ridiculous,

Somehow, I knew you were going to say that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    3 months ago

And you think that lack of integrity does not effect the well-being of the nation?

You will still be defending Trump as the prison cell doors close. 

I wonder if Washington and Jefferson were still around if they would have thought Trumps attempts to steal the election were so insignificant, like you do? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.6    3 months ago
That makes him just like every other politician.  

Another truly ridiculous comment. It is a shame that Newstalkers has to be polluted with this garbage every day. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.10    3 months ago
Somehow, I knew you were going to say that.

Vic, anyone with half a brain figured you out a long time ago. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 months ago
Thus far that line ["go in peace"] has not been allowed at the Jan 6th Committee hearings.

You have made this claim before and were proven wrong by Dulay.   And here you are again with the same grasping at imaginary straws intellectual dishonesty.

From the transcript of the 6th session (video below):

LIZ CHENEY: Despite the fact that many people close to Donald Trump were urging him to send people home, he did not do so until later, much later. At 4:17 PM, Donald Trump finally told the rioters to go home and that he loved them. Here's a portion of the video President Trump recorded from the White House. [Begin videotape]

DONALD TRUMP: We have to have peace, so go home. We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home in peace. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: But as we will show in even greater detail in future hearings, Donald Trump was reluctant to put this message out and he still could not bring himself to condemn the attack. Ms. Hutchinson has told us that, too

This is at 2:21:21 in this video:


Vic@3.1.3Deleting it from clips used during the hearings is damning.

They did not delete it from the clips.   See?   

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.15  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    3 months ago
At an enormous personal cost. BTW, they can't stop him without prosecuting him.

Yes, they can. If only MAGA supporters were principled. It is evident MAGA supporters are not. There is no way to sugarcoat it. (It slides off.)

Trump lies "indefinitely." No one who does that is a good person in anybody's book. Not sure what that says about the millions who see him as "good." BTW, you condemn every other liar who strays away from the truth, but this one. I know why, and won't bother with asking.

Well, it was only used once in a low-key voice at the tail end of a speech. But, hang on to it as important. He did say it- for all the good it did. We can surmise why it was there and why it was not heeded by the mob.

BTW, had he meant peace to take hold, Donald would have acted immediately and presidentially when told the mob was upsetting the structure and natural order of the capitol, to put it nicely.  He did not.

But who are we kidding. You don't condemn Donald or care about any truth coming out of this. And you criticize proper republican in the process.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.16  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.11    3 months ago
And you think that lack of integrity does not effect the well-being of the nation?

I'll say it again: I can't imagine anyone voting for what he have been subjected to for almost 2 years because of a point of principle.


You will still be defending Trump as the prison cell doors close. 

Please send him there before he makes a campaign announcement!


I wonder if Washington and Jefferson were still around if they would have thought Trumps attempts to steal the election were so insignificant, like you do? 

I think they'd sent the militia out after progressives immediately after the Kavanaugh hearings.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.17  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.16    3 months ago

Subjected to what ? Inflation? We have had high inflation a number of times before. Gas prices? Remember the 70's ?  Shit happens. It is no excuse for putting Donald Trump in office or keeping him there. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.18  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.14    3 months ago

He means it has not been "inflated" and over-blown during the hearing. Vic would like the committee to ignore all the other mountains of evidence and just focus on a  tiny hill of "peace" as evidence of Donald Trump activities. Forget about all the laborious prepping and planning leading up to and executed on January 6. Just remember a single throw-away word: Peace - as rhetoric.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.19  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @3.1.15    3 months ago
Yes, they can. If only MAGA supporters were principled.

The question is principle vs reason. We can stay on this hellish course for ourselves and our families or we can make some kind of symbolic statement.


Trump lies "indefinitely." No one who does that is a good person in anybody's book. Not sure what that says about the millions who see him as "good." BTW, you condemn every other liar who strays away from the truth, but this one. I know why, and won't bother with asking.

Ok so let's call it Trump's character vs Trump's performance as President. I don't know about you, but for many people that's an easy one.


Well, it was only used once in a low-key voice at the tail end of a speech. But, hang on to it as important. He did say it- for all the good it did. We can surmise why it was there and why it was not heeded by the mob.

So why is the Committee so afraid of it?


BTW, had he meant peace to take hold, Donald would have acted immediately and presidentially when told the mob was upsetting the structure and natural order of the capitol, to put it nicely.  He did not.

As I said in my article, he should have told them to go home. 


But who are we kidding. You don't condemn Donald or care about any truth coming out of this. And you criticize proper republican in the process.

You mean I wont bite my nose off to spite my face.

No way!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.20  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.17    3 months ago
Shit happens.

NO John, It didn't need to happen. These were the policies of Sanders, Cortez and Ayers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.19    3 months ago
Ok so let's call it Trump's character vs Trump's performance as President.

Evidence suggests that his cabinet was considering the 25th.   It is irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic to support someone who has so thoroughly demonstrated such a lack of integrity and responsibility that he should not be given any public power much less the presidency of the USA.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
3.1.22  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.19    3 months ago

“…for many people that's an easy one.”

As it used to be, back when character used to mean something. Those of dubious character did not gain our friendship, did not earn our business, and certainly did not garner our vote. 

Another example of razing the bar in justifying the hatred for the opposition. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.23  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    3 months ago
Even if he lied 24/7, he still was a good President.

It gets even worse. A MAGA supporter, one of your own, died in the capitol because she and people like you 'talk up' a sitting president who lied and got Ashli Babbitt killed. That was no accident, anybody could see its potential a mile away and even Donald, the sitting president, should have 'gamed out' how to keep his people alive since he invited them to come to D.C. and to go to the Capitol. You forgive much and ignore even more just to get what you want through MAGA.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.12    3 months ago

"Another truly ridiculous comment. It is a shame that Newstalkers has to be polluted with this garbage every day."

Ya!  It gets worse every day.  

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
3.1.25  Hallux  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.13    3 months ago
Vic, anyone with half a brain figured you out a long time ago.

I can personally vouch for that.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.1.26  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    3 months ago
It is staggering how little weight you give to integrity.

To many right wing conservatives 'integrity' is a dirty word just like 'compromise' and 'honor'. They can't afford any of those things because they only see a societal nightmare landscape where they're the persecuted hunted white conservative Christians fighting desperately to cling to their white conservative Christian culture they imagine is being destroyed by leftist liberal progressive secularists. Of course that's a bunch of bullshit, no one is trying to stop them from believing in whatever God they want or worshiping the way they want, they're really just bitter and angry about not having as much control over American society as they used to and are being treated the same as any other faith like Islam or Judaism which they see as beneath them.

They demand the right to discriminate against those they have judged as 'sinners', they demand the right to inject their religious beliefs into the law and to strip women of their right to bodily autonomy, they demand the right to peer pressure student athletes into public group Christian prayers, they demand the right to insert their religious morals and beliefs about gender roles into public schools to the exclusion of all others. Integrity, honor, honesty, none of those are worth more than their fanatic devotion to their indoctrinated religious beliefs.

I've no doubt millions of right wing conservative Christians would have no problem taking up arms and gunning down innocents in the street if they believed their God commanded them to do it. So claiming moral superiority while having no integrity, lying, cheating, stealing, attacking capital police, attempting to overthrow a free and fair election, all prove what monumental hypocrites they are but they don't care because to them the ends justify the means. In their minds only their God can "fix" the world and thus doing anything other than pushing their religious beliefs on everyone around them is a waste of time.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.27  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.21    3 months ago

Ditto.

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.28  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    3 months ago

Watching TV on Jan 6th had nothing to do with what happened at the Capitol. He calls for National Guard troops days before that were not acted on are what allowed the few rioters to riot.

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.29  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.12    3 months ago

[member not the topic]

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.30  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.21    3 months ago

 It is irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic to support someone who has so thoroughly demonstrated such a lack of integrity and responsibility that he should not be given any public power much less the presidency of the USA.

Fits Biden perfectly

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.30    3 months ago

Such a clever rebuttal.   Who could have possibly predicted a cliché witless flip to Biden?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
3.1.32  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.31    3 months ago
Who could have possibly predicted a cliché witless flip to Biden?

So .... Joe's doing fine as a "Responsible, Honest, Moral, virtuous, and righteous" U.S. President ?

A reporter asked Biden Wednesday if he believed the upcoming election "will be fairly conducted and its results will be legitimate." The president responded that "it all depends on whether or not we're able to make the case to the American people that some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election." 

Another reporter followed up on the topic later and the president doubled down, saying, "I'm not saying it's going to be legit. The increase and the prospect of it being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed."

The comments were similar answers Trump gave to similar questions ahead of the 2020 presidential election. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.32    3 months ago

Yet another cliché witless flip to Biden.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
3.1.34  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.33    3 months ago
Yet another cliché witless flip to Biden.

How Witty of a comment.

Biden says... Good, Trump says.... Bad !

Got it. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.1.35  bbl-1  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    3 months ago

Well being of the nation?  The man you support sold out democracy, the world norms established after WW2 for his selfish self protection at Helsinki.  And to this day nobody knows what was discussed, promised or asked behind those closed doors except the Russians.  You support an American version of Quisling.  And you proudly do it.

By the way, why is the Durham dude still on the public dole?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.13    3 months ago
Vic, anyone with half a brain figured you out a long time ago. 

So you haven't figured it out yet?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.35    3 months ago
The man you support sold out democracy, the world norms established after WW2 for his selfish self protection at Helsinki.

You have been going on and on about Helsinki for over a year now.

Any chance at all that maybe, just maybe, one day you will bother to produce some evidence for the stuff you claim went down there?

Or will it just be Helsinki, Helsinki, Helsinki like it was Russia, Russia, Russia during the 2016 campaign?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.38  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.37    3 months ago

original

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1.38    3 months ago

Will you ever stop letting Trump live in your head rent-free?

Or are you just determined to make everything about him and your hero Putin?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.40  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.39    3 months ago
Will you ever stop letting Trump live in your head rent-free?

One of 2 things will have to happen for that to come to pass.

 either Trump dies ,

 [deleted] .

 Thats when the rent free stuff will end .

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.40    3 months ago
either Trump dies ,

Don't think that will work!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.42  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.40    3 months ago

lol , now thats rich.

 this whole site is about taunting  from one side or the other , about just about anything , as for insulting , its only insulting if what i say is important to someone , i dont think i have that much credence with those that disagree with me .

 too bad its true to end the stated situation  though .

And i am insulted you think it was just a side of insult ..... /S

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.43  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.31    3 months ago

Such an expected comment. Nothing of substance as usual.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.44  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.14    2 months ago

Really?

Are you sure you don't work for once of the members of the Jan 6th committee? Why omit the line at all? Same reason as the Jan 6th committee won't interview anyone that refutes their agenda. This isn't about the truth- this is about getting Trump by any means necessary.

Next, she continued, skipping when the president wrote: "Go home with love & peace. Remember this day forever!"

That isn't the only time they omitted a line that didn't fit their narrative.

Claim

In a video displayed during U.S. President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial on Feb. 9, 2021, House Democrats did not show footage of Trump telling supporters on Jan. 6 to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Rating

rating-true.png
True
About this rating

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.45  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.17    2 months ago

Ask Jimmy Carter what happens to presidents that don't give a shit about high gas prices and inflation. 

Biden and the Democrats deserve the electoral beatings they have coming.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.46  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.31    2 months ago

Who could ever predict you would dismiss holding Biden to the same standards as Trump?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.47  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.44    2 months ago
Are you sure you don't work for once of the members of the Jan 6th committee? Why omit the line at all? Same reason as the Jan 6th committee won't interview anyone that refutes their agenda. This isn't about the truth- this is about getting Trump by any means necessary.

People like you keep posting this nonsense.  Many of the high profile names in the Trump final days have refused to testify before the committee. And the ones that have do not seem to have exonerated him. If any of the witnesses who went before the committee and gave information that shows Trumps innocence, and the committee supressed it, why havent any of these people stepped forward and said so?

You are so out of gas. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.48  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.44    2 months ago
Really?

I quoted from the transcript.   I delivered the video.   And you are still in denial that the committee did not hide Trump's ["go in peace"]?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.49  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.46    2 months ago
Who could ever predict you would dismiss holding Biden to the same standards as Trump?

And you continue to just make shit up in lieu of an argument.

If Biden had engaged in a Big Lie campaign to steal the presidential election I would hold the same position.   

It is NEVER correct for a sitting PotUS (or candidate) to engage in 61+ frivolous lawsuits, coerce officials to 'find votes', submit alternate electors, suborn the VP to commit an unconstitutional act of discrediting certified election results from select states, work up his supporters with blatant lies that their government systems are corrupt and that their votes have been disenfranchised and encourage them to march on the Capitol and then, after knowing they broke and entered the Capitol building, to not lift a finger to stop it for three hours.

Your 'arguments' defending Trump are pure bullshit.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.43    2 months ago
Nothing of substance as usual.

Classic projection with a topping of irony.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.51  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    2 months ago
It is staggering how little weight you give to the wellbeing of the nation.

But hey, ORANGE MAN BAD, after all.

What else could consume so much time in the minds of those letting Trump live rent free in their heads?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.52  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.51    2 months ago
ORANGE MAN BAD

They are praying he runs again so they can run on that.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.53  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.52    2 months ago

Trump, the MAGA 'maverick.'

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.54  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @3.1.53    2 months ago

One more hearing to go and thus far, no clear criminal case against Trump, not even a referral.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
3.1.55  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.54    2 months ago

“…not even a referral.”

A case of putting the cart before the horses ass? Be patient, vic…the clock is ticking. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.56  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1.55    2 months ago

A referral is within their power.

After all, they promised...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.57  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.54    2 months ago

Don't let it worry you, Vic. In fact, why don't you go on a 'get away' in some paradise somewhere?  /s   I free you from any perceived burden to monitor and report what your "Maverick" is up to.

To be clear, all the committee has to do is establish a clear case for why Trump should not be in public servant, any other legal action requires lawyers and courts. But, since you plan to vote for Donald Trump, because getting Ashli Babbitt and others indirectly killed at the capitol means nothing to MAGA-then nothing else can possibly matter to you. See how easy that is? Your conscience remains as clear as it was on January 5th, 2021!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.58  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @3.1.57    2 months ago

I'll be watching tomorrow and commenting on the thread coming to us live from the Bronx NY.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.59  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.58    2 months ago

For all the good it will do MAGA—take the 'day' off!  Life's a beach, Vic! Don't worry: be happy!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.60  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @3.1.59    2 months ago
For all the good it will do MAGA

You seem to use this term very broadly, please give your readers your definition.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.61  CB   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.60    2 months ago

[deleted

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.62  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @3.1.61    2 months ago

Removed for Context

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.1.63  Right Down the Center  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.62    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
3.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    3 months ago
If it weren't for the virtual classes these parents would have been completely oblivious to the harm being done to their children. 

This is one of the very few positives of the pandemic.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2    3 months ago

It is.  And the parents standing up for their children have caused so many problems for the school boards, board of education and the left. 

 
 
 
Diablo Imperius
Professor Guide
3.3  Diablo Imperius  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    2 months ago
Instead he encouraged them to practice their 1st amendment right to peacefully protest. 

The curious thing about what they are accusing Trump of doing is precisely what they would have done but quite possibly much worse.   The country should be thankful the Dems didn't turn their insurrectionist tactics on DC.  That may even be a stretch to say given their approach to the SCOTUS rulings and threats of violence toward several justices.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Diablo Imperius @3.3    2 months ago

I've noticed that when it comes to the left, it's all in what they support.  If they support it, there won't be any outrage regardless of the damage or violence.  If they don't support it, then they will go after the event and anybody involved as if they were terrorists. 

You gave a perfect example.  They didn't support the protest on Jan 6 and we see the dumpster fire that's become.  They support protests at the homes of SCOTUS Justices and at the Supreme Court and there's nothing. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    3 months ago

"There is no question that Donald Trump lost his mind over the 2020 election. He took note of the way he was being blamed for the pandemic during the election. He also took the advice of Dr Fauci and shut down a thriving economy. He was deeply concerned about the rule changes being made in voting, despite state legislatures sitting idly by while voting rules changed. Trump campaigned in the final months like no candidate has ever campaigned. His opponent was kept away from spotlight. The media framed the narrative. Both candidates got more votes that any other individual to ever run for the office of president and in the end they finally got him. Trump lost. Trump's temper got the better of him and the rest should have been history, except what happened on Jan 6th is all democrats have to cling to going into the November midterms.

We can all agree that Donald Trump should have told his supporters to go home on Jan 6th, especially after he was specifically given such advice. It doesn't take a paragon of virtue to understand that principle. How far does one go on advocating such a principle? 

Right now the American people are suffering and they have been suffering by degrees ever since the pandemic hit the US. The election of Joe Biden gave  far-left activists a golden opportunity and they took it through their proxy Biden. Their policies produced record high gas prices, 9% inflation, an open border policy that has flooded the country with migrants as well as Fentanyl (from China, no less) and last but not least, the attempt at indoctrinating the US military and young school children in the heinous doctrine known as CRT.

Can somebody please tell me how all of that rates against a president's inept attempt at overturning an election ?"jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

[ deleted ]

All lies and wishful thinking plus projection, deflection, denial to the extreme!

None of that garbage in the highlighted paragraph is true.  

Can somebody please tell me how all of that rates against a president's inept attempt at overturning an election ?

Ya!  jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

There's no comparison!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5  Nerm_L    3 months ago

If one climbs the hill of principle then there should be a plan to accomplish something.  In Liz Cheney's case there wasn't any way to accomplish anything and she had to know that when she started the climb.  The Special House Committee doesn't have the authority to do anything other than connect names with news organizations' anonymous sources.  The Jan. 6th committee is only trying to compete with the New York Times or Washington Post.  And the Times and Post has more influence over politics than does a House committee.

The Jan. 6th committee will not indict, prosecute, and imprison Trump.  Because the Jan. 6th committee doesn't have that authority.  The only thing the Jan. 6th committee is allowed to do is to influence public opinion in the same manner as the New York Times and Washington Post.  The hill they've climbed is pointless and claiming principles won't make that hill relevant.  As with most Congressional activities today, it's a grand political show to accomplish nothing tangible.

The Jan. 6th hearings is symptomatic of a do-nothing Congress.  Sound and fury signifying nothing.  The only thing that matters at this point is to indict, prosecute, and imprison Trump.  And Congress doesn't have the authority to do that.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5    3 months ago

Wow. That's mind-numbing spin. Makes one wonder why you (certainly) will support a committee to investigate Hunter Biden, but do that thing MAGA does. We're all doomed anyway for the time being.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @5.1    3 months ago
Wow. That's mind-numbing spin. Makes one wonder why you (certainly) will support a committee to investigate Hunter Biden, but do that thing MAGA does. We're all doomed anyway for the time being.

Where have I said anything about Hunter Biden?  A House committee investigating Hunter Biden would serve the same purpose as the Jan. 6th committee.  And the Jan. 6th committee won't accomplish anything more than would a House committee investigating Hunter Biden.  A comparison between a House investigation of Trump and Hunter Biden is apt.  Both investigations serve the same purpose and accomplish the same things.

Why didn't Democrats run their own primaries the way they demanded the general election be run?  Why won't Democrats' election reforms, ostensibly to protect democracy, apply to their own primaries?

Voter registration is voter ID.  People who do not register to vote cannot vote; voters must have a registration ID on record.  Why can't the voter registration process be updated to provide a registration card with a picture?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.2  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.1    3 months ago

You have a plethora of "impossible" questions. Who will take the time to do interviews to get (you) answers? No one here on NT that is for sure. But that is the point of asking IMPOSSIBLE questions in the first place. Just throw up stuff and let it hang out there in the air.

No one should bother with them.

The rest of your comment I'll just pass on it.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.3  JBB  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.1    3 months ago

If we can safely bank and do our taxes online why not voting?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @5.1.2    3 months ago
You have a plethora of "impossible" questions. Who will take the time to do interviews to get (you) answers? No one here on NT that is for sure. But that is the point of asking IMPOSSIBLE questions in the first place. Just throw up stuff and let it hang out there in the air.

I directly addressed your allegations which you completely ignored.  So, essentially you are only stating that you ignore everything that doesn't fit your narrative.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.4    3 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Nerm_L  replied to  JBB @5.1.3    3 months ago
If we can safely bank and do our taxes online why not voting?

Online banking and financial transactions require security so that someone cannot assume your identity.  Those online transaction requires identification.  So, online voting would also require voter identification.

And the analogy is flawed.  A ballot is actually a dashboard for a number of 'banks', using your analogy.  There's the school district 'bank', city council 'bank', judicial district 'bank', state legislative district 'bank', Federal legislative district 'bank', as well as many other local, state, and Federal 'banks'.  Voting is very, very location specific.  People are not voting in one election; they're actually voting in many separate elections at the same time on one ballot.

Online voting would require the same level of security as online banking for all the separate elections listed on the ballot.  Voter identification would be required to allow voting in all the elections on the ballot.  And the way elections are conducted, a disqualification for one of the elections would be a disqualification for all the elections.  That's the way in-person voting works and that's the way online voting would have to work.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.6    3 months ago

The technical problems of voting are easily addressed.   The security issues are more complicated but doable with today's technology.

The biggest issue, however, will be trust.   I suspect it will take generations before people have the same trust in automated voting as they have in our banking systems.   This is irrational, but I think it is reality.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.7    3 months ago
The technical problems of voting are easily addressed.   The security issues are more complicated but doable with today's technology.

The technical problems of voting have already been addressed.  And the security issues have already been addressed.  Digitizing the established process for voting only requires accommodating the limitations of online transactions.  If there is a tradeoff between ease of use and security then online voting won't be as secure as in-person voting.

The biggest issue, however, will be trust.   I suspect it will take generations before people have the same trust in automated voting as they have in our banking systems.   This is irrational, but I think it is reality.

Trust is elections is directly related to flaws in the process of voting.  Whatever flaws exist in the current process of voting will be incorporated into online voting.  Online voting won't improve the process of voting.  Online voting only provides ease of use.

Also keep in mind that the current state of elections only provides a benefit to candidates (and the party they represent).  And the priority has become for candidates (and parties) to do whatever it takes to win the benefit of the election.  A reasonable conclusion would be that distrust of politics would translate into distrust of elections.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.8    3 months ago
Trust is elections is directly related to flaws in the process of voting. 

No, people will generally not trust technology for voting.    It will take a long time to get this trust.

Further you underestimate the security issues.   A single event as critical as our elections will be the target of the very best culprits.   Security is a never ending race between those securing a system and those circumventing same.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.9    3 months ago
No, people will generally not trust technology for voting.    It will take a long time to get this trust. Further you underestimate the security issues.   A single event as critical as our elections will be the target of the very best culprits.   Security is a never ending race between those securing a system and those circumventing same.

The increasing ubiquitous use of such technology for financial, commercial, and social activities does not lend support to the notion that there would be general distrust of the technology.  The reticence to use the same technology for voting suggests that general distrust of the institutions involved in elections would need to be addressed.

Elections are not conducted for the benefit of voters.  So, concerns over abuse of the technology by those who do benefit from elections would appear to have some validity.  Online voting would require safeguards against institutional abuse in order to garner public trust.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.11  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.4    3 months ago

You have responded to little if anything, but I digress. The point is moot anyhow. You want answers to those questions: GOP win the house in November and hold a hearing on it. For all the good it will do the GOP

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.12  JBB  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.6    3 months ago

The same verification systems and security safeguards that work so well for banking and taxes could be used for voting. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.10    3 months ago
The increasing ubiquitous use of such technology for financial, commercial, and social activities does not lend support to the notion that there would be general distrust of the technology. 

Those systems have been in place for the entire lifetimes of most people (and for the entire adult lifetimes of almost everyone).   We have grown up with these in place.

We are talking about electronic online voting.   That, Nerm, is a profound change in voting technology.  It will be considered NEW.   The public does not understand the details behind such technology but they do know that it is new and they do know that systems can be 'hacked' (the word for their understanding) and they will, ipso facto, NOT trust it.

Online voting would require safeguards against institutional abuse in order to garner public trust.

Ya think?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.14  Nerm_L  replied to  JBB @5.1.12    3 months ago
The same verification systems and security safeguards that work so well for banking and taxes could be used for voting. 

Not quite.  Election security requires identifying both the voter and validating the voter's residence.  That would require more than just geo-tracking.  

That's the same problem experienced with outdated and incorrect voter registration.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.15  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.1.7    3 months ago

Well, here's how these matters proceed: MAGA conservatives will never be happy with change. The name of the game for them is old-fashioned, drag your feet, if they  are losing it is because someone is taking their stuff, and not because their policies are stuck in yesteryears! That is, they will never support fair and efficient elections: 99.99 percent NEVER!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.1.15    3 months ago

I see two major factions in the GoP.   One I will call the conventional GoP.   These are the more cerebral people who are with the GoP because they believe in the party's basic (stated) ideals:  family, defense, border-control, fiscal-responsibility, religion, etc.   

The other faction of the GoP are the MAGAs.   These are the largely emotional people who cling to Trump under the belief that he magically can make a good economy and that he really cares about them.

I wonder which is dominant ... seems like MAGA has more control over the GoP than conventional.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.17  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.10    3 months ago
The reticence to use the same technology for voting suggests that general distrust of the institutions involved in elections would need to be addressed.

THE UNITED STATES IS EXCEPTIONAL:  IF IT CAN KEEP IT.

The issue is that people are full of it. Our republican has always and continues to question to a worse degree in some ways today who gets to vote and in what guise to cast disenfranchisement of the same. The problem of people moving around, dying but not having their names cleared from the voting rolls, and etceteras will continue in the digital age. Because people are "unmanageable" when it comes to perfecting voting. To summarize a protracted discussion.

One thing to be aware of for our EXCEPTIONALISM status: If we let other nations create a trustworthy system of voting while we sit on our thumbs pining about this or that when it comes to who/what/when/where in voting-we all will take a reputational tumble from the 'heights' we view our nation as holding.

THE UNITED STATES IS EXCEPTIONAL:  IF IT CAN KEEP IT.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.18  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.1.16    3 months ago

MAGA has a plan to identify and toss out what they are labeling, "progressive conservatives," that is any conservative who is not strictly defining himself or herself as not skewing liberal or progressive. That is, MAGA is 100 percent distilled republicanism as they see it (compassionless and dominating of society and culture). Of course, I am leaving out the details but I think you can surmise how I got there. Consequently, Donald Trump stands in as the symbol of 'demarcation.' Don't stand with Donald and you are a conventional GOPer—identified and 'packaged' for ASAP removal and dumping.

Takeover! The 100 Year War for the Soul of the Republican Party and How Conservatives Can Win It. - Richard Viguerie 2014  offered up how the plan could begin in 2017 and lo and behold! Donald Trump stepped right in to the GOP and took it over!

There is a promote on MSNBC about a Steve Bannon upcoming documentary. In the promote, Bannon is heard uttering words to the effect, 'WE will be in power for 100 years.'

I have not seen the documentary yet, but take for granted Bannon, means MAGA will be in control of the GOP for that period of time.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.1.3    3 months ago
If we can safely bank and do our taxes online why not voting?

Perhaps you have heard of hacking?

Surely you must remember how serious it was when Russia hacked your Queen's emails, right?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.1    3 months ago
Why can't the voter registration process be updated to provide a registration card with a picture?

Because too many white liberals think minorities are incapable of getting IDs, even though the vast majority of people already have them!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.21  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @5.1.17    2 months ago
The issue is that people are full of it. Our republican has always and continues to question to a worse degree in some ways today who gets to vote and in what guise to cast disenfranchisement of the same. The problem of people moving around, dying but not having their names cleared from the voting rolls, and etceteras will continue in the digital age. Because people are "unmanageable" when it comes to perfecting voting. To summarize a protracted discussion. One thing to be aware of for our EXCEPTIONALISM status: If we let other nations create a trustworthy system of voting while we sit on our thumbs pining about this or that when it comes to who/what/when/where in voting-we all will take a reputational tumble from the 'heights' we view our nation as holding.

Only registered voters are allowed to vote.  That's true for party primaries as well as general elections.  

Would you have accepted the election results if non-registered voters or voters with questionable registration or newly registered voters had re-elected Trump?  If Trump had been re-elected on mail-in ballots would you continue to support vote by mail?  Or would the re-election of Trump had prompted you to question the legitimacy of the election?

Are we supposed to doubt that had Trump been re-elected that Democrats wouldn't do what Trump has done?  Are we supposed to believe Democrats wouldn't be talking about faithless electors, Congressional intervention, and administrative means to challenge the election?  If Trump had been re-elected why should we believe Democrats wouldn't do in 2020 what they did in 2016?  

That moral high horse has really short legs.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.22  Nerm_L  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.20    2 months ago
Because too many white liberals think minorities are incapable of getting IDs, even though the vast majority of people already have them!

They still have to register to vote.  Voter registration is a security measure for elections.  Voter registration that identifies the individual and validates their residence is two factor security.

So, a requirement to present a voter registration card when voting isn't an excessive burden since they can't vote without being registered. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.23  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.21    2 months ago

I don't know what any of those "what ifs" has to do with the question of national exceptionalism and digital voting. Care to explain, yourself?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.21    2 months ago
Are we supposed to doubt that had Trump been re-elected that Democrats wouldn't do what Trump has done?  Are we supposed to believe Democrats wouldn't be talking about faithless electors, Congressional intervention, and administrative means to challenge the election?  If Trump had been re-elected why should we believe Democrats wouldn't do in 2020 what they did in 2016?   That moral high horse has really short legs.

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.25  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @5.1.23    2 months ago
I don't know what any of those "what ifs" has to do with the question of national exceptionalism and digital voting. Care to explain, yourself?

What does your exceptional spew have to do with the technology of online voting or acceptance of online voting?

You attempted to ride an emotive moral high horse.  That's what I addressed.  As I pointed out, your moral high horse has very short legs.  It's easy to climb onto that short-legged horse and falling off poses little danger.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.26  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.25    2 months ago

Look, you can talk abstract crap to others who buy into it. Just don't fix your theories of the case to suggest that standing still and not developing solid, new, and improved time and efficiency systems for voting, especially during national times of crises will not serve this nation's brand of EXCEPTIONALISM well. This is what I wrote on that account:

5.1.21 To summarize a protracted discussion.One thing to be aware of for our EXCEPTIONALISM status: If we let other nations create a trustworthy system of voting while we sit on our thumbs pining about this or that when it comes to who/what/when/where in voting-we all will take a reputational tumble from the 'heights' we view our nation as holding.

Any fool can see you can't sustain the lead in a competition if you won't : 1. Get in the game. 2. Stay in the game. 3. Excel in the game.

That is all I meant by the remark. It was not intended to rile or become a cause of dispute. The way everything is with MAGA today. Who seems to demand we fix or change nothing that is at the stage where "greater" change would help us keep the advantage.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
5.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Nerm_L @5    3 months ago

Well said.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.2    3 months ago

Never

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
5.3  Thomas  replied to  Nerm_L @5    3 months ago
If one climbs the hill of principle then there should be a plan to accomplish something.

There is no principled stand without a large degree of risk. Otherwise, it would be just someone saying something while nothing was to be lost. Not a stand. Not a principle. What don't you and Vic get about words and their meanings?

At the point of her being seated on the committee, there was little chance in her being re-elected anyway. Her only chance was to take a continue on. The principled stand was taken by her at Trump's second trial when she voted to convict. By continuing on, she shows the rest of the Republicans just what a true principle is and looks like: She is telling the truth, though , mysteriously, 1/3 of the country does not believe her. She is, quite literally a Cassandra, speaking the truth that Trump's believers do not want to hear, so she is ignored and discounted by the leadership and the (LOLOLOLOL) "true believers".... plus   ça   change plus   c'est   la   même   chose....

Rush- Circumstances

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.3.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Thomas @5.3    3 months ago
There is no principled stand without a large degree of risk. Otherwise, it would be just someone saying something while nothing was to be lost. Not a stand. Not a principle. What don't you and Vic get about words and their meanings?

Journalism is all about words.  What is the Jan. 6th committee doing that journalists haven't already done?

At the point of her being seated on the committee, there was little chance in her being re-elected anyway. Her only chance was to take a continue on. The principled stand was taken by her at Trump's second trial when she voted to convict. By continuing on, she shows the rest of the Republicans just what a true principle is and looks like: She is telling the truth, though , mysteriously, 1/3 of the country does not believe her. She is, quite literally a Cassandra, speaking the truth that Trump's believers do not want to hear, so she is ignored and discounted by the leadership and the (LOLOLOLOL) "true believers".... plus ça change plus c'est la même chose....

How is Liz Cheney's principled stance any different than the video you linked?  Is the Jan. 6th committee only providing MTV entertainment?

You know, a principled stance requires a clear enunciation of those principles and why those principles are important.  An Orange Man Bad stage show might be entertaining but doesn't accomplish much else.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.3.2  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.1    3 months ago
Journalism is all about words.  What is the Jan. 6th committee doing that journalists haven't already done?

Issued subpoenas, receiving testimony under oath, making an official record for the congressional archive and viewable history. But you know this already. Yours is just a sad attempt to diminish anything you do not wish to see happen. You don't give a damn about truth, in my opinion.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.3.3  CB   replied to  Thomas @5.3    3 months ago

I love the light touch of bells in this track! :) Of course, it's Rush and I love 'em hands down!

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
5.3.4  Thomas  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.1    3 months ago

Gosh, Nerm, you should be able to figure it out. 

The principles that she stands for are the propagation of truth over lies and the holding to account of those people who were responsible for a travesty of monumental proportions. The lie is that Trump had nothing to do with January 6th, and the truth, which many members of the public are still in denial of, is that he started with a lie and just got deeper, till he was up to the top of his head in bullshit. He and his people organized, if not the violence, at the very least the conditions of untruth that lit the fuse in all of those deluded people.  It NEVER would have happened had he not held tightly to his lie.

Journalism is all about words.  What is the Jan. 6th committee doing that journalists haven't already done?

You are right, it is about words. Words and their meanings. Some people refuse to believe what is coming to the publics attention with these words. 

I just posted the video because Rush is my favorite group and the words have meaning.

Now I've gained some understanding 'bout the only world that we see. Things that I once dreamed of,have become reality. These walls that still surround me, still contain the same old me.  Just one more, who's searching for, the world that aught to be.

But you probably don't understand. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.3.5  Nerm_L  replied to  Thomas @5.3.4    2 months ago
Gosh, Nerm, you should be able to figure it out.  The principles that she stands for are the propagation of truth over lies and the holding to account of those people who were responsible for a travesty of monumental proportions. The lie is that Trump had nothing to do with January 6th, and the truth, which many members of the public are still in denial of, is that he started with a lie and just got deeper, till he was up to the top of his head in bullshit. He and his people organized, if not the violence, at the very least the conditions of untruth that lit the fuse in all of those deluded people.  It NEVER would have happened had he not held tightly to his lie.

Truth over lies?  Or truth from a certain point of view?

The question isn't whether or not Trump had anything to do with Jan. 6th.  There was a political rally and Trump was a featured speaker, after all.  The pertinent question is if Trump did something illegal.  And that question can only be answered in a criminal court.

The facts and truth are that nothing Trump tried to do succeeded.  Everything Trump tried failed.  But that doesn't eliminate the Clinton defense of legality.  

Does the President has responsibility and authority for protection of the Capitol?  Congress has no responsibility or authority over its own Capitol building?  Congress couldn't do anything?

What happened on Jan. 6th was much less destructive and much less violent than what happened May 28-31 on Lake Street in Minneapolis.  The more destructive and violent event has garnered sympathy from the very same politicians outraged over Jan. 6th.  The most significant difference between the two events is that the destruction and violence on Lake Street was directed toward the people in that area while the destruction and violence on Jan. 6th was directed toward politicians.  And politicians are far, far more important than people living in communities.

So, explain the damned principles these failed ambulance chasers in Congress are fighting for.  Are we supposed to believe these politicians haven't lied to the people to win elections?  What does truth mean in Congress?

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
5.3.6  Thomas  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.5    2 months ago

Do you hold that the testimony offered thus far has been truthful? That the witnesses have given a truthful accounting of what happened as they remember it?

Or, if you don't think that they did, is everyone lying? Where do you begin to parse the lies from the truth,  the incredible from the credible? 

Have you eaten your fiber today? 

The important thing is to establish in fact what happened, why it happened and who the various actors were.  We have obviously not succeeded in the establishment of any of these because there is still a large minority of people who somehow still believe that Trump had nothing at all to do with the riot and insurrectionist activities.

He claimed without evidence that he had won the election.. He called them to Washington.  He fired them up.  He sent them to the capitol.  All because he wished to remain in power, through whatever means necessary.  

It does not have to be illegal to be morally reprehensible, definitely and definitionally wrong. Trump is all the above, he's just so covered in schmegma, no body has been able to make anything stick to the lying piece of rectal goo.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Nerm_L @5    3 months ago
The Jan. 6th committee will not indict, prosecute, and imprison Trump.  Because the Jan. 6th committee doesn't have that authority.
The Jan. 6th hearings is symptomatic of a do-nothing Congress.  Sound and fury signifying nothing.  The only thing that matters at this point is to indict, prosecute, and imprison Trump.  And Congress doesn't have the authority to do that.

It's amazing how many don't quite grasp that fact.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4    3 months ago

Irrelevant;  observe the testimonies (the content) instead of this lame tactic of focusing on the committee itself.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.4.2  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.1    3 months ago
Irrelevant;  observe the testimonies (the content) instead of this lame tactic of focusing on the committee itself.

Convicting Trump in the court of public opinion won't prevent the same thing happening again.  And using the public testimony for political advantage seems rather pointless when those politicians refuse to do anything.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.1    3 months ago

Why don't you want me to focus on the committee?  Because you know as well as everybody else that its another partisan hissy fit?  Because they have no authority?  

observe the testimonies (the content)

it's all been hearsay and speculation.  Not to mention one sided.  But then again, that was the intent wasn't it.  A partisan hissy fit like we've seen from Democrats for the past 7 years.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.5  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.3    3 months ago
Why don't you want me to focus on the committee?

Because it is stupid and partisan to keep whining about the committee's partisan nature as an excuse to ignore all the under-oath testimony given by mostly high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their careers to give this testimony.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.6  TᵢG  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5.4.4    3 months ago

You take a tidbit and then blindly categorize all the testimony delivered in these seven hearings thus far as such.

Clearly your comments are not meant to be taken seriously.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
5.4.7  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.6    3 months ago
You take a tidbit and then blindly categorize all the testimony delivered in these seven hearings thus far as such.

Clearly, It's ALL been the same Type of comments/testimony on this NBC Show !

Stay Tuned....the Star of all Star witness's to testify....in her own words. 

January 6 Committee Member Admits Star Witness’ Evidence Is Hearsay, No Corroborating Evidence

And here to say, all the people with all the hearsay you want to hear, for your pleasure !

Why so much hearsay testimony in the January 6 Committee hearings?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.8  TᵢG  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5.4.7    3 months ago
Clearly, It's ALL been the same Type of comments/testimony on this NBC Show !

Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.9  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.5    3 months ago
Because it is stupid and partisan to keep whining about the committee's partisan nature 

It's also stupid and partisan to use the fact that a few Republicans are testifying as a rationalization to ignore the insanely partisan nature of the committee and proceedings.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.10  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.9    3 months ago

It is obviously NOT stupid and partisan to note that it is not Democrats testifying against a Republican PotUS but rather it is predominantly high-ranking, connected Republicans.

Further, I have readily stated that this committee is partisan so clearly I do not ignore it.   I am saying that it is a bullshit excuse to whine about partisanship as the reason for not listening to these Republican witnesses.   We must filter through partisan-bias daily when getting our information so this is no different.   And in this case the testimony is under-oath and the witnesses lose something (they harm their careers) by testifying.  

Are you ignoring the testimonies of these high-ranking, connected Republicans?   What news source do you use to get better information on what led to Jan 6th?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
5.4.11  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.8    3 months ago
Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Clearly, You don't pay attention to anything more than what you want to hear on that NBC show.

Were my Links wrong in your mind ?

Trump Hate is a disease with no cure.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.12  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.10    3 months ago
It is obviously NOT stupid and partisan to note that it is not Democrats testifying against a Republican PotUS but rather it is high-ranking, connected Republicans.

Nor is it stupid and partisan to note that absolutely all the testimony is one-sided.  

Further, I have readily stated that this committee is partisan so clearly I do not ignore it

Yet you're demanding others overlook it.

We must filter through partisan-bias daily when getting our information so this is no different.

It is most certainly different.  On a regular news cycle basis, we can get both sides of the story.  We have multiple sources of information outside governmental control.

These hearings provide information from a single, government-controlled, highly biased source.  It's eerily reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, complete with giant screens on our walls and cameras in our homes.

And in this case the testimony is under-oath and the witnesses lose something (they harm their careers) by testifying.  

You keep saying that, but I'm not so sure.  Whose career do you think is going to take a hit from this?

Are you ignoring the testimonies of these high-ranking, connected Republicans?

Define "ignore".  Do I acknowledge what they say?  Sure.  Do I care?  Not at all.   Will I change my behavior somehow as a result?  Almost surely not.  Do I think there are other details potentially from other sources that would be pertinent to the situation if we were allowed to hear them?  Absolutely.

   What news source do you use to get better information on what led to Jan 6th?

That's the whole point.  Any information Pelosi doesn't want us to see is being intentionally suppressed.  It seems odd you don't appear to mind as long as she tells you what you want to hear.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.12    3 months ago
Nor is it stupid and partisan to note that absolutely all the testimony is one-sided. 

Why do you believe that Trump has a viable side? 

But if he does, he is free to present it at any time. Every newspaper or television or internet interviewer in the world would give Trump all the time he wanted to tell his side of the story.  All he would have to do in return is answer some direct questons. What is he waiting for?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.12    3 months ago

The laughable part of your analysis is that you still maintain you are not a Trump defender. Pitiful. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.15  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.12    3 months ago
Nor is it stupid and partisan to note that absolutely all the testimony is one-sided.  

We all have the ability to listen to each witness and evaluate the information received.   Factor in the knowledge that there is no cross-examination.   That is smart.   Rejecting the testimonies is stupid.

Yet you're demanding others overlook it.

Oh come on Jack don't imply you do not understand what I wrote.    I am stating that one can look past the partisan aspect (ignore the committee) and focus on the testimony.   That is not ignoring the FACT that the committee is politically biased it is quite the opposite.  It recognizes the fact and that in the extreme one can just ignore everything the committee states and just focus on the witnesses.   Which is what I have been suggesting for weeks now ... repeatedly ... hard to miss.

On a regular news cycle basis, we can get both sides of the story. 

The 'both sides' you note comes from observing different media.   Nobody stops you from doing this now.   The media is covering the hearings.   So you are free to listen to both sides of talking heads.

In this case we are observing under-oath testimony from Republicans, not Democrats.   If we saw a lot of Ds testifying that would support the 'this is all partisan' allegation.   Instead these are high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their political careers to testify.   To just dismiss their words is the opposite of objectivity.    To ignore what they offer simply because this is not a trial is absurd.

Whose career do you think is going to take a hit from this?

A Republican testifying against Trump today is harming their career.    Surely you are aware that there is very strong support for Trump among R voters and that many R politicians continue to cater to Trump.   The GoP is attached at the hip with Trump (much to my dismay and disgust) for political reasons (among others) so bucking that is not a good career move.   Remember that Rusty Bowers, after his testimony, stated that he would vote for Trump again if he were the nominee.   He testified that Trump wanted him to engage in what he considered to be an unconstitutional act —one that goes against his own morality— yet he felt compelled to soften that after the fact by claiming to support Trump in 2024.   Good grief.

As an aside, what do you think motivated Cheney to buck her party, lose her position and likely her seat to deal with Trump's behavior?    The D party will not accept her ... she only has the Rs (or independent run).   My take is that we are witnessing integrity.

Do I care?  Not at all.

You just dismiss all the testimony as irrelevant ... meaningless ... not worthy of consideration?   

It seems odd you don't appear to mind as long as she tells you what you want to hear.

Cut the personal and unwarranted crap, Jack.   Do not suggest that I only accept that which I want to believe. 

The testimony delivers critical pieces of information that one would not expect to be contradicted.  I do not expect testimony from Barr, for example, where he states that he really did not tell Trump that there was no supporting evidence for his Big Lie and that his Big Lie was actually not bullshit.   I do not expect testimony from Raffensperger where he claims that Trump did not attempt to get him to find votes.   I do not expect testimony that suggests Trump did not know that his supporters were breaking and entering the Capitol.   Go down the list.  There are plenty of very credible alleged facts that should not be cavalierly ignored ("Do I care?  Not at all.").

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.16  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4.14    3 months ago

I am a bit surprised by what I just read.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4.17  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.16    3 months ago

why?

He just wrote a defense of Trump, in effect claiming that "Trump's side of the story" , which is a hoot in itself, is not being permitted to be heard. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.18  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4.17    3 months ago

I am surprised of what I read from Jack.   I did not expect Jack to categorically dismiss the testimonies of high-ranking, connected Republicans testifying under-oath and compromising their political careers in the process.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
5.4.19  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.15    3 months ago

TiG said 

My take is that we are witnessing integrity
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.4.20  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.3    3 months ago

Impeachment 3.0????

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.21  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4.13    3 months ago
Why do you believe that Trump has a viable side? 

Define "viable side".  What does that even mean?

But if he does, he is free to present it at any time. Every newspaper or television or internet interviewer in the world would give Trump all the time he wanted to tell his side of the story.  All he would have to do in return is answer some direct questons. What is he waiting for?

What would he gain, exactly?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.22  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4.14    3 months ago
The laughable part of your analysis is that you still maintain you are not a Trump defender. Pitiful. 

Yes John.  *eyeroll*  We know.  Anybody who doesn't share your insane Trump fetish must be a "defender".  Riiiiiiight.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.23  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.15    3 months ago
We all have the ability to listen to each witness and evaluate the information received.   Factor in the knowledge that there is no cross-examination.   That is smart.   Rejecting the testimonies is stupid.

We don't have that ability.  We only have the ability to listen to the witnesses that the party in power decides we should hear.

The 'both sides' you note comes from observing different media.   Nobody stops you from doing this now.   The media is covering the hearings.   So you are free to listen to both sides of talking heads.

I'm not sure how "listening to talking heads" discuss a wildly biased set of information is remotely equivalent to getting all or most of the actual facts.  

A Republican testifying against Trump today is harming their career. 

So you claim.  Again.  Who?  Specifically.  

You just dismiss all the testimony as irrelevant ... meaningless ... not worthy of consideration?  

Not what I said.  I said I don't care.  Largely because there isn't any way that any testimony is going to warrant a behavioral change on my part.  I already voted against Trump.  In the unlikely and unhappy event that I ever get the chance to do so again, I almost surely will. 

In the increasingly unlikely event that these hearings uncover criminality, that will be prosecuted or not without regard to my input.   As there is no decision for me to make, the testimony is purely academic.  And since it is utterly incomplete, it is also unchallenging and therefore uninteresting.

Do not suggest that I only accept that which I want to believe. 

You're only going to ever get the chance to accept that which you want to believe.  You won't see anything else.  What I find surprising is that you know that but don't care.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.24  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.23    3 months ago
We only have the ability to listen to the witnesses that the party in power decides we should hear.

The witnesses are mostly high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their political careers to testify.   You present this as though the committee has cleverly found just the right people to tell a false story they invented.  The problem with your logic is that there was but one Attorney General, one SoS for Georgia, one Speaker for Arizona, one eldest daughter of Trump, one White House counsel,  one general counsel to Pence, etc.  

Do you, for example, think Barr is lying?   Why?   What would cause you to think it more likely that he is lying than telling the truth?   Same question goes for all those who testified.

Again.  Who?  Specifically.  

Asked and answered:

TiG@5.4.15A Republican testifying against Trump today is harming their career.    Surely you are aware that there is very strong support for Trump among R voters and that many R politicians continue to cater to Trump.   The GoP is attached at the hip with Trump (much to my dismay and disgust) for political reasons (among others) so bucking that is not a good career move.   Remember that Rusty Bowers, after his testimony, stated that he would vote for Trump again if he were the nominee.   He testified that Trump wanted him to engage in what he considered to be an unconstitutional act —one that goes against his own morality— yet he felt compelled to soften that after the fact by claiming to support Trump in 2024.   Good grief. As an aside, what do you think motivated Cheney to buck her party, lose her position and likely her seat to deal with Trump's behavior?    The D party will not accept her ... she only has the Rs (or independent run).   My take is that we are witnessing integrity.

Not what I said.  I said I don't care. 

Same difference.

You're only going to ever get the chance to accept that which you want to believe. 

Bullshit, I follow the evidence to where it leads not seek the evidence to confirm a belief.   In the case of Trump the evidence we all were able to observe directly was substantial to determine that Trump engaged in a Big Lie in an attempt to steal the election.   We have his meeting with Raffensperger, we have his speeches, his tweets, we know that he did not act for three hours, we know of his frivolous lawsuits, etc.   Importantly, we know that his allegations were absolute bullshit.   The committee is providing testimony from high-ranking, connected Republicans and this new information correlates well with what we knew before the hearings even started.   That is what one would expect if one has concluded (and this should be obvious) that Trump's Big Lie campaign was an attempt to steal the election.

But you 'do not care' and have a slew of excuses for not caring.  

Remarkable.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.4.25  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.24    3 months ago
Remarkable.

Not my first choice in the adjectiveated lists of descriptive word flatterization, of an attempted rationalization and faux representation of a divided by choice and purpose inclination that poses American against American, in the American Way, that we seem to forget and dismiss, was something, we seem to have forgotten and dismissed, early on, till later off, we found nothing to sneeze at, cause we hadn't a cough, inn which was a drop in the bucket, dropped off by a bucket listing who was kicked off a bucket list , and Y, it was a paling in comparison to comparisons compared to comparisons not compared

A Republican testifying against Trump today is harming their career. 

So you claim.  Again.  Who?  Specifically.  

Who and What was this article about again...?

Cause survey says Liz Cheney and about every other Republican speaking Truth to Power, for Trumps' base is going to hold these people who dare speak out about the truth, and against him and his Big LYING Baby Crying tantrumz, to task, so i dont ask Y

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.26  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.5    2 months ago

So it's partisan of me to look at and point out the partisan make up of the committee.  And you don't see the hypocrisy in that?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.27  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @5.4.20    2 months ago
Impeachment 3.0????

And just like 1.0 and 2.0 it will be based on hurt feelings and zero evidence.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.4.28  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.27    2 months ago
zero evidence.

oddly enough, even if you did not watch the hearings, if you paid any attention to what Trump, with his own big mouth has stated, you would Still have plenty of evidence to choose from.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4.29  JohnRussell  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.4.28    2 months ago

These people are demented. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.30  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.4.28    2 months ago

When did Trump testify?  I don't recall him EVER testifying.  Lets see the video of that.  I'm sure you have it saved.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.31  TᵢG  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.4.25    2 months ago

I just amazes me that people use the fact that this is a partisan committee (as if that is something unusual) to flat out disregard all the under-oath testimony by high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their political careers by testifying.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.32  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.26    2 months ago
So it's partisan of me to look at and point out the partisan make up of the committee. 

What? 

No, Jeremy (and Ronin and JustJim), it is not 'partisan' to observe that this committee is partisan with 7Ds, 2Rs and chosen by Pelosi.   That is simply observing reality.   I have been noting this reality from the beginning of the hearings.   So clearly I do not think it is partisan to note and communicate that obvious fact.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.33  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.27    2 months ago
And just like 1.0 and 2.0 it will be based on hurt feelings and zero evidence.  

How can you write such utter nonsense?   Have you no shame?   You declared in this forum that you will not watch the hearings because the committee has 7 Ds and only 2 Rs and Pelosi was in control of the membership.   Thus you declared willful ignorance of the evidence presented — including under-oath testimony of high-ranking, connected Republicans like Bill Barr and Pat Cippollone.   And now you declare —based on admitted ignorance— that no evidence has been presented.  

Are you aware that Trump engaged in a two month lying campaign to steal the election?   Do you even have that level of understanding?   256

Credibility suicide.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.34  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.33    2 months ago
You declared in this forum that you will not watch the hearings because the committee has 7 Ds and only 2 Rs and Pelosi was in control of the membership.

This is why I can't take you seriously.  Fabrications like that.  But, if you're so dead set that was my "declaration" then provide the link to my statement.

Thus you declared willful ignorance of the evidence presented

When actual evidence is presented, then I'll consider it.  So far, it's all been hearsay and speculation.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4.35  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.34    2 months ago

How many and how much of the 6 hearings have you watched? 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.4.36  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.34    2 months ago
So far, it's all been hearsay and speculation.  

Who TOLD you this ?

Y R U Afraid to learn the TRUTH ?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.37  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.4.36    2 months ago
Who TOLD you this ?

You should pay attention.  You'd be amazed what you learn.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.38  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.24    2 months ago
The witnesses are mostly high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their political careers to testify.

You continue to repeat this, as though it somehow negates the fact that the ONLY witnesses you will see are hand chosen because they're willing to say what Pelosi et al want them to say.  It doesn't.  Repeating it does not change that.

Do you, for example, think Barr is lying?

You keep asking people "do you think xxx person is lying", as though it somehow negates the fact that the ONLY witnesses you will see are hand chosen because they're willing to say what Pelosi et al want them to say.  It doesn't.  Repeating it does not change that.

BTW no, I don't have any reason to suspect anyone is lying.

Same difference.

It's not, but you currently seem to have your head stuck in this JohnRussell idea that people who do not share your outrage either do not understand the situation or have some sort of moral failing, so I can see how it would be difficult for you.

You are studying hearings where people are trying to establish that a famously dishonest man has attempted something dishonest, and we're supposed to be outraged about it....like it's some sort of massive surprise.  

It's akin to being outraged that a tiger has mauled its trainer, and then listening to months worth of testimony about the angle of his claws during the attack.   

Let's assume that Trump did, in fact, attempt to "steal" the election.  What do you suggest I do about that?  What action should I take?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.4.39  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.6    2 months ago

Clearly

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.40  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.38    2 months ago
You continue to repeat this, as though it somehow negates the fact that the ONLY witnesses you will see are hand chosen because they're willing to say what Pelosi et al want them to say.  It doesn't.  Repeating it does not change that.

Your argument implies that these witnesses are lying under oath.    My reason for emphasizing that these witnesses are mostly high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their political careers to testify is to illustrate that these people are not motivated to lie against Trump.

Which is more likely, your hypothesis that these witnesses are lying (unknown motivation) or that they are telling the truth even when doing so compromises their political futures?

Why would all these high-ranking, connected Republicans lie against the defacto leader of their party and most recent R PotUS?

... the ONLY witnesses you will see are hand chosen ...

You seem to be stuck on this point.   I have never once suggested otherwise; so factor that in.   Also factor in the fact that these witnesses were not forced to testify as they did.   The information they provided is from them (under oath), not from a script that Pelosi wrote.    So it makes no difference that the committee picked these witnesses to testify if one simply takes each testimony on its own merit.   Stated differently, if you find the entire committee to be a partisan ploy then just ignore everything the committee states and just consider each testimony on its own merits.  

The under-oath testimony by high-ranking, connected Republicans who are putting their political careers on the line to testify is far better information about the inner-workings than we normally get.   You keep arguing that it should be ignored because the committee is biased.   That is not even remotely objective.

BTW no, I don't have any reason to suspect anyone is lying.

Then why are you objecting to using these testimonies as information that we would all consider in our individual analysis?   Why are you arguing with me?

... but you currently seem to have your head stuck ...

Again with the bullshit personal attacks and presumption.

You are studying hearings where people are trying to establish that a famously dishonest man has attempted something dishonest, and we're supposed to be outraged about it....like it's some sort of massive surprise.  

Where did I state that this testimony should surprise anyone?   Not even close to the point I made. 

Let's assume that Trump did, in fact, attempt to "steal" the election. 

You are not convinced of this???   This is something that must be assumed??   You did not see it happen with normal media sources well before this committee was formed?  

It is now about as conclusive as it can be that there was no fraud in the election that came even close to changing the results.   Trump's Big Lie was indeed absolute bullshit (and I, prior to recently, would have believed that this would be your position).    So knowing that this was all bullshit from Trump and watching all the actions he and his minions took based solely on bullshit (including the publicly released audio of his Raffensperger call), (including Trump's own speeches/tweets to his supporters), (including Trump's attempt to suborn Pence to unconstitutionally table certified results), etc. you have to ' assume ' that Trump was trying to steal the election?

Just amazing.

What do you suggest I do about that?  What action should I take?  

Action?   That is up to you.   My suggestion, which should be incredibly clear by now, is to NOT dismiss the under-oath testimonies of high-ranking, connected Republicans who are risking their political careers by testifying.

I suggest that you  "NOT dismiss" the information provided by the testimonies simply because of the entirely unusual and unpredictable situation 256 where a political committee has a partisan bias.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.41  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.34    2 months ago

Okay, Jeremy, my policy on forums is to give people a chance to set the record straight.   So if you say you are watching the hearings I will continue with that as a factual assumption.

So now with that assumption, how is it possible that you do not see evidence?   Right off the bat, we see Barr under oath stating that he told Trump that his claims were bullshit.    This is evidence supporting the allegation that Trump knew that his claims of election fraud were meritless but he continued his Big Lie con-job nonetheless. 

So just focus on this one item to keep things super simple.   What in your mind would qualify as evidence that Trump was told by a credible source (in private by his own AG) that his claims were fraudulent?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
5.4.42  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.40    2 months ago
Your argument implies that these witnesses are lying under oath.

Is over embellishing or saying what someone else said as evidence for "Effect" considered "Lying ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.43  TᵢG  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5.4.42    2 months ago

What is that supposed to mean?

This is very easy to understand.   Either one holds that these witnesses are lying under oath (for whatever reasons one wishes to believe) or one holds that these witnesses are indeed telling the truth.   The fact that they are testifying against their own former PotUS (they are Rs) further supports that they are not lying.   That is, why would these high-ranking, connected Republicans compromise their careers by lying?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
5.4.44  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.43    2 months ago
What is that supposed to mean?

It was very easy to understand.

Do you need more help with an individual  word breakdown of the question ?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.4.45  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5.4.44    2 months ago

Well, I have got to say it. Watching you tie yourself into knots trying to deny what everyone of us has seen and heard with our own eyes and ears is getting to be cringey as hell. I am actually beginning to feel embarrassed for you...

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
5.4.46  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @5.4.45    2 months ago
I've got to say watching you tie yourself into knots

Oh Really !

I am  embarrassed for you...for getting yourself into something with just "Feelings" as a sword .

Answer this question:

Is over embellishing or saying what someone else said as evidence for "Effect" considered "Lying ?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.4.47  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5.4.46    2 months ago

The witnesses have been credible, mostly solid Republicans.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
5.4.48  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @5.4.47    2 months ago
The witnesses have been credible, mostly solid Republicans.

Which Media outlet told you that was so !

I thought All Republicans Lie !

You'd have to be an insider to know for sure. This NBC show is doing their best to mold minds right now.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.49  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.41    2 months ago

Still waiting for that link to back up your claim.  Until then you really have nothing to say to me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.50  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.49    2 months ago

I just told you that I will take you at your word and now will assume that you have watched the hearings.

Thus, given the assumption that you are informed, I asked you a question.

And, big surprise, you run away.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.4.51  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5.4.48    2 months ago

Nobody told me what I saw with my eyes, heard with my ears.

I saw the Insurrection, watch the hearings, hear the witnesses.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.4.52  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.38    2 months ago
Let's assume that Trump did, in fact, attempt to "steal" the election.  What do you suggest I do about that?  What action should I take?  

I would think supporting consequences for those who were proven to have been a part of the attempted insurrection would be a start. Also, not supporting those who continued Trumps big lie for the last two years would make sense. At a minimum denouncing Trump and Trumpism that brought about the attempted insurrection would be warranted for anyone who truly loves America and our constitution. Beyond that it would seem logical to support the civil and criminal prosecution of anyone who broke the law either in attacking Capital police, breaking into the Capital, vandalizing Capital property, threatening legislators and their staff or being involved in the attempted insurrection in any way such as planning and coordinating.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.53  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.50    2 months ago
I just told you that I will take you at your word and now will assume that you have watched the hearings.
Thus, given the assumption that you are informed, I asked you a question.

Fuck your question.  Provide the link of my statement.  Put up or shut up.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
5.4.54  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @5.4.51    2 months ago
Nobody told me what I saw with my eyes, heard with my ears. I saw the Insurrection, watch the hearings, hear the witnesses.

As far as the Who told you part, I was speaking of your "Truthful Republican Trestimony" comment. You believed the Republicans THIS TIME ?

You "Hear" different things than I've heard. Much Embellished Hearsay and so called Embellished interactions aren't very credible testimony in my mind. "Slipping and Sliding in Blood", Really ?

Must be in your mind though.

So, which one of us is correct ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.55  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.53    2 months ago

I do not fetch on demand; wait forever.   The best you will get is what I gave you:  I said I would take you at your word.

Your refusal to be taken at your word is a pathetic deflection from answering a very obvious question that follows when we assume you watched the hearings.   The question illustrates that your endless claim that these hearings provide no evidence is indeed bullshit.   And if you were watching the hearings then it is a lie (knowingly stating a falsehood).

If you watched these hearings you would know otherwise.   And I just delivered one of the earliest under-oath testimonies from Barr and you, predictably, run away and attempt to deflect.


AllegationTrump knew that his claims of election fraud were meritless but he continued his Big Lie con-job nonetheless.

Evidence:  Barr's testimony where he clearly stated to Trump that his claims were investigated and found to be entirely without merit and to emphasize he told the PotUS that his claims were "bullshit".

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.4.56  JBB  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5.4.54    2 months ago

Who should we believe? You or our own lying eyes and ears? 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
5.4.57  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JBB @5.4.56    2 months ago
Who should we believe?

You tell me !

It's like you know !

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.58  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.4.52    2 months ago
I would think supporting consequences for those who were proven to have been a part of the attempted insurrection would be a start.

Define "supporting consequences".  And then explain what difference my support would make.

Also, not supporting those who continued Trumps big lie for the last two years would make sense.

Define "supporting".  

At a minimum denouncing Trump and Trumpism that brought about the attempted insurrection would be warranted for anyone who truly loves America and our constitution.

Why does "denouncing" anything matter to anyone?  Assume I did denounce something.  So what?  

Beyond that it would seem logical to support the civil and criminal prosecution of anyone who broke the law either in attacking Capital police, breaking into the Capital, vandalizing Capital property, threatening legislators and their staff or being involved in the attempted insurrection in any way such as planning and coordinating.

Done.   But again....explain what difference my support or lack thereof matters to that outcome.

The part you're not going to like is that I also support civil and criminal prosecution for every protester who breaks the law.....including but not limited to CHAZ insurrectionists,  BLM vandals, "counter-protesters" who show up to instigate violence and then whine when it is visited upon them, and assholes who block traffic because they think their "feelings" are more important than whatever other people want to be doing.

I have also been asking for weeks when we're going to see charges against Trump or his senior officials.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.59  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.58    2 months ago
Assume I did denounce something.  So what?  

Look at the big picture.   I know you do not support Trump (or at least that is what I thought I knew) but consider that every Trump supporter can ask the same question:  "so what if I do not support Trump ... what difference will it make?".   For the individual standing alone it would make no difference.   But if those Trump supporters in mass did not support Trump he would not have the fuel he needed to continue.   Without support I strongly suggest that his Big Lie campaign would have deflated like a leaking balloon well before the insurrection.

So now look at the present and future.   Would Trump run for office if the GoP did not offer strong support for him?   Would he be in the news trying to play king-maker?   Would he be continuing to harm and confuse the GoP?   I say no.

The power of democracy comes from the people writ large, not from an individual.   So even though your individual voice by itself will accomplish nothing, that does not negate the fact that your voice in harmony with others has great influence.

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
5.4.60  dennis smith  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.53    2 months ago

Proof will not be forthcoming as usual 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4.61  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.40    2 months ago
Your argument implies that these witnesses are lying under oath.    My reason for emphasizing that these witnesses are mostly high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their political careers to testify is to illustrate that these people are not motivated to lie against Trump.

Some people on this forum give Jack Tx way too much benefit of the doubt. His continuing implication that the committee is rigged against Trump and is not allowing Trump favoring evidence DOES constitute a defense of Trump. At least some of these people will stand up and tell you their strange ideas in a straightforward way. Jack Tx wants it both ways. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4.62  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.58    2 months ago
I have also been asking for weeks when we're going to see charges against Trump or his senior officials.  

Your "argument" that the only way Trump can be seen as a wrong doer (that would disqualify him from political life ) is if he is indicted is ridiculous. 

The evidence makes him guilty or innocent, not a court or DOJ charging decision. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.63  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4.61    2 months ago
... implication that the committee is rigged against Trump and is not allowing Trump favoring evidence DOES constitute a defense of Trump

That seems to be the GoP talking point position.   Instead of dealing with the testimony the super majority of arguments all take the form:

'The committee is partisan so every testimony in the hearings is without merit.'

Just amazing that people will digest daily news that is far less potent:  not under-oath, not high-ranking, connected Republicans compromising their political futures by testifying, yet will cavalierly discard all this testimony under the excuse 'political bias' as if political bias was not replete in our news sources.

Is it not important to know that Barr directly investigated Trump's claims and told Trump in clear terms that they were groundless ... and eventually spoke in language Trump surely could not ignore:  that his claims were bullshit?

This one example alone establishes (evidences) that Trump did indeed know his allegations were bullshit yet he continued his Big Lie con-job nonetheless.  

People on this forum would, one would think, value information.  I would imagine they all think they are good at discerning truth from lies and that this skill is necessarily applied on a daily basis.   So how does that reconcile with categorically dismissing all this testimony?

It does not reconcile.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4.64  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.38    2 months ago
You are studying hearings where people are trying to establish that a famously dishonest man has attempted something dishonest, and we're supposed to be outraged about it....like it's some sort of massive surprise.  

Fortunately the outcome doesnt hinge on your reluctance to care. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.65  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.40    2 months ago
Your argument implies that these witnesses are lying under oath

It does no such thing.  That's utterly asinine.

My reason for emphasizing that these witnesses are mostly high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their political careers to testify is to illustrate that these people are not motivated to lie against Trump.

I'm not sure how to get it through your thick head that I don't imagine any of these people are lying.  

Again with the bullshit personal attacks and presumption.

The irony of you accusing me of either of those things.  Good grief.

You are not convinced of this???   This is something that must be assumed??   You did not see it happen with normal media sources well before this committee was formed?

I haven't heard all the evidence.   Neither have you. 

And the point here...the reason I disagree with you....  is that you have made your judgment on this topic without hearing all the evidence.   What's worse is you KNOW you haven't heard all the evidence, and not only have you made your judgment anyway, you clearly believe yourself superior to people who are waiting for a less biased data set.

The word "steal" indicates he did something illegal.  With what has be been charged?

The fact you ignore is none of us know the full details of what happened behind the scenes in the weeks between the election and Jan 6.  We don't know what Trump was told, what legal advice he was given, or what his handlers led him to believe. 

The fact you demand we all overlook is that these hearings are designed specifically to get us to overlook any information that may offer alternative explanations for Trump's actions.

Just amazing.

But your head isn't stuck in the whole "outrage superiority" idea at all.   Riiiiiiiight.

My suggestion, which should be incredibly clear by now, is to NOT dismiss the under-oath testimonies of high-ranking, connected Republicans who are risking their political careers by testifying.

That's not an action.   

BTW, I have not "dismissed" anything.  I merely acknowledge several significant facts:

  1. Their testimony is only part of the data and has been carefully chosen because it aligns with the specific ideas the organizers want us all to believe.
  2. There is absolutely additional pertinent information that we will not see unless this all goes to trial.
  3. My actions in response to any of this are pretty much limited to how I cast my vote, which was anti-Trump-club long before he won the presidency.
  4. There is no decision for me to make because I know I'm missing pertinent data that is being obscured. 
  5. There is no action for me to take until November, and it doesn't look like any of the present evidence would change that action for me anyway. 
  6. It does not appear that these hearings will result in any tangible action. 

So no...I don't really care.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.66  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.59    2 months ago
but consider that every Trump supporter can ask the same question:  "so what if I do not support Trump ... what difference will it make?".

I don't think that's what DP is talking about.  My interpretation is that he/she is using the term "denounce" in the more traditional angry zealot usage many liberals are fond of.

Would Trump run for office if the GoP did not offer strong support for him?

Certainly not.

Would he be in the news trying to play king-maker?

Absolutely.  100%.  He's an attention whore.

Would he be continuing to harm and confuse the GoP?   I say no.

It would not be for lack of trying.

The power of democracy comes from the people writ large, not from an individual.  So even though your individual voice by itself will accomplish nothing, that does not negate the fact that your voice in harmony with others has great influence.

Exactly.  So the importance of my individual denunciation is pretty much zero.  I assure you nobody is listening.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.67  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4.61    2 months ago
His continuing implication that the committee is rigged against Trump and is not allowing Trump favoring evidence DOES constitute a defense of Trump.

I'm sure that's probably true somewhere in the looney leftist corners of your imagination. 

The good news here John is that you and Trump can both be utterly batshit in equal measure without reducing the other.  There is an unlimited supply of crazy in the universe, as you're demonstrating here again.

At least some of these people will stand up and tell you their strange ideas in a straightforward way. 

OK, just for you I'll use small words.  

Trump is bad.

The hearings are still biased.  

What part of either of those is difficult?

Your "argument" that the only way Trump can be seen as a wrong doer (that would disqualify him from political life ) is if he is indicted is ridiculous. 

That has never been my argument.  Kindly pay attention.

The evidence makes him guilty or innocent, not a court or DOJ charging decision. 

The question is "guilty of what"? 

If we're going to have 10 televised hearings to show he's a terrible human, what is the point?  Everybody knows that.  The people who voted for him know that.  Anybody who hasn't lived under a rock for the past 40 years knows that. 

Now...a DOJ investigation where they charge him with a crime.... that would actually matter. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.68  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.63    2 months ago
It does not reconcile.

Because you're misrepresenting it.  Again.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.69  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4.64    2 months ago
Fortunately the outcome doesnt hinge on your reluctance to care. 

Which is why I don't. 

Yes.  You are correct.  Excellent.  Well done.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.70  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.4.40    2 months ago
You keep arguing that it should be ignored because the committee is biased.

I dare to question if the committee is biased. After all, if Liz Cheney got any more properly conservative she would fall off one side of the spectrum. Furthemore, the committee has a great amount of continuing testimony to get through and out to the public, resulting in trivialities and incidentals getting pushed farther back in the queue if presented at all. Of course, MAGA is only interested in saving its tired, old, funky self from being exposed as pampered yahoos who broke into the federal capitol with every camera in the world focused on them!

But forgive me for being blunt on a comment to you that I am directing at the usual suspects: Since Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger don't want to kiss Donald Trump's ass, the MAGA purists is belittling Liz Cheney as a RINO and have officially censured, and dropped her. . . and drove Kinzinger out. None of which has any meaning to the validity of the two individuals to serve in their capacity.

This is some "f-up" crap and there is no other way to put it. The GOP is out of its "f-ing" mind right now!  Reagan's 1lth command about republicans speaking ill of another republican never considered a meathead like Donald Trump and MAGA 'takeover.'

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.71  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.65    2 months ago
It does no such thing. 

Then your argument has no basis.   You complain that the committee is partisan —and it most certainly is— you complain that there is no cross-examination —and there is indeed none— and you complain that only witnesses and testimony desired by the committee is presented —no doubt correct— and you complain that not all the evidence has been shown —undoubtedly true—.

You are full of complaints and thus excuses for downplaying / dismissing the under-oath testimony of these witnesses.   My point has been that the testimonies in and of themselves are valuable information.   Forget the committee and simply consume the testimonies.   Factor in whatever bias you wish, but if your factoring winds up dismissing the testimonies then by that very same reasoning you should dismiss everything you hear from media because nothing is pure, cross-examined, complete, etc.

I don't imagine any of these people are lying. 

Then you must hold that they are telling the truth.   If so, why are you so furiously arguing with me?   My point has been, all along, that these testimonies provide quality insider information (better than what we typically get) from media.

I haven't heard all the evidence.   Neither have you. 

So?   Do you have any reason to believe that this election was stolen?   No?  Then you must hold that Trump was lying.  If so, then Trump engaged in a two-month Big Lie con-job in an attempt to steal the election.   Right?    On top of this we have countless public information that chronicles many varied attempts by Trump to steal the election.   The evidence just from what is easily publicly available is overwhelming.   Now we are getting more insider information that correlates with what we all could see and hear with our own eyes.  

I say this is good information to have ... you, however, have been arguing against that with all sorts of excuses such as a biased committee.   Yet you tell me that you do not think the witnesses are lying.   So you would have me believe that you cannot in your own analysis consider the bias of the committee when observing Barr, for example, under-oath tell us all that Trump was indeed informed by at least one credible source (Barr) that his allegations were without merit ... bullshit?   You would have me believe that it is not possible for you to walk away with an understanding of evidence that supports the allegation that Trump was informed?   And what would the counter-evidence be?   Someone going to claim that Barr and Trump never had that discussion .... that Barr is lying?    How likely do you think that is?   Do you expect Barr to fold under cross-examination and state that he really never told Trump that his allegations were false?   You might find that likely, but I certainly do not.

In short, not having heard all the evidence is not an excuse to dismiss the testimonies.   And if you come back and insist that you are not dismissing the testimonies then I will ask why you have been arguing with me.   My point has been that the testimonies are valuable insider information and is credible for the reasons I have repeatedly stated.

The irony of you accusing me of either of those things. 

Just read the words in your last few posts.   You have stooped to personal attacks, not me.   I have intentionally refrained from returning in kind in the hope that you would return to your usual level of decorum.

And the point here...the reason I disagree with you....  is that you have made your judgment on this topic without hearing all the evidence. 

If evidence arises that goes against what we have, I will adjust accordingly.   Do you have anything, whatsoever, that suggests Trump did not knowingly attempt to steal the election?   That Trump did not knowingly allow three hours to pass before telling the insurrectionists to leave?   etc. etc.   Present what you have.  I doubt you have anything.

You would have me believe that you, Jack, hold off on forming ANY opinion until ALL of the evidence is presented?  You could not function if that were the case.   Further, there are facts that are clear and the evidence is overwhelming.   Trump lied about a rigged election and that lie was the basis for myriad dishonest actions that he took with the intent of remaining in office aka stealing the election.   Do you need more information to recognize that basic reality?      For example, I do not buy the notion that you need any further information to determine that you will not vote for Trump as PotUS in 2024.   But how could you make such a judgment without ALL the evidence?   Give me a break.

That's not an action.   

Going to argue about what constitutes an 'action' now?  

Their testimony is only part of the data and has been carefully chosen because it aligns with the specific ideas the organizers want us all to believe.

So glean from the testimony information that you find credible.   Back to the Barr example to keep this simple, Barr provided solid evidence that Trump knew his allegations were bullshit.   There is no reason that I can see for you to simply dismiss that.

There is absolutely additional pertinent information that we will not see unless this all goes to trial.

Yes, so as the information arises we adjust our summary opinions.    We go by the evidence available until new evidence arises.   Pretty much what we human beings do on a daily basis.

My actions in response to any of this are pretty much limited to how I cast my vote, which was anti-Trump-club long before he won the presidency.

That is fine, Jack, but we all operate differently.   I, in contrast, am very curious as to what took place behind closed doors.   Thus I will observe evidence to that effect as long as it arises.   

There is no decision for me to make because I know I'm missing pertinent data that is being obscured. 

Again, fine.   But you have been arguing with me because I hold that this is valuable, credible information.   Your claim that you will not act (determine your vote) until a trial concludes does not in any way take away from my position of valuable, credible information.   Again, you are arguing against my position that the information if valuable and credible.    If this nets down to this does not matter to you then you could have save a ton of time by not trying to argue against my position that this is valuable, credible information for me and for others (even though not for you).

There is no action for me to take until November, and it doesn't look like any of the present evidence would change that action for me anyway. 

You keep stating this.  Fine.   Okay, great, you will not act on this information.   Great for you. 

It does not appear that these hearings will result in any tangible action. 

What they are providing is quality insider information.   The action the committee can take when done is to refer their findings to the DoJ.   The DoJ then can act (or not) and indict Trump.   We must wait and see.   If the DoJ never indicts Trump I will bet large that it is based on a political calculation overruling proper jurisprudence.

So no...I don't really care.

Wonderful.   I do care.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.72  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.66    2 months ago
Absolutely.  100%.  He's an attention whore.

I disagree.   If Trump believed he would be dissed he would pursue his attention needs elsewhere.

So the importance of my individual denunciation is pretty much zero. 

I found it remarkable that I was explaining the basics of why each voice matters to someone who I believe deeply, intrinsically understands that;  I did not expect you to exclaim in response that you do not recognize the importance of each voice in aggregate.

If all those who are against Trump's continued influence on the GoP but have chosen to remain silent were to denounce Trump, that would be a force to persuade the GoP away from Trump.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.73  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.4.70    2 months ago
I dare to question if the committee is biased.

The committee is inherently biased.   It is a committee formed by Pelosi.   It contains 7 Ds and 2 Rs.   It is investigating the opposition president.   There is no question that it is biased.    Of course, even if the committee were more balanced, it would be biased ... I see no way for it to NOT be biased.   So I say we factor in the bias as fact and proceed accordingly.

Now, that said, I find Cheney to be rather unusual.   She impresses me as far more objective than what we normally see in this bunch.  And she certainly has put her career where her mouth is.  Cheney lost her position and likely her seat because she chose to stand up for what is right in opposition to pressure from her party.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.74  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.68    2 months ago
Because you're misrepresenting it.  Again.

Good grief.

My position is that the testimonies, in and of themselves, are providing valuable insider information.   That the witnesses are typically good because they are high-ranking, connected Republicans testifying under oath.   That the witnesses are credible because they are Republicans testifying against the prior Republican president and are compromising their political careers by doing so.

Further, my position is that it is better to have this information than not.   Our nation is better off if the electorate is informed (toward truth).

You do not find the witnesses to be lying which suggests you find their testimonies to more likely be truth than not.

What is your complaint with my position?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.75  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.4.73    2 months ago

MAGA has handed Liz her (forgive me) 'ass' and I can see where she is standing on her conviction and Cheney reputation to hand Trump his 'ass' back!

My point regarding Cheney and Kinzinger is MAGA SOB's are throwing away perfectly good conservatives and making enemies of the same just because MAGA is 'bout as corrupt as the GOP can get and still exist as a group. For crying out loud: MAGA displaces republicans and conservatives not seeking office, but in red wedding style  takes them out while sitting down at the political table!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.76  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.4.75    2 months ago

I can only hope that the Cheney-like GoP members prevail over the MAGA bunch.  Does not seem likely though.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.4.77  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @5.4.75    2 months ago

Given the shit people say here, no need for forgiveness on ass. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4.78  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.65    2 months ago

Trump has had and continues to have every opportunity to "correct the record". If he said he would give his side of the story to a reporter a thousand of them would line up. 

The idea that there is some sort of yet unseen defense of Trump is a fantasy. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.79  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.4.76    2 months ago

Then the conventional (proper) GOP needs to gear up and begin the arduous work of sealing the breaches as fast as MAGA opens them. As the bible details, 'throw out the "strongman"' and put something better in his/her place immediately!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.80  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @5.4.78    2 months ago

Meathead Trump can tell the truth any time he chooses. But of course, he won't because he if full of 'it! And so is MAGA to boot!  Meathead Trump won't even let MAGA staff testify or MAGA house join the committee or MAGA cabinet have permissions to tell the truth and nothing but the truth!

MAGA is full of 'it. Here on NT and 'abroad.' These. . . people are just spinning and 'killing' time here. I no longer take any of them seriously. Here on NT or 'abroad.' Just look at the cretin Steve Bannon walking in court talking like a loser and on the street using the bravado of a fool!

MAGA is trash.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.81  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.53    2 months ago
Fuck your question.  Provide the link of my statement. 

I just noticed this in another recent article so I decided to respond.  Given this, I now have a hard time simply taking you at your word (as I told you I would).   

Your inability to speak intelligently about the content of the hearings is routinely present in your collective posts.   That alone suggests that you are not watching (or not paying attention).   But then you make statements like this:

JBB-2:1:40 ( external ) ☞ You must have not watched the hearings...
Jeremy-2:1:42 (external) When it's something of substance I'll watch.   To date it's been nothing but hearsay and speculation. 

You routinely dismiss all the hearings as bullshit so clearly you do not consider the hearings to be something of substance.   That logically means you have not watched them.   Your complaints have been that since the committee is partisan and biased that they have nothing of value to offer.   

So which is it Jeremy?:

  • Are you finding the hearings to be of substance and thus are watching them?
  • Do you find them devoid of substance and are not watching them?
  • Or do you find them to be devoid of substance but are watching them anyway?   (contradicting yourself at external 2.1.42 )

Clear it up.   I will again extend the offer to take you at your word.   Are you watching the hearings and paying attention or not?   If you are watching them then my comments to you will presume you are informed and challenge you accordingly.   If not, my comments to you will consider that you are uninformed.

Which is it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.82  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4.78    2 months ago
The idea that there is some sort of yet unseen defense of Trump is a fantasy. 

Trump's defenses have been predictable.   He dismisses/demeans the witness.   He even dismissed Ivanka as not being well informed.

Given the ludicrous bullshit proffered by his minions (Giuliana, Powell, Lindell, ...) in support of this Big Lie, common sense alone suggests more of the same would comprise a Trump 'defense'.   I am willing to be surprised but do not expect to be.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.83  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.12    2 months ago
Whose career do you think is going to take a hit from this?

By the way, you asked this a while back and I answered that every Republican who testifies against Trump is compromising their career.   

This came in yesterday:

Arizona GOP censures Rusty Bowers after Jan. 6 testimony

PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Republican Party has censured state House Speaker Rusty Bowers after his gripping public testimony to the Jan. 6 panel about Donald Trump’s relentless pressure to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

The censure Tuesday night by the state GOP’s executive committee came hours after Trump reiterated his support for Bowers’ opponent in his upcoming Republican primary for state Senate. The former president is scheduled to campaign with his favored candidates on Friday in northern Arizona.

The censure is largely symbolic, but it’s illustrative of the iron grip that Trump continues to have over the Republican Party, even after a mob of his supporters broke into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 , in an effort to stop Joe Biden from becoming president.

“(Bowers) is no longer a Republican in good standing & we call on Republicans to replace him at the ballot box in the August primary,” Arizona Republican Party chair Kelli Ward tweeted Tuesday.

It’s highly unusual for a state political party to formally take sides in a contested primary, but the Arizona GOP under Ward has not been shy about boosting Trump allies in the internal struggle over the future of the Republican Party. The Arizona Republican Party last year censured other top Republicans who crossed the former president, including Gov. Doug Ducey, Cindy McCain and former Sen. Jeff Flake .

Yeah, push out Bowers for being a stand-up guy.   This does not surprise me in the slightest.   What surprises me is that you apparently did not recognize the political risk taken by these witnesses.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.4.84  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.67    2 months ago
Now...a DOJ investigation where they charge him with a crime.... that would actually matter

Yea, because being a lying low life fckn criminal in so many senses of the words, fckn criminal, unless charged with a crime, would be criminal, no ?  Jack, my opinion being my opinion, is degrading rapidly as your condescending fck off attitude to Tig, John, and CB, has sunken your status as a commentator, at least in my eyes, cause i'm blind otherwise, but thanks, for showing me, your way, as some had given you more credit than that, WTF were they thinkin......?  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.85  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.55    2 months ago
I do not fetch on demand; wait forever.

Then you have nothing to say.  Told you put up or shut up.  Looks like you chose shut up.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.86  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  dennis smith @5.4.60    2 months ago

I now it won't be.  Just another example of the hypocrisy and bullshit from some people.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.87  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.81    2 months ago

It's not the link you are supposed to show me.  Why are you still talking?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.88  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.87    2 months ago

How predictable, even with a link you deny the evidence.    And you refuse to be clear and run from the question.   Remarkable.

Until I see evidence that you understand the content of these hearings I will clear this up myself and hold that you are indeed NOT watching the hearings.   I will conclude that your criticism of the hearings is simply based on superficial factors (e.g. the committee is partisan) and parroting talking points.

Pathetic little obfuscation / denial games will never show you to be correct;  to do that you actually need to post verifiable truth.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4.89  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.88    2 months ago
Until I see evidence that you understand the content of these hearings

Dont hold your breath.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.4.90  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.4.84    2 months ago

I give him 0 credit for anything.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.4.91  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.71    2 months ago

We know those who don't care about the truth.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.92  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.88    2 months ago
How predictable

It is.  You made a claim, you can't produce and now you are trying to avoid it.  Put up or shut up already.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4.93  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.83    2 months ago

You could post evidence of Trump's wrong doing 10 pages long and people like Jeremy woud still say "where is the proof ?".  Sadly, that is all they know how to do. Its pretty pathetic. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.94  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.92    2 months ago

As I figured, I even gave you a link @5.4.81 to a recent comment where you claim: "When it's something of substance I'll watch." while expressing that nothing of substance is taking place in the committee (your collective comments).

Your repetitive nuh'uhs are pathetic.

The only way I will buy that you are watching the hearings is for you to put forth informed commentary that illustrates you both watched and understand the content of the hearings.    

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.95  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4.93    2 months ago
You could post evidence of Trump's wrong doing 10 pages long and people like Jeremy woud still say "where is the proof ?". 

That is a very good example.   His collective rebuttals to my evidence-laden comments have largely been:  'where is the proof?'.    Proof, literally, in real life is rare.   We can generate proof in mathematics, but in real life (and even in science) proof is an ideal, not an achievable objective. 

Just kicking the can (moving the goalposts to ridiculous extremes) in lieu of a cogent argument.    Pathetic is indeed the word.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.96  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.94    2 months ago

Still not the link you need to provide.  Try again.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.97  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.71    2 months ago
Then your argument has no basis.

*eyeroll* 

   You complain that the committee is partisan —and it most certainly is— you complain that there is no cross-examination —and there is indeed none— and you complain that only witnesses and testimony desired by the committee is presented —no doubt correct— and you complain that not all the evidence has been shown —undoubtedly true—.

None of which has stopped you from drawing your conclusions.  

You are full of complaints and thus excuses for downplaying / dismissing the under-oath testimony of these witnesses. 

Once again... I am not downplaying or dismissing anything.  Nor do I think anybody is lying.  Nor do I understand why that is such a difficult concept for you to process.

Then you must hold that they are telling the truth.

At last.  A small penny drops.

If so, why are you so furiously arguing with me?

I'm not the furious one.  

And what would the counter-evidence be?

This really boils down to whether or not you are capable of considering ideas besides those currently in front of you.  I don't need to see something actually happen to understand how it could happen.

The counter-evidence might include but not be limited to what he was told by any of the other dozens of people he may have spoken with, including but not limited to Kushner, Ivanka, Giuliani, random Republican campaign officials, or any of the other various sketchy whackjobs he loves to attract.   But we can all be very sure that we will never see any information that might distract from the approved conclusions we're all supposed to embrace.

If evidence arises that goes against what we have, I will adjust accordingly.

You've already said the committee is partisan and the hearings are biased.  So this new evidence?  Will this be a vision from God?  Will we learn of it on Russian television?  How will that get out, exactly? 

So glean from the testimony information that you find credible.

The. Issue. Is. Not. Credibility.  *sigh*

This is mildly interesting to me.  You clearly cannot comprehend how someone might believe Barr's testimony and simultaneously fail to embrace the conclusions you've drawn.  It just seems to completely exceed the limits of your imagination.  No matter how many times I state outright I don't think Barr is lying, you continue to attempt to convince me he is credible.   It's as if you're in this feedback loop where A must imply B, and if one does not conclude B, one must necessarily not believe A.  You seem incapable of imagining that A might also imply C, D, E or F... but we won't know without more complete data....which we're not going to get... because Pelosi very much wants us all to be happy with B.

That is fine, Jack, but we all operate differently.  

Do we?  Because I'm pretty sure you were always a non-Trump voter and I'm also pretty sure that's not going to change.  So in reality, the testimony is all pretty much academic for us.

But you have been arguing with me because I hold that this is valuable, credible information.

That's not at all what I've been arguing.  That's what's happening in the feedback loop.

You keep stating this.  Fine.   Okay, great, you will not act on this information.   Great for you. 

And how exactly will you act on this information?  I'm curious.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.98  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4.78    2 months ago
Trump has had and continues to have every opportunity to "correct the record". If he said he would give his side of the story to a reporter a thousand of them would line up. 

How would that benefit him?

His alternative is to stay clear of it all, complain that it's partisan and biased (which would be one of the few true things he's said in the last 50 years) and pretend he's the victim of some Orwellian witch hunt.  Then he can release a book later and cash in on "the conspiracy".  

Sounds like a more effective plan, TBF.

It also takes advantage of Nancy Pelosi's long track record of generally being inept when she goes after him.

The idea that there is some sort of yet unseen defense of Trump is a fantasy. 

Defense for what?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.99  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.97    2 months ago
None of which has stopped you from drawing your conclusions.  

Correct, I have factored this into my analysis.   As noted,  the 'news' we get is never pure and there is always a need to apply judgment.    If everyone waited for every item of news to be formally adjudicated we would never form opinions.

The counter-evidence might include ...

No, Jack, I was making the point that if someone like Barr states that he told Trump that his allegations of a rigged election were all bullshit than you are not likely to find a counter to that.   The counter would have to be:  'No, Barr never said that to Trump'.   Short of Barr claiming that he lied how in hell would one ever evidence that Barr never really told Trump his claims were bullshit?   Answer, it is not possible.

So this new evidence?  

Amazing.   You have complained that there is no evidence from the other side and now you are in wonderment as to the nature of new evidence.   You cannot imagine that new evidence could come forward after these hearings?   How about if we have a trial, can you imagine new evidence under those circumstances?

You clearly cannot comprehend how someone might believe Barr's testimony and simultaneously fail to embrace the conclusions you've drawn. 

Barr was one example,  If you believe the witnesses are telling the truth then why would you not include their testimony as part of your working information that you use to form your position on this matter?

Because I'm pretty sure you were always a non-Trump voter and I'm also pretty sure that's not going to change.  So in reality, the testimony is all pretty much academic for us.

You do not value information?   You simply gather the information you require to make a vote and then shut down your senses?   I am curious about this matter because it is serious for the nation.   The more I learn will likely not change my mind on voting for Trump but that certainly is no reason to stop learning.   Bizarre view you have.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.100  Jack_TX  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.4.84    2 months ago
Yea, because being a lying low life fckn criminal in so many senses of the words, fckn criminal, unless charged with a crime, would be criminal, no ?

Serious question... If they don't charge him with a crime.. what changes?  Maybe you see something I don't.

  Jack, my opinion being my opinion, is degrading rapidly as your condescending fck off attitude to Tig, John, and CB, has sunken your status as a commentator, at least in my eyes, cause i'm blind otherwise, but thanks, for showing me, your way, as some had given you more credit than that, WTF were they thinkin......?  

I give back what I get, and I'm unapologetic about that.  I am polite as long as people are polite to me.  

It's worth pointing out that I was recently accused of "personal attacks" by somebody using almost exactly the same verbiage he quoted and who swore it wasn't a personal attack when he said it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.101  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.100    2 months ago
If they don't charge him with a crime.. what changes? 

A horrible precedent is set regarding what bad actions a politician, in particular the PotUS, can do in response to a lost election.    

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.102  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.99    2 months ago
As noted,  the 'news' we get is never pure and there is always a need to apply judgment.

You would never in a million years form your opinion on a topic based on a story on Fox News.   This is more biased than that.

 You have complained that there is no evidence from the other side and now you are in wonderment as to the nature of new evidence. 

Sarcasm, not wonderment.

You cannot imagine that new evidence could come forward after these hearings?   How about if we have a trial, can you imagine new evidence under those circumstances?

Going to trial is the only way I think it will come forward, which is why I have been asking about that consistently for weeks.  But you and I both know a trial is more unlikely with every day that goes by.  So the odds are very high that we'll never see any evidence Pelosi doesn't want us to see.  Unless we have a vision from God. (more sarcasm, in case it wasn't clear)

If you believe the witnesses are telling the truth then why would you not include their testimony as part of your working information that you use to form your position on this matter?

Two things would need to happen.  One...we would need a broader and less biased set of data.  Right now, it's like trying to play blackjack with a deck of 6 cards that are all clubs.  There is nothing wrong with the cards themselves, but they aren't much use on their own and everybody knows what suit will be dealt next.  Two... the outcome of the hearings would need to matter in some tangible way.  Right now, to my disappointment, it's looking very much like this is going to end up being one of those things where we all sit in a circle and validate our feelings.

You do not value information?

Sure.  Which is why I'm waiting for a full set.

You simply gather the information you require to make a vote and then shut down your senses?

I don't wallow in what I know to be a tiny, non-representative sliver of data.

I am curious about this matter because it is serious for the nation.

Is it?  It's "serious for the nation", so we're having a non-binding, hyper-biased, made-for-TV by the political party in power mini-series of political theatre?  If that's how we now treat things that are "serious for the nation", we're officially fucked. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.103  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.102    2 months ago

In now 8 hearings we, the public, have been given access to insider information from dozens of high-ranking, connected Republicans (many who were appointed by Trump and/or had served Trump during his term of office), who have testified under-oath even though doing so compromises their own political careers.   You have even stated that you have no reason to believe these testimonies are not truthful.

Yet you offer these characterizations:

This [ the collective testimonies presented by the Jan 6th hearings ] is more biased than that [ Fox News ]
[ the collective testimonies in the Jan 6th hearings are ] a tiny, non-representative sliver of data

I have no further interest in trying to reason with you.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4.104  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.102    2 months ago

What do you expect would be the nature of Trumps side of the story?

Did he secretly order the National Guard to the capitol that afternoon but nobody knows it ? 

Did he tweet to the rioters to "go home" in a timely way, before three hours of violence had happened, and the tweet was somehow delayed in the cybersphere? 

Are all the witnesses who say Trump said various "incriminating" things lying? All of them? 

Did Trump not approve of the John Eastman plan?  It certainly seems he did since he suggested in his Jan 6 speech at the Ellipse that Pence should still follow Eastman's plan. 

Please tell us, what is the nature, in specifics , of trump's side of the story? 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.105  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.4.103    2 months ago

It is pure poetry that sadly Rep/Chair Bernie Thompson-MS is out with Covid-19 at this time, and Rep/Vice-Chair Cheney-WY is putting the 'cap' on this series of hearings. Whereupon in summation she flatly points the responsibility of the committee is to present substantial evidential reporting such that it is clear to the nation Donald Trump is unfit to ever hold any public office again. Rep/Member Kinzinger points out that the job of this committee at its concluding is to use what it has learned from witnesses to  write laws to avoid another insurrection on the Capitol! Maybe even the country!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.106  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.4.105    2 months ago

Clearly Cal was paying attention.  jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
5.4.107  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.92    2 months ago

Ohhhhh! A Trumpist technique! 

Deny what has just been written as fact and double down when called.... You guys know he's going to jail,  don't you? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.108  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @5.4.107    2 months ago

Amazing is it not?   Just pretend that the facts are not there and endlessly deny reality.   

If one states a falsehood with enough conviction and continues to repeat same, then group-think / conformist types will believe you.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
5.4.109  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.108    2 months ago

What is more amazing is that I think they know that they are doing it!  It is a strange and bizarre wrench of the psyche .....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.110  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @5.4.109    2 months ago

How does one conclude that looking the fool is a good way to persuade others?

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
5.4.111  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.110    2 months ago

Maybe the ones they are trying to convince are fools,also?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.112  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.4.108    2 months ago

What is telling about these hearings (and the promise of more testimony) is their are "MAGA" republicans voluntarily removing their blinders, because on January 6, 2021 they saw Donald Trump embossed in relief and set upon this country they love too. What is encouraging to watch in the hearings is these republicans one by one, in series, and perhaps next in droves coming out to inform the public of what they experienced and what this merciless man has done to them, their friends, their associates, 'kids' that intern, and this country. Goodness, I hope so. Not because I want to see Donald Trump fail, but because what Donald Trump represents must not be allowed to stand: Division personified!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.113  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.4.112    2 months ago
... what Donald Trump represents must not be allowed to stand ...

Exactly.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.114  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4.104    2 months ago
What do you expect would be the nature of Trumps side of the story?

As yet, we can only speculate.  If Trump's history is any indicator, he'll throw absolutely everybody under the bus, including Giuliani and Kushner.  That would create a situation where you have multiple people you don't trust telling you stories you don't believe, and chaos will ensue.  Chaos is Trump's brer patch.  It gives him a home-field advantage.

Are all the witnesses who say Trump said various "incriminating" things lying? All of them? 

You use the word "incriminating"... implying there is an accusation of a crime.  Yet you get your panties in a wad when I ask when he's going to be charged with one.  So are we talking about a crime or not?  If so, which one, and why isn't he being prosecuted?  It's been 18 months now.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.115  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.103    2 months ago
This [ the collective testimonies presented by the Jan 6th hearings ] is more biased than that [ Fox News ]
[ the collective testimonies in the Jan 6th hearings are ] a tiny, non-representative sliver of data
I have no further interest in trying to reason with you.

You've previously agreed with both of those points.  Here, let me help jog your memory...

You complain that the committee is partisan —and it most certainly is— you complain that there is no cross-examination —and there is indeed none— and you complain that only witnesses and testimony desired by the committee is presented —no doubt correct— and you complain that not all the evidence has been shown —undoubtedly true

It's not me you don't want to reason with.  It's yourself.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.116  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thomas @5.4.107    2 months ago
You guys know he's going to jail,  don't you?

We've been hearing that for about 7 years now.  And look at that, every attempt to put him there has failed.  I wonder why that is.  Lack of evidence would be the first indication.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.117  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.115    2 months ago
You've previously agreed with both of those points.  Here, let me help jog your memory...

I figured this was all theatrics for you.   No way that I believe you do not know what I have repeatedly written yet here you are blatantly misrepresenting even words you just quoted.

I have repeatedly stated that the committee is biased from day one; this is obvious.   I have also repeatedly stated that one should factor that in and focus on the evidence because the evidence is under-oath testimony by high-ranking, connected Republicans who put their political careers on the line by testifying.

In short, the committee is biased; each testimony, however, in itself, is credible and provides quality insider information that we do not get from the media.

I have NEVER suggested that the testimonies themselves are biased.   In fact, I have stated the opposite.  And you have as well when you acknowledge that the testimonies are likely the truth.

I have NEVER suggested that the testimonies are a 'tiny sliver'.   I have, in fact, made no comment attempting to predict the quantity of the testimonies presented with those that might come out in a trial other than to note that other testimonies are (obviously) likely.   But I certainly do not dismiss these 8 sessions of testimonies from dozens of witnesses as a "tiny sliver".

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.4.118  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.110    2 months ago

Because they're all fools.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.119  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.4.116    2 months ago
Lack of evidence would be the first indication.  

No, it is politics.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.4.120  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.119    2 months ago

Keep telling yourself that. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.121  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.117    2 months ago
I figured this was all theatrics for you.   No way that I believe you do not know what I have repeatedly written yet here you are blatantly misrepresenting even words you just quoted.

The hearings are definitely all theatrics.  Not sure how that's not completely obvious.  That's central to the issue, despite your desperate protestations otherwise.

You have acknowledged that the committee is biased.  You have acknowledged that the hearings are biased.  You have acknowledged that information is being withheld. 

Yet you continue to demand that everybody ignore these exceedingly obvious facts and follow you through your looking glass into a fantasy tea party where these testimonies are somehow extricable from their context.  They're not, and the idea that they are is asinine.

I have NEVER suggested that the testimonies are a 'tiny sliver'.   

Well you should have.  You could have been both unbiased and accurate.  Opportunity missed.

18 months, tens of thousands of man hours, hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation..... by any sane, objective measure, 8 sessions is a tiny sliver.  Again, I'm not sure how that's not obvious.  The fact that you're arguing it is telling.

You are seeing a sales pitch.  You know it's a sales pitch.  But you don't care, because they're selling you something you want.  OK fine. That's your choice.  Leave me out of it.

Personally, I'm never interested in a sales pitch, and the more obviously desperate it is, the less I trust it. 

I would love to see Trump sent to prison.  I frankly cannot fathom how it hasn't happened long before the Jan 6 riots.

That does not change the fact that we are seeing the party in power use that power to broadcast obviously and extremely biased official hearings, which we all watch on huge screens in our homes that are all full of cameras and microphones.  I'm not going to say it's all Orwellian...but if 1984 had a prequel, I'm not sure this wouldn't be how it starts.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.122  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.121    2 months ago
You have acknowledged that the committee is biased.  You have acknowledged that the hearings are biased.  You have acknowledged that information is being withheld. 

I STATED upfront that the committee is biased.   And I have STATED that we are likely to get more information if this goes to trial.   

Yet you continue to demand that everybody ignore these exceedingly obvious facts

As I have repeatedly told you, I do not demand anything.   I have made a suggestion.   I have, as I have stated probably dozens of times, suggested that there is quality information in the testimonies alone.   That one can separate the testimonies from the biased committee and use that information as they see fit.   That one need not and should not just ignore all the insider, under-oath testimony from high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromise their political careers by testifying.

... one need not and should not just ignore all the insider, under-oath testimony from high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromise their political careers by testifying.

For example, the under-oath testimonies in the last hearing by individuals such as Pat Cipollone are evidence that Trump was informed that his people were armed and were forcibly (breaking and entering) the Capitol building and that advisors, family and 'friends' all pleaded with him to do something about it.   That he could have walked to the press room within one minute and be on a live camera within minutes.   That he could have tweeted.   But in spite of the many, varied methods at the disposal of the PotUS to communicate with the insurrectionists, Trump refused to act until 187 minutes into the insurrection.

18 months, tens of thousands of man hours, hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation..

So that is what you define as evidence??   Every minute recorded during testimony sessions, every word written in every document, text, email, etc. in the corpus of data for this committee??   Then you have a very generous definition for evidence.   I define evidence in the legal sense:  " Evidence is an item which a  litigant  proffers to make the existence of a  fact  more or less probable. or " every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case.

That is, evidence is that which directly supports a posited fact:  no more, no less.   Apparently you have the strange belief that in a trial, for example, the attorneys cart in wheel barrels full of raw material and present all of it to the judge and jury.   In reality, that which is proffered as evidence is the result of extensive filtering.   

Apparently you have the strange belief that in a trial, for example, the attorneys cart in wheel barrels full of raw material and present all of it to the judge and jury.

Further, if Bill Barr in his testimony repeatedly established the same fact (i.e. that he told Trump that his allegations of fraud were bullshit) I would not consider each paraphrase, each instance of that same item of evidence fact to be different items of evidence.   So all the redundant utterings, the dead time, the irrelevant details (per the focus), etc. is not what I would consider evidence and neither does our legal system.   

Now, with that, back to what I stated.   Pursuant to Trump's culpability in the Jan 6th insurrection I do not expect to see a great mass of evidence (properly using that term) to the contrary.   I do not expect to see evidence that establishes Barr did not tell Trump his allegations were bullshit, or that Trump Jr. did not encourage his dad to stop the insurrection, or that Trump actually did act within those 187 minutes, or that Trump did not encourage his supporters to march on the Capitol, etc.   I do expect that a trial will provide additional evidence we have not seen (as I have stated and this is again obvious) but I do not expect an overwhelming flood of counter evidence (which is what your 'tiny sliver' language claims).    Thus I do not dismiss the evidence provided by these under-oath testimonies of dozens of witnesses over 8 hearings as 'a tiny sliver'.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.123  CB   replied to  TᵢG @5.4.122    2 months ago

What is happening here with MAGA enablers is wholesale denial of a legitimate investigation of the January 6, 2021 insurrection. Apparently, republicans and conservatives, unless they are disavowed from their own party, can not support a functioning house committee. Given the chance to put a proper slate of republicans ("not chaosmen") on the committee—republican McCarthy balked. Given a chance to come in and testify under oath (to shore up) the Trump Administration points of view—republicans sat it out, "suddenly" remembering that courts do have a purpose, and are continuing to take detours through the courts. (Apparently now "unelected judges" mean something important to these elected republicans who can use the courts to delay or advance their whims.)  

And the clencher: These shady republicans who when it comes to Donald demand everything go to trial, have already condemned President Joe Biden without any evidence or any day in court and get this: have wish-lists of plans for committee hearings and investigation of Hunter Biden, the son of this president.  Whereby, they will insist their hearings are legitimate.

It is all bull crap and disgusting. I would state that this is retaliatory politics (you 'hit' me-I 'hit' you back) from the republicans and truth need not get involved, but that would be stating the obvious  It is the 'state of play' in red-state America and its leadership structure at this point.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.4.124  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.4.122    2 months ago
I STATED upfront that the committee is biased.

Which is different from "acknowledged"... how....exactly?  

As I have repeatedly told you, I do not demand anything. 

Thirty posts telling people to accept your view of these testimonies and then criticizing their character and/or intellect if they don't... And now you've stooped to passive-aggressive vague-posting about it on other seeds.  That's not demanding or anything.  Riiiight.  OK.  Fine.  You tell yourself whatever you need to.

So that is what you define as evidence??   Every minute recorded during testimony sessions, every word written in every document, text, email, etc. in the corpus of data for this committee??   Then you have a very generous definition for evidence.

The word in question was "data", and then later "information.  So once again, you are seeing a tiny, very carefully chosen (with extreme bias) sliver of the collected data.  The idea that you're trying to argue this is laughable.

Apparently you have the strange belief that in a trial, for example, the attorneys cart in wheel barrels full of raw material and present all of it to the judge and jury.

Or... you're misrepresenting people's views. Again.  And again.  Is it really that difficult for you to understand thought processes that vary from your own?  

I do expect that a trial will provide additional evidence we have not seen (as I have stated and this is again obvious)

Excellent.  We're agreeing on another point. 

Thus I do not dismiss the evidence provided by these under-oath testimonies of dozens of witnesses over 8 hearings as 'a tiny sliver'

For what seems like the 50 millionth time....I do not dismiss their testimonies.   I refuse to pretend they can be independent of their context.  I refuse to draw conclusions based on such a small sample of what I know to be skewed data.  Because of that, there is no value in analyzing data until a larger, more representative set of it is available.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.125  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.124    2 months ago
Which is different from "acknowledged"... how....exactly?  

Acknowledged = note something that has been affirmed;   stated = affirm something

That is how it differs ... exactly.

I stated upfront that the committee was biased.   You did nothing to convince me of that.   That has been my assessment from the start of the hearings.  

Thirty posts telling people to accept your view ...

That is a lie and I am frankly tired of making the same rebuttals to your same allegations.   You are engaging in theatrics.   If you intent is to be obnoxious, you have accomplished your objective.

The word in question was "data", and then later "information.  So once again, you are seeing a tiny, very carefully chosen (with extreme bias) sliver of the collected data. 

I will make the exact same point as I did before.   Do you think that a jury sees all the 'data' collected by the attorneys?    What is finally presented as evidence is going to be a highly filtered set of nuggets from possibly mountains of data.   So your 'sliver' comment which attempted to suggest that the public has mountains of evidential 'data' that they are not seeing in these hearings is nonsense.   The public (or a jury) will NEVER see all this data and will ALWAYS see a 'sliver' thus your complaint is ridiculous and I suspect intentionally misleading.

If this goes to trial, the defense attorneys will necessarily deliver a tiny subset of the available data.   So we have a tiny sliver from prosecutors and a tiny sliver from defense.    They will not bring in wheel barrows full of raw data for the jury to consider.   Your sliver point in terms of raw data (as you wish) is thus as valuable as 'politicians lie'.

We're agreeing on another point. 

I stated that we will almost assuredly see more evidence over time.   The evidence will come from this committee, from other media sources and if this goes to trial we will surely see more evidence.   This is obvious; it is not an agreement.  Unless, of course, you consider it an agreement if we both affirm that the Earth orbits the Sun.

I do not dismiss their testimonies. 

Then why are you arguing with me?    I do not dismiss their testimonies either.   So go ahead and not dismiss their testimonies in a way that suits you and I will not dismiss their testimonies in a way that suits me.

I refuse to pretend they can be independent of their context.  

You have stated that you believe the testimonies to likely be true:

Jack @5.4.97Once again... I am not downplaying or dismissing anything.  Nor do I think anybody is lying.

But then you ignore (which appears to be a dismissal to me) this likely true testimony because the committee is biased and you have not heard from the other side.

As I have stated repeatedly, I find it quite easy to look at the under-oath testimonies by high-ranking, connected Republicans who are compromising their careers to testify and make a judgment call that what they are saying is likely true.   And, given that, I find these hearings valuable.   They are providing information that is not likely to be rebutted.   

Repeating myself yet again, here are two examples:

EXAMPLE ONE:   I do not expect a rebuttal that argues Barr did not inform Trump that as a result of the DoJ investigations he has no credible evidence that would suggest a change in the election results.   I do not expect evidence showing that Barr did not tell Trump that his allegations were bullshit.

Information:  Trump knew from a credible source (his own AG) that his allegations were bullshit.   

Every testimony that states Trump was told further evidences the above information.   And you think these folks are likely telling the truth so what is your problem?   Why not take the above information as a probable fact?   Why not consider the information provided?  

EXAMPLE TWO:   Cipollone and others have stated that they told Trump that he needs to take action to stop the insurrectionists.   That Trump refused to act.  And that the only message he sent to them that encouraged them to stop came 187 minutes into the insurrection.

Information:  Trump knowingly and willingly refused to act (as PotUS) to stop an armed insurrection of the capitol.

Counter testimony might provide evidence that Trump did act to tell his supporters to cease and desist.  It would not be a tweet or a public video because nobody has seen anything like that.  But it is possible that the defense might find something.   Given what we know, it seems quite probable that Trump did indeed knowingly refuse to act to stop an armed insurrection of the capitol.

You are of course free to ignore these testimonies (even though you believe they are likely truthful).   I think that is short-sighted and silly given this is much higher quality information than what we normally get via the media.   But that is your option.   And it is MY option to suggest that these hearing are providing very good information (which you can then factor in with other information and your own judgment).

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.4.126  bugsy  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.124    2 months ago
Thirty posts telling people to accept your view of these testimonies and then criticizing their character and/or intellect if they don't... And now you've stooped to passive-aggressive vague-posting about it on other seeds.  That's not demanding or anything.  Riiiight.  OK.  Fine.  You tell yourself whatever you need to

I just read this just a few minutes ago posted almost the exact same thing to him. Most people do not acknowledge their biases, but try and place the same to others.

Don't point out his biases or else you will be ripped for not falling lock step into leftist group think.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
5.4.127  afrayedknot  replied to  bugsy @5.4.126    2 months ago

“Most people do not acknowledge their biases, but try and place the same to others.” 

Hypocrite, thy name is bugsy. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.4.128  bugsy  replied to  afrayedknot @5.4.127    2 months ago
Hypocrite, thy name is bugsy. 

Show me any post I have made that shows me being a hypocrite.

You won't because you can't, or you will just go the way of the leftist and make shit up.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.129  CB   replied to  afrayedknot @5.4.127    2 months ago

What comes out of MAGA is usually hypocritical and dense. And they say liberals like to argue pointlessly. All the while, Donald's GOP can't convince him to cut the 2020 election lie a loose. Why? Because that meathead still sees mileage in toting a big fat lie about Washington, D.C.

What needs to happen is exactly what the Committee is doing: Carrying on and ignoring the buffoonish taunts and intonations from MAGA's densest. MAGA is playing a game. It goes like this: If MAGA does not acknowledge the Committee's power over Donald; then it dilutes the Committee's power over it. And, the hunt (game) is afoot. Until the government puts its foot down and says it's had enough of the stalling and 'toying' with its approved methods.

At that point, you 'slam' the buffoons up against the proverbial wall and you tell them to knock off the bull crap, check themselves, and get back in the proverbial line: Just like everybody else.

'Problem solved. Otherwise: You, the collective you, die a figurative horrible death from talking (and commenting).

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.4.130  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @5.4.129    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.4.131  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @5.4.128    2 months ago

Well let's try a little experiment.

If a bunch of Biden supporters stormed the capitol immediately after Biden finished with a speech where he instructed them to march to the capitol on the backdrop of Biden spending months telling them that the election was rigged and that their votes have been disenfranchised, would you consider that evidence that Biden was culpable in the storming of the capitol?

My answer:  yes.   In fact you can substitute 'Biden' with any sitting PotUS and my answer would remain the same.

What is your answer?


Similarly, if a bunch of armed people (they need not even be Biden supporters) were breaking and entering the capitol building and Biden was informed that this was taking place, and Biden was pleaded to do something about it from advisors, family and 'friends', would you feel it a proper constitutional execution of his oath of office as CiC/PotUS for Biden to ignore their pleas and not step in to personally call off the crowd until hours later?

My answer:  no.   In fact you can substitute 'Biden' with any sitting PotUS and my answer would remain the same.

What is your answer?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.4.132  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.4.130    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.4.133  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @5.4.129    2 months ago

I would like to complement your reply, it was relatively clear, well done.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal