JBB

JBB

Live Commentary - January 6th Committee Hearing - Tuesday July 12th, 2022

  
By:  JBB  •  Opinions  •  4 weeks ago  •  189 comments

Live Commentary - January 6th Committee Hearing - Tuesday July 12th, 2022
Nobody Stood Up

The Congressional January 6th Committee is back in session today. What are your thoughts on the proceedings?

Tags

jrBlog - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  author  JBB    4 weeks ago

"Donald Trump summoned a mob to DC and ultimately urged them on to violence" - Chairman Thompson 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.1  afrayedknot  replied to  JBB @1    4 weeks ago

Incontrovertible.

And yet the apologists cling to condemning the process while ignoring the obvious. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  JBB  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1    4 weeks ago

Indubitably!

original

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

You forgot Hunter Biden

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2  devangelical    4 weeks ago

gee, I wonder which trumpsters will be standing outside their homes in boxers tomorrow morning...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1  author  JBB  replied to  devangelical @2    4 weeks ago

What's worse than finding Trump in your drawers?

original

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.1  afrayedknot  replied to  JBB @2.1    4 weeks ago

“What's worse than finding Trump in your drawers?”

Those neighbors, friends and family on all fours. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.2  author  JBB  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

Worse?

Back in the good olde days Americans took it damn seriously when the losers conspired to violently stop the reelection of an American President...

original

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.1.3  Revillug  replied to  JBB @2.1.2    4 weeks ago
Back in the good olde days Americans took it damn seriously

Maybe too seriously?

The Wikipedia article you link to has this to say:

She maintained her innocence until her death, and the case against her was and remains controversial. Surratt was the mother of John Surratt , who was later tried, but due to statute of limitations, was not convicted.

I hope they got hanged the right people.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.4  author  JBB  replied to  Revillug @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

Oh, they got guilty people, just not all of them.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.1.5  Revillug  replied to  JBB @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

I've always been against the death penalty, even for people that need hanging. 

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.1.6  Revillug  replied to  JBB @2.1.4    4 weeks ago
They’re selling postcards of the hanging;
They’re painting the passports brown;
The beauty parlor is filled with sailors;
The circus is in town.

Dylan's Desolation Row

I'm not trying to compare the image of a lawful execution of traitors to a mob lynching.

But I do find the image disturbing and I imagine the postcards of lynchings were equally if not more awful.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
2.1.7  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Revillug @2.1.6    4 weeks ago

"Dirty Diaper Donnie" supported the hanging of Pence on the Capital steps, as a mob of crazed riprap deadbeats killed, crushed, injured and stormed the Capital Building.

Once in these maroonsjrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gif threw shat on the wall, shouted out for OAC, Nancy Pelosi with the intent to slaughter them.

I think Trump deserves a slow hanging on Pay For View over days, perhaps weeks, while the Nation Citizens places bet on when the Devil will take his soul.

Dirty Diaper's complicit family, aides, attorneys, and appointees are forced to watch, waiting on their turn in the "the Hangman's Noose."

All profits should go towards paying off the National Debt.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.8  CB   replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @2.1.7    4 weeks ago

Friend, you're a cruel man. ;)

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.9  author  JBB  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @2.1.7    4 weeks ago

The Prime Time audience would be YUGE!

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.1.10  Revillug  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @2.1.7    4 weeks ago

Take my upvote but I will reiterate that I am against the death penalty 24/7/365.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
2.1.11  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Revillug @2.1.10    4 weeks ago

I shall take that down in my note and bring it up with George Carlin at my next meeting with him. I run everything by him first.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
2.1.12  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  JBB @2.1.9    4 weeks ago

Thank you, as a registered idiot, full time moron, I am not familiar with YUGE. However, I will Google it, then ask my mentor, George Carlin, for permission.

BTW:  I just got a message stating that Pierre Halpern is "Offline!"

Does that mean we can "Party"?

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.1.13  Revillug  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @2.1.11    4 weeks ago

If you run into him before I do tell him, "thanks."

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
2.1.14  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  CB @2.1.8    3 weeks ago

Thank you, you don't know how long I have been waiting for someone to notice.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.15  CB   replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @2.1.14    3 weeks ago

LOL!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3  igknorantzrulz    4 weeks ago

Lost 60 out of 61 legal challenges in court and the won victory as i recall, was to allow vote verifiers acloser proximity. Attorney General Barr calls it "BULLSHIT", Trumps claims of election fraud. Trump's closest defy subpoenas, why, because they have nothing to hide...? What a complete FCKN JOKE, that ANYONE, with all that is out there, still defends the LOSER 45. He is a pERMANENT STAIN on this once Great Country, and his duped Cult Following are the reason he came about and is still relevant today. What a Sad Sorry Country we have become, where a pussy grabbing Lil' Kim Putin praising Prick, who after ALL OF HIS LIES and dirty dealings, still has such a following with so many spieling, back as wards, spoken and believed, by the fools deceived. Pass the Kool Aid FOOLS, cause unfortunately, igknorantzrulz !

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1  author  JBB  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3    4 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4  author  JBB    4 weeks ago

"We are here because the Republicans in the Senate failed to do their job in Trump's impeachment trials".

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5  author  JBB    4 weeks ago

F.O.S. = "Friends Of Stone"...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @5    4 weeks ago

He uses the proud boys as body guards and he is actually a proud boy.  One of their members.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6  Nerm_L    4 weeks ago

Still no indictment.  And, based on news reporting, Liz Cheney is running the hearings now.  Cheney has become the face of the hearings.

At this point, the committee hearings only reinforce the perception that Democrats can't do anything.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1  author  JBB  replied to  Nerm_L @6    4 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Nerm_L @6    4 weeks ago

Accept that Liz Cheney is A REPUBLICAN, who voted with Trump over 90% of the time. Besides, the witnesses, by far the majority of have  been republicans as well, their TESTIMONY, speaks for itself, and certainpeople wish not to see or hear the TRUTH 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.2    4 weeks ago
Accept that Liz Cheney is A REPUBLICAN, who voted with Trump over 90% of the time. Besides, the witnesses, by far the majority of have  been republicans as well, their TESTIMONY, speaks for itself, and certain people wish not to see or hear the TRUTH 

Yep.  It looks like Democrats aren't even involved, let alone in charge.  Liz Cheney is the face of the hearings.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.1    4 weeks ago
Yep.  It looks like Democrats aren't even involved, let alone in charge.  Liz Cheney is the face of the hearings.

If that were true would you find that to be a bad thing?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.2.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.2    4 weeks ago

It is true by design. A former high ranking Republican investigating Trump, the former potUS as it is a bipartisan group, and the aesthetics are much better painted by that same party leading this charge imho,, as they have already labeled it partisan. But as McCarthy put forth two unacceptable Trumpy water carriers who would have been essentially investigating themselves., AND McCarthy, as well as many others in the GOP surprise party to not many, for they play and prey upon the weak minded.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.2.3    4 weeks ago
It is true by design

Nerm claimed that the Ds are not involved must less in charge.   That is certainly not true.

Liz Cheney is quite prominent and is the R face of the committee, but she is the vice-chair with Bennie Thompson as the chair.

And while bi-partisan, it is clearly skewed D with only 2 R members and 7 D members.

But the witnesses are all Rs and mostly high ranking, highly connected Rs.   So the witnesses are very R biased.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.2.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.4    4 weeks ago

Agreed. The witnesses and their stated words are far more important than who is asking questions, as their testimony bears out the facts, and the fact that they are by far almost all Republican, defeats Nerms argument. Besides, it was McCarthy that made this one sided with his take my ball home attitude. How are you supposed to put Jim Jordan or Jim Banks on the committee?...Trump lackeys , yes men, deniers and attempted defenders of the burnt out brain consisting of dust and embers, for after two impeachments with barely any Republican support to oust the abort, portion as they still lack laments, which cements the evidence they be not worthy, to servy, on any committee, for they obviously take pity, on 45, the piece of shitty they never tried to wipe clean, from their sold out soles, as their arguments is as a whole, made and for, As A Whole (s) who believe ANYTHING that Trump sold  them  as they are heavily invested, and doubt they could contest it, but why in such a person, as the one i and so many, truly detested, does one make such an investment.....unless they are attempting to play down their parts, in the Insurrection that they themselves had been immersed in, as in  the swamp Trump promised to drain, to find the best of the worst, and unfortunately, he suck ceded.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.6  CB   replied to  TᵢG @6.2.4    4 weeks ago

And the witnesses are true conservatives while MAGA is ruthless, inconsiderate, and selfish conservatives intent on lying, cheating, and stealing the country like it was 1776!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.7  CB   replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.2.5    4 weeks ago

Jim Jordan, that "heel' would have considered this committee another "WWE" moment for him to remember how to take it to the mat! MAGA world would be 'rootin in the stands' as good old Jim would have been figuratively gouching eyeballs, fist-fighting, delivering 'ball' shots, and pinching the democratic committee members and the RINOS he sees out in the congressional 'field' before him!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.1    4 weeks ago

Is it your posit that videotapes of Committee members asking questions during depositions are faked? 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.2.9  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.2    4 weeks ago
If that were true would you find that to be a bad thing?

The whole point of the committee hearings is to influence public opinion.  The Jan. 6th committee is a political body engaged in a political activity conducted by politicians.  As you have pointed out, the committee doesn't have the authority to actually do anything tangible.

So, public perception is not a trivial matter.  News reporting has made Liz Cheney the face of the hearings.  According to news reporting it appears that Liz Cheney is running the committee.  Democrats are not prominent in the news reporting.

Liz Cheney is going after Trump; Democrats are only along for the ride.  The news media has made the hearings about divisions within the Republican Party and a battle for the heart & soul of the Republican Party.  And Mitt Romney Republicans aren't faring well.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.2.10  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @6.2.8    4 weeks ago
Is it your posit that videotapes of Committee members asking questions during depositions are faked? 

The public is not engrossed in the Jan 6th hearings.  The public is only aware of what is happening based upon news reporting.  Argle-bargle technicalities won't influence public opinion.  Those argle-bargle technicalities are important in a criminal prosecution but the committee is not going to indict, prosecute, or imprison Trump.  The committee is not going to do anything tangible.

And based on news reporting, Liz Cheney is running the hearings.  There are very few news report on the hearings that do not include Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger.  The news media has turned the hearings into a story about Republicans going after Trump. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.9    4 weeks ago
The whole point of the committee hearings is to influence public opinion.  The Jan. 6th committee is a political body engaged in a political activity conducted by politicians.  As you have pointed out, the committee doesn't have the authority to actually do anything tangible.

So, public perception is not a trivial matter.  News reporting has made Liz Cheney the face of the hearings.  According to news reporting it appears that Liz Cheney is running the committee.  Democrats are not prominent in the news reporting.

Liz Cheney is going after Trump; Democrats are only along for the ride.  The news media has made the hearings about divisions within the Republican Party and a battle for the heart & soul of the Republican Party.  And Mitt Romney Republicans aren't faring well.

So what point are you trying to make with the above?    If the Rs were running the committee (albeit they are not) why would that a bad thing?   After all, Trump was an R PotUS.   It is better (more credible) for Rs to investigate the most recent PotUS and current leader of their party than for the opposition to do so.   Thus if the Ds were to not be involved that would offer a more credible way to influence public opinion.

Similarly, since the witnesses are almost all connected and high-ranking Rs, that is far more credible than a bunch of D witnesses.

So, again, why would an R lead on this committee be a bad thing?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.10    4 weeks ago
The news media has turned the hearings into a story about Republicans going after Trump. 

The Rs should be going after Trump.   The GoP looks like shit and should clean up its act.

Further, anyone who watches even excerpts from these hearings should catch on to the fact that the evidence is typically coming from high-ranking, connected Republicans and not coming from the opposition.    

All seems good to me.   We need forces that provide information to the public even if many turn their heads in absurd willful ignorance.   Public information is critical for a functioning democracy and later on, if our system is not so crippled with partisan politics, we will see indictments and a formal trial.    At that point, we will be watching our system continue to operate as it should but now in the adjudication dimension.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.10    4 weeks ago

You used a lot of words yet failed to answer my simple question. 

I did not address 'the public' or the 'news media'. I addressed YOUR assertion. 

BTFW, a ONE sentence question can hardly be characterized as argle-bargle. I hate to see good phrases like that abused and misused. 

Now, do you have an answer to my question or are you just going to continue to deflect? 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.2.14  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.11    4 weeks ago
So what point are you trying to make with the above?    If the Rs were running the committee (albeit they are not) why would that a bad thing?   After all, Trump was an R PotUS.   It is better (more credible) for Rs to investigate the most recent PotUS and current leader of their party than for the opposition to do so.   Thus if the Ds were to not be involved that would offer a more credible way to influence public opinion.

Democrats were responsible for an almost two year investigation by a Special Council and two impeachments.  Democrats played up the Jan 6th hearings.  And now it appears that the effort to get Trump is being led by a Republican.

And the hearings are being conducted against the backdrop of a Biden administration that botches up everything, pursues the wrong priorities, and seems incapable of providing any leadership.  Democrats have been ineffectual.

The public perception is that Democrats can't do anything when they are in charge.  Allowing Liz Cheney to become the face of the hearings reinforces public perception that Republicans need to be in charge.  

Liz Cheney will be responsible for a Trump indictment.  Democrats have tried several times and failed every time.  Republicans get things done; Democrats can't accomplish anything even when they are in charge.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.2.15  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @6.2.13    4 weeks ago
You used a lot of words yet failed to answer my simple question. 

I did not address 'the public' or the 'news media'. I addressed YOUR assertion. 

BTFW, a ONE sentence question can hardly be characterized as argle-bargle. I hate to see good phrases like that abused and misused. 

Now, do you have an answer to my question or are you just going to continue to deflect? 

You raised an unimportant and inconsequential point.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.14    4 weeks ago

Oh so your 'point' is that the committee is back-firing because you think the public sees this as an R committee and thus concludes that only Rs can get things done.

Nothing like divining a reality and then finding a convoluted path of reasoning to support it.

Liz Cheney will be responsible for a Trump indictment. 

If so, then that would be good.   The evidence is coming from Republicans for a rogue R PotUS.   That is good.   If Trump is indicted then that is good for our nation and the GoP (long term).   It is especially good for the GoP if the indictment is based on testimony of Republicans.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.2.17  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.16    4 weeks ago
Oh so your 'point' is that the committee is back-firing because you think the public sees this as an R committee and thus concludes that only Rs can get things done. Nothing like divining a reality and then finding a convoluted path of reasoning to support it.

The whole point of the Jan 6th committee was to influence public opinion.  That's why the public hearings opened with a prime-time media blitz.

Democrats even screwed up their own media event by losing control.  Liz Cheney is leading the hearings and she isn't even in charge.

If so, then that would be good.   The evidence is coming from Republicans for a rogue R PotUS.   That is good.   If Trump is indicted then that is good for our nation and the GoP (long term).   It is especially good for the GoP if the indictment is based on testimony of Republicans.

WHEN?  When, when, when?  Get off the toilet, pull up the knickers, and throw Trump in prison.

DO SOMETHING.

Democrats have been harping about Trump for six years.  And Democrats haven't accomplished anything.  Either do something or get out of the way.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.18  CB   replied to  TᵢG @6.2.11    4 weeks ago

Nerm has no point. Evidently, Liz Cheney is not even acceptable to MAGA as is not supporting her back home in Wyoming. People like Nerm have turned their backs on the two republicans on the January 6 Committee. Now, she has become the distraction on the committee for exploiting and diminishing the committee's impact amongst MAGA consciousness.

I am going to call bullshit on MAGA and Nerm for once again letting MAGA enable Trump to 'bubblewrap' and soundproof its collective head.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.19  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.14    4 weeks ago

Just pathetic.

A witness testifies that we have a militia problem in this country that is seeking to stir up a 'new' civil war and that in this recent instance, Donald Trump, was "all-in" to trying to ignite the match that would cause a conservative resolution ("red wedding")—in 2024 it could happen again.

And then there is Nerm in here desperately spreading MAGA propaganda across this board about as a form of drawing 'flies' to a cow patty.

 
 
 
Brucelina
Freshman Silent
6.2.20  Brucelina  replied to  CB @6.2.18    4 weeks ago

Liz Cheney embodies what a strong woman should be. A true role model for all of us.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.21  CB   replied to  TᵢG @6.2.16    4 weeks ago

Furthermore, it is fitting that Liz Cheney, a proper conservative at least, should go after the meathead (Trump) who is doing his best to sack her political career and reputation among Wyomingans.

Nerm knows how this works in real life. He is here on a personal misadventure of distraction. Nobody can be this detached from reality and still be able to put thoughts down on paper or bang on a keyboard. This is indulgent bull patty.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.2.22  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @6.2.19    4 weeks ago
Just pathetic.

A witness testifies that we have a militia problem in this country that is seeking to stir up a 'new' civil war and that in this recent instance, Donald Trump, was "all-in" to trying to ignite the match that would cause a conservative resolution ("red wedding")—in 2024 it could happen again.

And then there is Nerm in here desperately spreading MAGA propaganda across this board about as a form of drawing 'flies' to a cow patty.

So, throw Trump in prison.  We're still waiting.  And waiting.  And waiting.  How long does it take to grow a backbone?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.23  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.22    4 weeks ago
"So, throw Trump in prison.  We're still waiting.  And waiting.  And waiting.  How long does it take to grow a backbone?"

We're still waiting for whatshisnames supporters to grow one.  

giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47wkwdyu8uc3wigi5cds13v8t7csa1dh3w8tjklt1i&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

We're also still waiting on those Durham indictments on the entire Obama administration.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.24  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.17    4 weeks ago

You keep repeating yourself.  I am not going to keep repeating my answer.  Bye.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.25  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.22    4 weeks ago

Stop enabling meathead Donald Trump. Tell the truth. Encourage others to do the same. And nature will take its course. Just as soon as you and others depart from throwing good republicans under the bus and out of the party. It is shameful what is being done here: MAGA calling and threatening witnesses, forcing out proper conservatives from the party, and lying that is becoming a "constitutional party." Shame on the constitution if all it sums up to is lies, cheating, and theft as a means of gain.

MAGA ought to be ashamed and go away from public scrutiny. Of course, it is not.

 
 
 
Brucelina
Freshman Silent
6.2.26  Brucelina  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.23    4 weeks ago
We're also still waiting on those Durham indictments on the entire Obama administration.

Oh those mouth breathers have moved on. They are all infatuated with Hunter Biden because he actually has a lot of sex.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.27  CB   replied to  Brucelina @6.2.20    4 weeks ago

In this case, she is on the side of telling the truth and appears to be disciplined and adhering to principle and a sense of integrity. She is not a liberal by any meaning of the word I have read, and that is a set of issues for another day!

 
 
 
Brucelina
Freshman Silent
6.2.28  Brucelina  replied to  CB @6.2.27    4 weeks ago

Oh i know that, I still remember her father. He was an awful man.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.29  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.22    4 weeks ago

And by the way, MAGA is very opinionated against un-MAGA people and matters. It's not helpful to pretend MAGA is not ruining republican lives and careers, just to shelter a 76 years old meathead who can't tell the truth to save his own life I mean, I get it must be hard to defend a fraudster so severe in his character that he can't be placed under oath for fear that he would perjure himself repeatedly before a pre-scheduled break in any proceeding.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.30  CB   replied to  Brucelina @6.2.28    4 weeks ago

And there is the rub. Dick Cheney can't be taking kindly to Donald Trump 'messin' with his pride and joy: Liz Cheney. Yet, the Cheney family has remained silent and behind the scene. But, one can only wonder how loud it is or meticulous the work is going on in the 'sound-proofed' spaces of the Cheneys.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.31  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.17    4 weeks ago

Jan. 6 hearings are making it harder for Republicans to keep the Trump charade going

Travis Long/tlong@newsobserver.com
the Editorial Board
Wed, July 13, 2022 at 10:02 AM
January 6 is not behind us — the House select committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol has made that much clear.

The committee has held seven public hearings so far, gradually putting together the pieces of Donald Trump’s dangerous election lies and how they ultimately led to an attempted coup.

It seems almost unthinkable that someone could watch the hearings and still manage to find the behavior of Trump and his allies defensible. So maybe that’s why Republicans refuse to take them seriously.

North Carolina Senate leader Phil Berger is one of many Republicans who claims he hasn’t been watching the hearings, calling them “fictional readings.”

“I think what’s going on there is an effort to paint a picture that is an exaggeration in many respects of what happened … or maybe even just a fictional account of what someone’s perception is of people’s motivations,” Berger told WRAL’s Travis Fain on a podcast last week .

But Berger and his fellow Republicans should really start paying attention.

At Tuesday’s hearing, the committee explained how Trump intentionally   summoned a mob to the nation’s capital   and directed the mob to wage an attack on our democracy.

In December 2020, after the Electoral College officially confirmed Joe Biden as the winner of the election, Trump sent a tweet urging his supporters to come to Washington on Jan. 6, writing, “Be there, will be wild!”

That tweet, the committee said, served as a call to action and, in some cases, a call to arms for Trump supporters. They began to organize in the darkest corners of the internet, calling Jan. 6 a “once in a lifetime moment.”

It was all planned. The potential for violence was obvious. And it was all based on a lie that Trump and those in his inner circle knew was untrue.

So far, the committee has told us about Trump’s knowingly false election fraud conspiracy, a   fake electors scheme , a   pressure campaign on state election officials , his attempts to   strong-arm the Justice Department   and an illegal plot to block or delay the   certification of Electoral College votes on Jan. 6 .

Unfortunately, even the most damning of the committee’s findings don’t seem to be enough to sway Republicans. Since the hearings began, the GOP has largely either ignored them or attempted to discredit them altogether. They have, on various occasions, called the committee a “sham,” a “clown show,” a “witch hunt,” and a “kangaroo court.” They’ve also encouraged Americans to turn their attention to other television programming, such as the U.S. Open, “Gunsmoke” and   HGTV .

And despite all we’ve learned, many Republicans continue to at least implicitly support the former president, who has long said he   plans to run again in 2024 . Several of the committee’s witnesses have expressed concern for the next election cycle, including Jason Van Tatenhove, a former spokesman for the Oath Keepers, a violent militia group that was deeply involved in the events of Jan. 6.

“If a president that’s willing to try to instill and encourage, whip up a civil war among his followers, using lies and deceit and snake oil, regardless of the human impact, what else is he going to do if he gets elected again?” Van Tatenhove said before the committee Tuesday.

The committee has promised that next week’s hearing will be a “profound moment of reckoning” for America. Hopefully, Republicans will join in that reckoning.

After all, the GOP’s refusal to take Trump and the threat he posed seriously is a big reason why he got elected in the first place. Their refusal to deny his blatantly false claims about the 2020 election helped Jan. 6 happen. And now, after everything that’s happened, too many of them are still unwilling to summon the political courage to speak up. They’re putting party first and democracy last.

“President Trump is a 76-year-old man. He is not an impressionable child. Just like everyone else in our country, he is responsible for his own actions and his own choices,” Rep. Liz Cheney, the committee’s Republican vice chairwoman, said Tuesday.

When will Republicans finally admit that?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.2.32  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.31    4 weeks ago
Jan. 6 hearings are making it harder for Republicans to keep the Trump charade going

So, throw Trump in prison.  We're still waiting.  Can't Democrats do anything other than flap their gums and point fingers?

If Liz Cheney gets an indictment of Trump then why should Democrats get any credit?  Are Democrats planning to throw Cheney under the bus and take credit for what Cheney got done?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.33  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.32    4 weeks ago
We're still waiting.

That is up to the DoJ.   You keep saying this as if to suggest that the lack of an indictment means there is not going to be one.   The process will proceed and only when the DoJ states that it will indict or not indict do we have anything to speak of.

If Liz Cheney gets an indictment of Trump then why should Democrats get any credit?  

Who gives a shit?   Good grief Nerm, why wallow in these pointless questions?

Personally, I care about ensuring that no PotUS gets away with trying to steal (implicitly illegal / unconstitutional activities) a USA election.   To that end I applaud information and want to see a trial.   I personally do not care who gets credit but rather that justice is done.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.2.34  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.33    4 weeks ago
Who gives a shit?   Good grief Nerm, why wallow in these pointless questions? Personally, I care about ensuring that no PotUS gets away with trying to steal (implicitly illegal / unconstitutional activities) a USA election.   To that end I applaud information and want to see a trial.   I personally do not care who gets credit but rather that justice is done.

Wallowing in these questions is important for addressing misinformation.  A POTUS trying to steal a USA election is complete and utter malarkey that illustrates the misinformation being spread around so liberally. 

There won't be any Federal indictments concerning the elections because the Federal government does not conduct elections.  If Trump violated election laws then those would be state election laws.  And the indictments would come from state Attorney Generals.  The Federal government (and Congress) wouldn't be involved.

AG Merrick Garland only has jurisdiction over Federal prosecution of Federal crimes.  That's why the Jan 6th hearings haven't investigated violations of election laws; that's outside the Federal government's jurisdiction.  The Jan 6th hearings are not about Trump trying to steal an election.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.35  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.34    4 weeks ago
A POTUS trying to steal a USA election is complete and utter malarkey that illustrates the misinformation being spread around so liberally. 

What a staggering admission of willful blindness.

There won't be any Federal indictments concerning the elections because the Federal government does not conduct elections.  If Trump violated election laws then those would be state election laws.  And the indictments would come from state Attorney Generals.  The Federal government (and Congress) wouldn't be involved.

He will likely be indicted for sedition, not for violating election laws.   Where do you get 'violation of election laws' from?   Nobody is talking in those terms.   The issues are:

  • Suborning his VP to commit an unconstitutional act
  • Coercing officials to find votes
  • Coercing officials to submit fake electors
  • Falsely inciting the public to believe that our election system is fraudulent and thus acting against our government based on pure lies
  • Encouraging supporters (who were known to be armed) to march on the capitol
  • Encouraging supporters to believe that his own VP is part of a conspiracy to disenfranchise votes
  • Knowingly allowing an armed insurrection of his supporters to break and enter the Capitol building without lifting a finger to stop this for several hours in spite of the pleas from advisors, family and 'friends'.
  • ...

There is nothing in the above about Trump violating election laws.

The Jan 6th hearings are not about Trump trying to steal an election.

Amazing.   What in your mind do you think the Jan 6th insurrection was about?    What, in your mind, was Trump trying to accomplish by getting Pence to table state votes that went to Biden?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
6.2.36  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.33    4 weeks ago
That is up to the DoJ.

Who have had 18 months under the supervision of a Democratic administration to investigate....yet do not seem to think they have found anything warranting an indictment.

   You keep saying this as if to suggest that the lack of an indictment means there is not going to be one.

Every day that goes by reduces the probability.

   The process will proceed and only when the DoJ states that it will indict or not indict do we have anything to speak of.

The DOJ is either going to indict or stay silent.  Meanwhile the sales-pitch will continue through the elections, with Democrats hoping the show will help them save a few seats.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.37  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.34    4 weeks ago

Your comment illustrates misinformation being spread around liberally. 

There ARE Federal statutes that enable the DOJ to prosecute Trump for Conspiracy and Obstruction of the Constitutional mandate to count the Electoral College votes. 

18 U.S.C. § 371

18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.2.36    4 weeks ago
... yet do not seem to think they have found anything warranting an indictment.

Why do you presume they have not found anything warranting an indictment?   The lack of an indictment does not mean they have nothing.   Another real possibility is that they are building their case, devising their strategy and weighing the politics and are not yet ready (timing wise) to issue indictments.

Every day that goes by reduces the probability.

You have evidently devised a model for how things must be done in order to quantify relative probabilities.   

The DOJ is either going to indict or stay silent.  Meanwhile the sales-pitch will continue through the elections, with Democrats hoping the show will help them save a few seats.

With the high visibility of this I doubt the DoJ is going to be silent.   If they choose to not indict they will at least communicate that.   I would say the best interpretation of silence is that they are in process and not that they have chosen to not indict.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.2.39  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @6.2.37    4 weeks ago
Your comment illustrates misinformation being spread around liberally. 

There ARE Federal statutes that enable the DOJ to prosecute Trump for Conspiracy and Obstruction of the Constitutional mandate to count the Electoral College votes. 

18 U.S.C. § 371

18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)

So, why ain't Trump in prison?  Everyone has all the answers except that one.

I'm not defending Trump.  I'm asking why Democrats are letting Trump get away with it.  When are Democrats going to actually do something?

Liz Cheney appears to be dong more than are Democrats.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.40  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.39    4 weeks ago
So, why ain't Trump in prison?

Because he has not yet been indicted, tried and found to be guilty.   

Even the committee is still gathering information as new witnesses are starting to now agree to testify (e.g. Cipollone).  What makes you think the DoJ has finished its investigation?   

Not fast enough for your personal timeline?   Get used to it.   This will proceed at a pace not determined by you.

In the end it is possible that the DoJ will not indict Trump.   All we can do is wait to see what they decide.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.41  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.39    4 weeks ago
So, why ain't Trump in prison? 

The evidence is just now being gathered. 

Everyone has all the answers except that one.

NO ONE has all the answers. 

I'm not defending Trump.  I'm asking why Democrats are letting Trump get away with it.  When are Democrats going to actually do something?

Actually Nerm, you're making a crap load of unfounded and unsubstantiated assertions that are FALSE.  

Liz Cheney appears to be dong more than are Democrats.

Freudian slip?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.42  CB   replied to  TᵢG @6.2.40    4 weeks ago

Because some or most of what Donald Trump has done is politically charged malfeasance, deserving to be dealt with at the party level where campaign 'bosses' pick and declare who can run under its banner. Nerm knows this! He is asking leading questions about why a democratic DOJ has not found legal reason to indict a republican leader when he knows the onus is on the GOP to heave meathead Donald J. Trump out of his leadership role into a political desert!

Once again, MAGA is trying to steer discussion aground from the deepening waters under the GOP desire to keep filthy, nasty, and outright I will get people killed in my name-Donald J. Trump. Donald Trump left the capitol rioters to a man hanging out to dry and Ashley Babbitt is gone because of a BIG LIE that Donald constructed from whole cloth.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.2.43  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.40    4 weeks ago
Not fast enough for your personal timeline?   Get used to it.   This will proceed at a pace not determined by you.

Mueller made indictments.  And Mueller was appointed Special Counsel without Congressional investigations.  Seems the least Democrats could be doing is calling for a Special Counsel.

If Garland refuses to do his job as AG then Democrats can pressure Garland to appoint a Special Counsel.  That's what Democrats did to get Mueller appointed.  So, what's holding back Democrats now?

Democrats can speed up the process to warp speed since Democrats are in charge of Congress and the White House.  Or is all this really not the point of what Democrats are doing?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.44  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.43    4 weeks ago

You can keep asking questions about the internals of the DoJ all day long but nobody on this forum has inside information.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.2.45  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.39    4 weeks ago
So, why ain't Trump in prison?  Everyone has all the answers except that one. I'm not defending Trump.  I'm asking why Democrats are letting Trump get away with it.  When are Democrats going to actually do something?

Trump would have, and should have been removed from office, but the GOP was grabbed by Trump, like a bunch of pussys' Trump is on record as stating, and these 'pussies' refused to remove Trump, because their voters were not yet against him, and these'pussies', chose to put their pathetic party, above our once great nation, and that is cause we should never have allowed, but peoples too ignorant to even watch these hearings, where REPUBLICANS were actually Forced to testify under subpoenas, and it is absolutely amazing how their testimony paints a picture of a crazed 'man' doing all he can, to stay in power, where if they had spoken up in real time, Trump the slime, would have been washed away. Because they chose to have nothing to say, we had the events of 1/6 and to this day, an ENORMOUS amount of evidence, not going Trumps' way. 

You ARE defending Trump. 

And how you ask why 'Democrats' "are letting Trump get away with it." is laughable. 

The REPUBLICANS, from bringing him forth and giving him the nomination as the future Abomination to replace an Obama Nation, that the 'right' had painted as a nightmare and fed into the fears that Trump used to persuade ones, that wetre all ears and quite happy to have someone different, to blame, for our Countries predicaments, and their lowered status in a society declining due to an entitlement attitude without gratitude for how fortunate they truly were to be here. For our decline is due to a country that thought it was better than others, while shunning the hard work and education required to compete in the present world.

To blame Democrats for allowing Trump to "get away with it." is completely laughable. He is only still around because he wields power over ignorance, and people NOT watching these hearings, totally supports this. Why would someone want to know the truth, when they will have to admit they were, have been, and continue to be WRONG, about Trump. The Republicans OWN Trump, CONGRATULATIONS Nerm !

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
6.2.46  Thomas  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.22    4 weeks ago

The House impeached him twice,  the result of which was to send it to the Senate for "trail". The Senate on both occasions said," , Duhhh Huh, I don't see anything that bad. Donny please play nice," because they were Republican and wished to be re-elected. Period. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.47  CB   replied to  TᵢG @6.2.44    4 weeks ago

It's a distraction: Nerm and Trump enablers keep upping the ante. But mind you when the House minority had a chance to do an assist in taking down Donald politically, they wanted 'take it to the mat' Jim(my) Jordan and another 'high-octane' gaslighter to land and gadfly the Commission. They don't want anybody to charge Trump. In fact, it is already established that old wannabe 'Speaker' McCarthy is conspiring to get a nod from Donald that should he win the mid-term the commission would be dissolved and its records tossed, shelved, or disputed into chaos.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
6.2.48  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.2    4 weeks ago

TiG: Is the "T (small case i) G," initials you use, code for "Thank intelligent God"?

I, too, am a Spiritual Sentient with special gifts of intuiting. 
The portals on Skinwalker Ranch are open things up, if you want to go home.

Do not spread it around.  You know how greedy people tend to get when someone discovers a new Space Portal.

Put it under your red hat for safe keeping.

PS: 

Liz Cheney goes "both ways"!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.49  TᵢG  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @6.2.48    4 weeks ago
Liz Cheney goes "both ways"!

You are confusing her with her younger sister Mary.   Liz is heterosexual.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2.50  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.49    4 weeks ago

he probably got confused because liz has bigger balls than any trump-fucks in congress...

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
6.2.51  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.39    4 weeks ago

Well, it depends on whether one watches the hearing drunk or sober, I suppose.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
6.2.52  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  devangelical @6.2.50    4 weeks ago

That is a possibility. Republicans in Congress are now searching for their, but, coming up short.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
6.2.53  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.31    3 weeks ago

Trump told the world Mexico will build it. They didn't.

Trump lost the records of 2500 children and has no idea what happen to them.

Trump policy of separating child from their mother was very humane, Christian, and designed to save the children from their parents.

Thousands of children were sexually abused.

That's a great policy!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6.2.54  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @6.2.36    3 weeks ago
had 18 months under the supervision of a Democratic administration to investigate

Every day that goes by reduces the probability.

The Watergate break in occurred June 17th, 1972. Richard Nixon didn't resign until the investigation got to a point where he knew impeachment was a certainty which wasn't until August 8th, 1974 over two years later. Even after that more and more information and evidence of Nixon's crimes were released to the public over the next several decades. I have no doubt the same will be true of Trump and his administration, we'll likely spend decades getting to the whole truth in regards to January 6th.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
6.2.55  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2.54    3 weeks ago
The Watergate break in occurred June 17th, 1972. Richard Nixon didn't resign until the investigation got to a point where he knew impeachment was a certainty which wasn't until August 8th, 1974 over two years later.

The 1972 DOJ was controlled by Nixon and actively attempted to cover up the entire situation.  Yes, it took two years.

The current DOJ is controlled by the opposing party and is actively pursuing the investigation.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6    4 weeks ago
Still no indictment.

So what?   This committee does not issue indictments.   

The DoJ will or will not indict based upon its considerations.   Based on the testimony and the balance of publicly known facts (many we all have witnessed) if they do not indict I will chalk it up to a political calculation rather than the blind pursuit of justice.

You are implying that the lack of an indictment means this is all bullshit.   That is not even remotely objective.

Cheney has become the face of the hearings.

Okay, if she has then ... again ... so what?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.3.1  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @6.3    4 weeks ago
So what?   This committee does not issue indictments.   

It does put on one ratings disaster of a partisan show trial. One with no cross examination of any witnesses; and that only releases information that supports their demented views.

The DoJ will or will not indict based upon its considerations. Based on the testimony and the balance of publicly known facts (many we all have witnessed) if they do not indict I will chalk it up to a political calculation rather than the blind pursuit of justice.

The DOJ had better demand all of the interviews and evidence. They had better conduct their own interviews as well to see which witnesses crack and admit they testified the way the committee wanted them to. You know that any defense for Trump will absolutely demand all of the evidence be released; and that will pour over all of the evidence for find all of the holes the Jan 6th committee chose to omit. Garland wants to press charges- nothing would make him happier. If he loses he is instantly done. 

You are implying that the lack of an indictment means this is all bullshit.   That is not even remotely objective.

We are implying that a partisan shit show trial by hand picked Pelosi puppets is not even remotely objective. The evidence they are providing isn't even remotely objective. The evidence they are ignoring and hiding is definitely what matters.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @6.3.1    4 weeks ago
The evidence they are providing isn't even remotely objective.

This is not a trial so do not expect cross-examination, etc.   This is a presentation of under oath testimony from Republican witnesses who were highly connected with the PotUS.

We all can use our brains (some choose to not do so) and evaluate what it means, for example, for a PotUS to send out tweets encouraging supporters to march on the Capitol on Jan 6th "it will be wild" and then, after violence ensued, to not lift a finger to stop it for hours in spite of the pleading to do so by advisors, family and 'friends'. 

What I see is people like you denying what is in front of your face.

The evidence they are ignoring and hiding is definitely what matters.

Conspiracy theory.    Assuming this goes to trial, I predict you will continue to reject all the damning evidence with a new set of excuses.   

Why you continue to defend Trump is beyond explanation.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.3.3  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.2    4 weeks ago
This is not a trial so do not expect cross-examination, etc.   This is a presentation of under oath testimony from Republican witnesses who were highly connected with the PotUS.

No, this is an investigative committee that is supposed to be made up both parties. Not Pelosi hand picked partisan TDS driven morons with only one goal, to get Trump. Why do you think it is so damn important for the committee to portray that there are Republicans on it? So it doesn't lose all credibility. Have you ever watched a real investigative committee? The party that is out off power is merciless in their questioning of witnesses and examination of evidence. This committee has none of that.

We all can use our brains (some choose to not do so) and evaluate what it means, for example, for a PotUS to send out tweets encouraging supporters to march on the Capitol on Jan 6th "it will be wild" and then, after violence ensued, to not lift a finger to stop it for hours in spite of the pleading to do so by advisors, family and 'friends'. 

Yes, some of can use our brains (and are not TDS driven enough to do so). Please educate yourself who is in charge of DC Security. It is Pelosi, Schumer, and Mayor Bowser. Trump offered 20000 National Guardsmen as security- they refused it. Pelosi has already ruled the committee cannot question any of them. Why don't you ask the people responsible for DC security why they didn't lift a finger to stop it!

What I see is people like you denying what is in front of your face.

What I see is TDS driven people like you condoning what the Democrats have done for the last 7 years and counting.

The evidence they are ignoring and hiding is definitely what matters.
Conspiracy theory.    Assuming this goes to trial, I predict you will continue to reject all the damning evidence with a new set of excuses. 

No prediction needed for the TDS driven. No matter what evidence is presented in the defense of Trump you will deny it completely. 

Why you continue to defend Trump is beyond explanation.

Why you continue to defend Democrats is beyond me. They are unfit to lead at any level of government. Midterms can't get here quick enough to end their rein.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @6.3.3    4 weeks ago

Your posts are always the same witless partisan rant, I am not going to bother reading your crap anymore.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.3.5  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @6.3.3    4 weeks ago
Yes, some of can use our brains (and are not TDS driven enough to do so). Please educate yourself who is in charge of DC Security. It is Pelosi, Schumer, and Mayor Bowser. Trump offered 20000 National Guardsmen as security- they refused it. Pelosi has already ruled the committee cannot question any of them. Why don't you ask the people responsible for DC security why they didn't lift a finger to stop it!

You and yours rinse and repeat that bullshit ad nauseam. All of it has been debunked over and over again yet you just keep stating it as fact. It's not even laughable anymore, it's pathetic.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.4    4 weeks ago

I grew tired of them a LONG TIME AGO

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.7  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @6.3.5    4 weeks ago

It's also deplorable and so tiresome

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
6.3.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.6    4 weeks ago

You bear it so well though..

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
6.3.9  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  TᵢG @6.3    4 weeks ago

It is better than Gym Jockstrap Jordan becoming the anus of the hearings.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @6    4 weeks ago

Trivialize much? How come you can't find anything to process about Donald Trump in these proceedings? Point blank: Are you wearing 'blinders' at this point?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  CB @6.4    4 weeks ago

Not watching it at all. Some idiots think the average normal Amerindian citizen gives a damn

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.4.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @6.4.1    4 weeks ago
Amerindian citizen

What would you know about Amerindian citizens ? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.4.3  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @6.4.1    4 weeks ago
Not watching it at all.

That is the very definition of willful ignorance.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.4  CB   replied to  TᵢG @6.4.3    4 weeks ago

Emphatically. Makes you wonder why "some Americans" bother to be here trying to back-stop what is being commented on when s/he is about as dense as Sydney Powell is about voting machines!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.4.5  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @6.4    4 weeks ago
Trivialize much? How come you can't find anything to process about Donald Trump in these proceedings? Point blank: Are you wearing 'blinders' at this point?

I've said, since 2016, that Donald Trump was a buffoon who couldn't string three words together.

You know, if Democrats had nominated anyone other than Hillary Clinton then Donald Trump would never had been President.  Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump (that's who I voted for, BTW).  And Bernie Sanders would have been a much better President than either Clinton or Trump in spite of his rather obvious faults, flaws, and phobias.

Democrats have earned a much, much harder ass kicking than they've gotten for nominating Hillary Clinton.  Hillary Clinton is the only reason Donald Trump was President.

Democrats can't even throw Trump in prison.  Why?  Is it because Trump is the only candidate Biden could beat?  Democrats have their own buffoons to worry about.  And Democrats have earned another ass kicking for the current buffoons in the White House.  If Democrats are going to scrape the bottom of the septic tank then all they'll get is shit.

Democrats have to have a Republican to run the hearings -- Liz Cheney is in charge.  Democrats can't even manage their own self-righteous political theater without Republicans.  Democrats have trivialized themselves.

Why is it any wonder that the hearings is a Republican show?  Democrats can't do anything.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.7  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @6.4.5    4 weeks ago

The obvious question is why do you think so highly of Bernie Sanders who did not unite the democratic vote if you think so diminutively about democrats. (Bernie sought the democratic party nomination and not the republican party nomination. Thus, Bernie 'won' 'nota.' )

Then you shamelessly attempt to trash democrats (including Bernie who is an independent voting with democrats in the senate majority. Incidentally, Bernie does not choose to use is power or influence to lift a tie-tied senate to the MAGA side.

Next you rather dismissively 'sack' the chair of the January 6 Commission by pitting the black male Mississippian against the white female Wyomingan. Carelessly and foolishly disregarding a fact that in this situation two chairs' (Chair and Vice-Chair) are allowed. Moreover, is is a good tactical approach to not 'muzzle' the republicans who are 'bred' to conservatism and can walk and talk conservative 'speak.'

Finally, your feign to be anything other than MAGA while symbolically screaming 'flaming' red MAGA rhetoric does the MAGA brand a disservice. As it shows you can't even cover your MAGA feet without your MAGA head popping out for all to look upon.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.4.8  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @6.4.7    4 weeks ago
The obvious question is why do you think so highly of Bernie Sanders who did not unite the democratic vote if you think so diminutively about democrats. (Bernie sought the democratic party nomination and not the republican party nomination. Thus, Bernie 'won' 'nota.' )
Then you shamelessly attempt to trash democrats (including Bernie who is an independent voting with democrats in the senate majority. Incidentally, Bernie does not choose to use is power or influence to lift a tie-tied senate to the MAGA side.

Bernie Sanders was a better choice than Clinton or Trump.  But that's not an endorsement of Sanders.  Our politics has become choosing the lesser of evils -- and -- Sanders was the lesser evil.

Next you rather dismissively 'sack' the chair of the January 6 Commission by pitting the black male Mississippian against the white female Wyomingan. Carelessly and foolishly disregarding a fact that in this situation two chairs' (Chair and Vice-Chair) are allowed. Moreover, is is a good tactical approach to not 'muzzle' the republicans who are 'bred' to conservatism and can walk and talk conservative 'speak.'

News reporting has made Liz Cheney the face of the Jan. 6 hearings.  Any reporting on the hearings will prominently feature Liz Chaney with Adam Kinzinger as backup.  Who is Bernie Thompson?  Thompson is the chairman of the committee; Liz Cheney is not a co-chairman.  Cheney nominally leads the minority membership of the committee. 

Finally, your feign to be anything other than MAGA while symbolically screaming 'flaming' red MAGA rhetoric does the MAGA brand a disservice. As it shows you can't even cover your MAGA feet without your MAGA head popping out for all to look upon.

You prefer the status quo of free market monetarism?  You prefer autocratic bureaucracy and courts running the country?  You prefer governing by autocratic Presidential executive order rather than by Congressional legislation?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.9  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @6.4.8    4 weeks ago

Your comment is inconsistent. Sanders was the lesser evil is irrelevant as he did not receive the presidential nomination. It begs the question as you chose the political 'creature from the black lagoon,' Donald J. Trump, in 2016 despite all his accumulating lies, running into the ground of fellow republicans, and lack of transparency about taxes and other customary ways of portraying himself as a proper, consistent, candidate.

News reports, Smooze reports. Be a bigger man to admit you know better than to mislabel characters and individuals in a plot, drama, or political committee. Besides, it is often the case that a committee can make its presentation in a manner suitable and powerful to its purposes of communicating and comprehension-especially to an obstinate and in some cases "hostile" audience.

Your last paragraph is unremarkable. That's all.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.4.10  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @6.4.1    4 weeks ago

It's the idiots who support whathisname who don't give a damn.  

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
6.4.11  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  CB @6.4    4 weeks ago

Darkness is the dwelling of some, my friend, CB. They must repentant if they want out and see the light.

Remember as my old friend, Richard Pryor, said:  "Some people are just F**ked Up"!

Richard was my favorite philosopher.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
6.4.12  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  CB @6.4.9    4 weeks ago

CB:  You know you are one of my heroes. I worry about you. Remember that age old wisdom passed down for ages:

"You can't Fix Stupid, but you can vote them out." - Unknown to some, but we down, don't we?

Or, the C&W wisdom on a napkin:

"You can lead a Horse to Water, but you can make it drank." - Apropos, Mi Amigo

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.13  CB   replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @6.4.11    4 weeks ago

Indeed, he was known for expressing the ways of getting shall we say a person to 'talk' about. . . matters. Just put and leave on a pair of tight shoes on 'em! :)

Answers arriving in 'due' time. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
6.5  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Nerm_L @6    4 weeks ago

Don't get your hopes up. Donnie and his "Clown Circus of Dumb-Fukards" are 
going down, down, down into the ground.


[Deleted]

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
6.5.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @6.5    4 weeks ago
Don't get your hopes up. Donnie and his "Clown Circus of Dumb-Fukards" are going down, down, down into the ground.

Trump damn well better go down, down, down.  Trump skating now would mean Democrats are completely worthless blowhards.

Time to put the boot licking back in the Vaseline Jar.  Sucking, licking the lids is the same as going down, down, down on him, er, I mean with him, Nerm_L,  but, you know that don't you?

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
6.5.2  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @6.5    4 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

This is crazy. 

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
7.1  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 weeks ago

Thank you, John Russell. You are, perhaps, the only member who gets me. Even my psychiatrist doesn't.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8  author  JBB    4 weeks ago

"I mean ya know kinda like basically" - The Red Rioter

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
8.1  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  JBB @8    4 weeks ago

Yes, I...er...don't know, the "Red Rider" officer. I do, however, personally am acquainted with the White Knight. Would you like a light?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9  CB     4 weeks ago

Jason Van Tatenhove, Former Oath Keepers Spokesman says oath-keepers, use lies, deceit, and outright thievery to get what they want with no regard to Rule of Law.

I have been saying this about MAGA for years!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
9.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9    4 weeks ago
I have been saying this about MAGA for years!

Exactly, there is no distinction between the previous Obama voter that then supported Trump and the small group of Oath Keepers. 

How wide a brush do you use when you paint barns?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1.1  author  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1    4 weeks ago

The eloquent MAGA witnesses stunned you?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.2  CB   replied to  JBB @9.1.1    4 weeks ago

Tatenhove, former Oathkeepers Spokesman, tried to rip the 'top' off the subject matter when he flatly stated it is time to call Oathkeepers what they are: racists and para-military looking for a way "in" to starting a civil war.

And yet Trump-enablers, some of whom know this is the case, still persist in trying to steer the discussion to 'nicer' scenarios and looking away. . . .

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1    4 weeks ago
Exactly, there is no distinction between the previous Obama voter that then supported Trump and the small group of Oath Keepers. 

An Obama voter who gave Trump a chance is not necessarily MAGA. That doesnt seem difficult to understand. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
9.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.3    4 weeks ago

Please define MAGA for the unwashed.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
9.1.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @9.1.1    4 weeks ago

I don’t know who you mean, Trump got 63 million votes in 2016.  How many have witnessed?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1.6  author  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1.5    4 weeks ago

Does that pass for sincerity on your planet?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
9.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1    4 weeks ago
Exactly, there is no distinction between the previous Obama voter that then supported Trump and the small group of Oath Keepers.

The previous Obama voter that supported Trump did so based on his promises and lies.  Had he come out at the beginning with the truth of him running only to enrich himself, promote his racism, and overturn the American election system, none of those Obama supporters would have voted for him.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
9.1.8  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  JBB @9.1.6    4 weeks ago

NO, we are as much liars as everyone one else in the Universe. That's the fun of it.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
9.1.9  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1.5    4 weeks ago

I witness every time I attend Reverend Oral Fleeces church, and he always throw me out. Does that mean something?

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
9.1.10  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1.4    4 weeks ago

MF/A-Wipes/Gutless/A-Holes, or so I am told my hallucinations.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
9.1.11  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.3    4 weeks ago

Webster classifies then as "idiots," or so I am told my hallucinations.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
9.1.12  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1    4 weeks ago

Is there any evidence that large numbers of former Obama voters casting their ballot for a white, accused sexual predator, what is a known racist, con artist, so-called businessman who was involved in 3500 lawsuits primarily for non-payment for services, goods, etc.?

Trump's reputation well proceeded him prior to his election. Putin's MONEY, and interference paid a significant role, as did Comey last minute opening of an investigation into his rival.

The CATHOLIC FBI Director did not open any investigation into Trump, and when I sought a Freedom of Information request, the FBI sent me back a letter to Eat the Press - DO NOT READ IT, that there was no record of Trump ever being investigated by the FBI.

In my frequently deleted views, here, on thenewstalkers.com, I have repeated (at least once stated) that the neglect by the FBI, CIA, and other agencies into Trump's Russian connections, NY MOB, and corruption practices had more impact that a few former Obama voters casting votes (if any) for a known, racist WHITE SUPREMACE, dog whistle blower, like Dirty Diaper Donnie, could galvanize sensible folks that supported Obama twice. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
9.1.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @9.1.12    4 weeks ago
Is there any evidence that large numbers of former Obama voters casting their ballot for a white, accused sexual predator, what is a known racist, con artist, so-called businessman who was involved in 3500 lawsuits primarily for non-payment for services, goods, etc.?

Apparently about 12% of white voters who had previously voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016 and about 11% of black voters who voted for Obama in 2012 stayed home and didn't vote in 2016 which made all the difference in the electoral college count. Of course the majority (by several million) did not vote for such a malignant tangerine turd goblin like dirty Donald but we're a representative democracy aka constitutional Republic which is why it was minority rule in 2016.

4.4 million 2012 Obama voters stayed home in 2016 — more than a third of them black - The Washington Post

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2  CB   replied to  CB @9    4 weeks ago

Tatenhove, is blowing the doors open on the Oath-keepers, and its intent to insurrection, and being a 'clear and present danger' on January 6, 2021.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
9.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9.2    4 weeks ago
Tatenhove, is blowing the doors open on the Oath-keepers, and its intent to insurrection,

Perhaps to the clueless.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.2  CB   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.2.1    4 weeks ago

Okay, since you can't help yourself let me help you. Don't bother commenting to me directly. You and me have nothing, zilch, not a damn thing, to share with each other for the entirety of the month of July.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.2.1    4 weeks ago

Trump is now being investigated for witness tampering. 

That must be a blow. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
9.2.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9.2.2    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
9.2.5  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.3    4 weeks ago
Trump is now being investigated for witness tampering. 

This was talked about on the ABC news this evening.  It was reported it is unlikely the DOJ will take it any further as they don't know the context of the call and they don't know if Trump even knew if the witness had been called to testify in front of the committee.  

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
9.3  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  CB @9    4 weeks ago

Sounds like the Republican Party has a good case for "Plagiarism." Those are the bedrock of the GOP platform, and has been since Nixon!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.3.1  CB   replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @9.3    4 weeks ago

Friend, I don't quite follow you on this one. :)

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
9.3.2  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @9.3    4 weeks ago
Jason Van Tatenhove, Former Oath Keepers Spokesman says oath-keepers, use lies, deceit, and outright thievery to get what they want with no regard to Rule of Law.


I was referring to Jason comment above. The Oath Keepers must have stolen those concepts from the GOP, because that defined the Republican Party to a "T"!

("...use of lies, deceit, and outright thievery to get what they want with no regard to the RULE OF LAW.") - Jason Van Tatenhove

I am certain that those words are tattooed on the "Hiney" of every elected Republican in America as an "initiation rite" into the GOP (GOVERNMENT OF PUTIN).

The next Republican you see, "pant" them and the truth will be revealed, or you will find a lifetime new friend.

PS:  I am grateful that you are back in my life. But I will keep my pant on because in 1976, I worked for a Republican candidate for Congress, who paid me $500.00 per month, with promises that if he got elected, I would go to Washington, D.C.

I did not want to go do Washington, D.C., and, I did not trust, or like him. I just wanted the $500.00.

His opponent was the long-term candidate, deeply supported by area unions, and, through my Actors & Artists business, I produced events for them, which enabled me to observe how corrupt, corrosive and easily led by their Union bosses, union members were.
 
I actually voted for Reagan and thought he was going to make a good president, however, when the Contra-Iran connection hit the fan, my illusion quickly dissolved about Ronnie and the Republican Party.

I hope this explains the riddle.  It looks like I may be ticketed out soon by the same Czar from years past.

Satire, humor, or Commonsense are not the preview's of rigid thinkers I am learning.




 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10  author  JBB    4 weeks ago

So basically, Trump conspired to enact a coup d'etat!

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
10.1  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  JBB @10    4 weeks ago

No, he wanted to stay in office for the rest of his life, not eat French desserts.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11  author  JBB    4 weeks ago

Up Next? Witness Tampering! Oh Boy! Can't Wait...

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
11.1  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  JBB @11    4 weeks ago

Well, the mob did it much more effectively in the Good Old Days of Mob Rules.  Republicans Sucks at it!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
12  Gsquared    4 weeks ago

Possibly the most sickening thing was the proposed order that the Dept. of Defense seize ballot machines.  Further proof of coup plotting. Disgusting and treasonous.

Also, Bannon implying, following a conversation with Trump on Jan. 5th, that Jan. 6th would be an insurrection could constitute evidence of a conspiracy.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
12.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Gsquared @12    4 weeks ago

“Disgusting and treasonous.”

And indefensible…though inexplicably, some will try. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
12.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  afrayedknot @12.1    4 weeks ago

Totally indefensible, of course, although we can expect to hear all kinds of defenses from the usual suspects.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @12.1.1    4 weeks ago

I would not dignify the excuse-making, deflection and plain bullshit as 'defense'.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
12.1.3  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.2    4 weeks ago

Good point.  I should have said "bullshit defenses".  That's the proper legal terminology.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @12.1.3    4 weeks ago

I have read a lot of pathetic arguments in my time, but those attempting to defend Trump's Big Lie campaign are among the very worst.   It is cringe-worthy to watch people make such fools of themselves.    It further illustrates that some will leap to the absurd to defend their 'cause'.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
12.1.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.4    4 weeks ago

I was unaware, people could be so unaware, until i learned. That is where the problem ensues, they never seem to learn....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  igknorantzrulz @12.1.5    4 weeks ago

Some (many?) have a knack for dismissing facts that compromise their pleasant little fantasy world.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.7  CB   replied to  TᵢG @12.1.4    4 weeks ago

This falls under the heading: Presidential Prerogative. These enablers of Trump wanted to seize power while they were in control of the systems of government and Pence did not aid and abet them. Lesson: Get back and office and vet vice-president's position on seizure of power ahead of selection.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
12.1.8  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.4    4 weeks ago

Your comment sums it up perfectly, TiG.  

When attempting to defend the indefensible the rationalizations are inevitably weak, pathetic and terrible.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
12.1.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gsquared @12.1.8    4 weeks ago
When attempting to defend the indefensible the rationalizations

are over the top, as tough to ration lies, via an overabundance of irrational ties, to that which don't hold water and tend to capsize, in this vessel they attempt to Trojan past the moored than we ever expected wood a pier, as the evidence is damning, as are the tributaries of those who wood support Trump going 'up the river' so to speak, with written words makes for it tough to hear here, cause not spoken the wheels of confusion spinning another illusion to add to the confusion that unfortunately is not just some illusion.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.2  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @12    4 weeks ago

Borowitz did a blurb about what Bannon wasn't doing on 1/6/21 and said that Bannon was washing his hair.

I see no evidence of that.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @12.2    4 weeks ago

I meant to say what he was doing WAS WASHING HIS HAIR and it's all so obvious he WASN'T

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
12.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @12.2.1    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
12.2.3  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @12.2.2    4 weeks ago

Don't you just hate it when they "delete" the witty, best posts?

Drinker of the Wry is a Funny Guy!

(Note to censors:  Please do not throw Rotten Tomatoes. I am allergic to them.)

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
12.3  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Gsquared @12    4 weeks ago

I am looking forward to the charges of Treason and the execution of punishment for those crimes.

I hope it will be broadcasted on Pay For View. It will make a fortune. Enough to pay off the national debt, and then, some.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
13  Greg Jones    4 weeks ago

Summing up...all this media circus has amounted to is spreading misinformation by relying on second and third party hearsay testimony. It seems that nothing has been presented so far that is actionable or indictable. They better hurry and wrap up as the midterms are drawing near and campaigning will begin shortly after Labor day. After the Republicans handily win back the House, committees will be formed to look into the various scandals involving Biden and his evil spawn Hunter...their dealing with China being at the top of the list.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
13.1  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @13    4 weeks ago
Summing up

Since you are 'not watching it at all', WTF makes you think that you qualify to sum up anything? 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
13.1.1  CB   replied to  Dulay @13.1    4 weeks ago

This is ridiculous. MAGA is a bullcrap set of unrelenting, uncompromising, people determined to control this nation according to inconsistent and even unremarkable principles. That is, they want us to let them do whatever their whims are, while answering to nobody.  Greg magnifies the point by dismissing this committee's legitimacy and findings outright, while 'standing up in his stirrup' to see a non-politician, Hunter Biden, and a bevy of other retaliatory proceeding happen at the expense of the taxpayers.

All the more reason to limit engagement with MAGA supporters or stop it altogether and just go vote democratic party pervasively all the way down to "dog catcher."

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
13.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  CB @13.1.1    4 weeks ago

Many left wing socialist simpletons continue to live in a fantasy land of liberal denial of reality

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
13.1.3  CB   replied to  Greg Jones @13.1.2    4 weeks ago

And yet MAGA has not caught on that is a cult collective following the whims of a pampered meathead named Donald J. Trump. A man who accepts no detractors from his course to bankrupt and exacerbate true republicans and conservatives. MAGA is not a group of constitutional conservatives, it is a cadre of people supporting thuggery and chaos.  The instance any MAGA member turns and walks a different path; MAGA spits you out into the void- a mess, homeless, a desolate refugee forevermore. Career, life, in shambles.

All MAGA is, is in Trump's mind!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
13.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  CB @13.1.3    4 weeks ago

The MAGA Movement is alive and well...Trump will eventually be discarded like a dirty diaper.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @13.1.4    4 weeks ago
Trump will eventually be discarded like a dirty diaper.

What is taking so long?   Why are Trump supporters still sycophantically defending him at every turn?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
13.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.5    4 weeks ago
What is taking so long?   

Because election cycles last that long.  It's too early for a new shiny object to appear.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @13.1.6    4 weeks ago

My question is not about election cycles.   I am talking about the GoP being attached at the hip with a PotUS who —for the first time in our history— attempted to steal the election through means that might just be adjudicated as criminal / unconstitutional.   

The GoP should have detached from Trump the instant his Big Lie became an obvious (ridiculously obvious) con-job.    Instead, here we are almost two years later and Trump is still the defacto leader of the party and potential candidate for PotUS.

Your shiny object concept works fine when normally changing from one leader to another.   It does not work when the prior (current) leader has just attempted to steal a USA election.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
13.1.8  CB   replied to  Greg Jones @13.1.4    4 weeks ago

Why wait for the diaper to get 'full'-its dirty enough already! Toss meathead Donald on the trash heap of carnage! But, hold on! Party officials can't cast off its 'cash cow' and Donald Trump knows he has MAGA (and its adherents) tight and snug by the 'nether-regions'!  Now that the whole world has seem republicanism and conservatism dancing in a filthy trough and getting sullied in its reputation and being shameless in its loss of morals, standards, and trust factors! 

Donald Trump has exposed MAGA as weak without him as its strongman. MAGA will be mocked. Mocked! MOCKED! I tell you, and will be laughed at brutally when Donald is gone down to the 'pit' where cretans like him deserve to reside.

Donald Trump lied to you about the 2020 election and you all defended "the Big Lie" - hook, line, sinker, bucket, pier, and car-van ride back home! Even took the Big Lie inside your homes and 'fed' it to your children. Donald Trump-doesn't care. Just Shameless!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
13.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.7    4 weeks ago
My question is not about election cycles.

The answer to your question is certainly about election cycles.

   I am talking about the GoP being attached at the hip with a PotUS

You are talking about a political party that has yet to decide on who their next presidential candidate will be...because it's not time to do that yet....because we're not in that election cycle yet.  They are still talking about the last shiny object because the next one has not appeared to consume their attention yet.

The GoP should have detached from Trump the instant his Big Lie became an obvious (ridiculously obvious) con-job.    Instead, here we are almost two years later and Trump is still the defacto leader of the party and potential candidate for PotUS.

Detached from Trump.....and attached to whom?  

Your shiny object concept works fine when normally changing from one leader to another.   It does not work when the prior (current) leader has just attempted to steal a USA election.

I think you'll still find that human attention abhors a vacuum, even when your personal moral outrage declares it should not. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @13.1.9    4 weeks ago
The answer to your question is certainly about election cycles.

I disagree.   Trump is a very special circumstance ... this is not a normal changing of the defacto leader.

You are talking about a political party that has yet to decide on who their next presidential candidate will be.

No it is not just the candidate choice.   I am talking about the GoP distancing itself from Trump immediately after his Big Lie con-job.   They can detach from Trump without having a leader and certainly without having a candidate.   Detaching is the key.   Picking a new leader is simply the natural next step that could proceed normally.

...  personal moral outrage ....

Don't ascribe this to emotion; doing so misses the point entirely.   My reasoning throughout (not just today) has been that Trump is a parasite on the GoP and the party does itself harm by not distancing from Trump.   They should have cut free when he was out of office.   

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
13.1.11  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.10    4 weeks ago
 I am talking about the GoP distancing itself from Trump immediately after his Big Lie con-job.   

This point is crucial.

The Republicans going along with and NOT calling out Trump, is why his big LIE did not DIE, and why i believe their party should !

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @13.1.2    4 weeks ago

Many on the alt-right live in an alternate reality/Bizarro world.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @13.1.4    4 weeks ago
"The MAGA Movement is alive and well...Trump will eventually be discarded like a dirty diaper."

trumpturd is the MAGA BOWEL movement - a completely liquid diarrhea type bowel movement.

Smelly ugly and extremely messy.  Just about destroys all it touches.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
13.1.14  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.10    4 weeks ago

The detachment phase is an ongoing process that proceeds at its own rate. I would think you would be observant enough to see and understand that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @13.1.14    4 weeks ago
The detachment phase is an ongoing process that proceeds at its own rate.

You just said nothing and apparently do not even realize it.   All detachments are ongoing processes that proceed at their own rate.   Sometimes the rate (pace) is quick and other times it is slow.  

Every change, Greg, is a process that proceeds at its own rate.  

The GoP should have detached from Trump when he left office.   Instead we see a withering on the vine while the Trump infection continues.   At this point, the GoP has, through its continued support of Trump, effectively condoned the actions that Trump, et. al. took under his Big Lie con-job.    Its integrity as a party has suffered unnecessarily.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
13.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.10    4 weeks ago
Trump is a very special circumstance

Historically speaking, I'm not so sure.  I think the primary difference between Trump and somebody like LBJ is that there is no chance of keeping the same level of secrecy we had back then.  But keep in mind, Clinton committed perjury, Reagan sold arms illegally, Nixon hired burglars....and that's all in just the last 50 years.

No it is not just the candidate choice.   I am talking about the GoP distancing itself from Trump immediately after his Big Lie con-job.   They can detach from Trump without having a leader and certainly without having a candidate.   Detaching is the key.   Picking a new leader is simply the natural next step that could proceed normally.

I just think that's an unrealistic expectation.  That is not how politics has ever worked, nor is it how humans have ever operated.    A new focal point (person) must emerge to take the place of the old.  Several of the people who are most likely to become that new focal point are running for re-election this fall. 

Don't ascribe this to emotion; doing so misses the point entirely.

Alternatively, it raises a point you wish to ignore, just like you ignore the phrase "peacefully and patriotically".  There is no escaping the fact that you have decided that the behavior of current Republicans violates your moral code.  That's a fact.  There is nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend that fact doesn't dictate your opinions on the subject.

My reasoning throughout (not just today) has been that Trump is a parasite on the GoP and the party does itself harm by not distancing from Trump.   They should have cut free when he was out of office.   

I agree that the sooner they move on from him, the better off they'll be.  But I also acknowledge that will take a little more time.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @13.1.16    4 weeks ago
Historically speaking, I'm not so sure. 

There has never been a PotUS (or a candidate) who has attempted to steal a presidential election.   Not only does this distinguish Trump, but the over-the-top, pull-out-all-stops approach he used will likely not be surpassed by future bad players.

That is not how politics has ever worked, ....

Nonsense, the GoP was ready to impeach Nixon and for a lesser offense and, importantly, with all the complexities of him being a sitting PotUS.   And that is back when Impeachment was taken seriously (not used frivolously).   Today's GoP does not compare, in terms of integrity and statesmanship, to the GoP of the 1970's.

There is nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend that fact doesn't dictate your opinions on the subject.

That is not what I am saying.  I responded to this from you: 

Jack @13.1.9I think you'll still find that human attention abhors a vacuum, even when your personal moral outrage declares it should not. 

This implies an emotional process on my part.   That is incorrect.   It should be obvious that Trump tried to steal the election and that such an act should not be supported by the GoP.   Doing so harms the GoP.   You attempted to dismiss my comment with your "personal moral outrage" reference.   The reality of Trump and the GoP have nothing to do with me personally.

I just think that's an unrealistic expectation. 

Unrealistic for the GoP to distance itself from an ex-PotUS who continues to tarnish the credibility of the party?    It is highly disappointing that the GoP majority is not of the mind of Liz Cheney but certainly it is not unrealistic for a majority to have taken her position.   The reason the GoP continues with Trump is most likely a function of weakness and low integrity.   There has not been sufficient momentum of statesperson-level integrity to turn the ship.  And that is my criticism:  the GoP continues to shoot itself in the foot.

I agree that the sooner they move on from him, the better off they'll be.  But I also acknowledge that will take a little more time.  

It is obvious that it will take more time given it has not yet happened.   Surely Trump will not be held up as a model PotUS like Reagan was and people on forums like this will make references to Trump as they make references to Carter as an example of what not to do.

My point is not that this will NEVER happen, but that it should have already happened.    The time to detach (start the process of detachment) from Trump was Jan 20, 2021.   A few months later, they should have been done trying to defend the indefensible.   The longer the GoP fails to act and instead support Trump, the more it will be stained by Trump.   It is one thing to support Trump when the facts are murky (when there was some plausibility to his Big Lie).   But his Big Lie is so thoroughly discredited and his actions so obviously wrong that supporting Trump is tantamount to proclaiming the supporter has no integrity.   There is no way this is good for the GoP.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
13.1.18  CB   replied to  TᵢG @13.1.17    4 weeks ago

The GOP is executing a new strategy: As one commenter above stated: GOP wants to be known as getting things done. 

As a result, legislating has become transactional to them. That is, accomplishments they seek can come by hook or by crook. Lies, thefts, or enlisting the help of a devil is permissible when the bar is set so low.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
13.1.19  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @13.1.16    4 weeks ago
There is no escaping the fact that you have decided that the behavior of current Republicans violates your moral code.  That's a fact.  There is nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend that fact doesn't dictate your opinions on the subject.

Exactly who has a moral code where this type of behavior SHOULD be acceptable. Believe this is TiG's point, at least one of many, that you disregard as an emotional weakness, when all it is is the observation of what has actually happened. Who thinks that a conspiracy pushing LIAR, is the best the GOP can offer, and WHY, haven't they realized this and moved on ? I'd say it reflects what their voting base wants, and they are too addicted to power to be bigger than this. It truly reflects a very damning Republican base, where ignorance has become the rule, and they the fool.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
13.1.20  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Dulay @13.1    4 weeks ago

Well, that is the best way to retort a debate, by not listening to it.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
13.1.21  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  igknorantzrulz @13.1.19    4 weeks ago

PS: Your pen name works.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
13.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @13.1.2    4 weeks ago

Many RW extremist sycophants continue to live in delusion to avoid reality at all costs. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
13.1.23  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @13.1.21    4 weeks ago
PS: Your pen name works.

inspired after reading comments on old Newsvine, and unfortunately, all too true

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
13.1.24  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.17    4 weeks ago

The time to detach from Trump was January 6th, 2021.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @13.1.24    4 weeks ago

I stated the 20th because then he was officially out of power and could no longer abuse the powers of the presidency to 'get back at' others.   If we were to disregard that factor then the time to detach was when it became clear that he was going to push his Big Lie con job.   This became clear to different people at different times but I would say by early December it should have been crystal clear to all who can think objectively.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
13.1.26  Revillug  replied to  Thomas @13.1.24    4 weeks ago

There's never been a bad time to detach from Trump.

 
 
 
Brucelina
Freshman Silent
14  Brucelina    4 weeks ago

I've been watching this since the beginning. Trump and all of his followers need to be taken to Guatanamo bay.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
14.2  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Brucelina @14    4 weeks ago

BruceDerLinda:  That is presumptuous statement to make about a much-wanted "Worldwide Trial."

The Innocent Victims of Government Overreach must be allowed to have their GOD GIVING RIGHT to storm the court, and overturn its ruling, with violence. That divine principal should never be denied to them.

Anarchy is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT.  It is in the Bible, somewhere.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Expert
15  Eat The Press Do Not Read It    4 weeks ago

PS, please note: 

There is no intended attempt to "taunt" misguided Trump Supporters in our rebuttals/replies.  

Here, at the less than prestigious EAT THE PRESS DO NOT READ IT, we are committed to casting light into the dark, dank, alleys of unused, intellectual capacities in our fellow, beloved lost Brothers & Sistas of the Corn-Hole DeGeneration, who have been corrupted by that Devil's game, Cornhole!

Our mission is inspiring World Peace, charity and happiness for all, even the hapless, misguided souls who have fallen into the clutches of Satan's Right Handman, Donald J. Trump, aka "Dirty Diaper Donnie"!

Our religious, spiritual Journey is engraved on the inverse side of our Journalistic Creed. 

If you stand on your head, twisted it till it turns 180 degrees backwards to the front of your body, or, enter a portal to another dimension, these "Truths Shall Be Self Evident."

(Space Portals are now opening on Skinwalker Ranch. Contact Travis Taylor, he is one of us, for your trip instruction. It is a little more, well, a lot more expensive that Peyote Mushrooms.)

So, sayeth out Lord & God, George Carlin! (Or someone that looks a lot like him.)