|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 15, 2021 11:23:10 GMT -8
Why do you not understand that your half-hearted criticism goes out the window as soon as you backtrack to defend the very person you claim to despise? We can't even have a real discussion on January 6th because you won't answer basic questions, but you will damn sure try to equate Democrats and policy on the same level as Donald Trump. It's disingenuous, misleading and a detriment. We get it, he's unqualified and a terrible person, but what about Joe Biden?!?!? (Is how it reads, all the time...) Here's an exercise around mental gymnastics: While the former president did not say "Go inject yourself with bleach" verbatim, the fact is that poison control center calls spiked dramatically in the days following those comments. That's not a coincidence. The cult followers, of which there are millions, actually believe that this man is some kind of deity. There are still a LARGE percentage of people who think he is going to be reinstated as president...today. But yes, let's talk about Joe Biden's slavery comments as Republicans actively try to block Black people from voting. As for suppressing the right to vote, notice how at least some Democrats are suddenly not quite so hostile to voter ID. I guess they looked at the polls and realized that a VERY large majority of Americans think that voter ID is important. Here's a fun fact, 46 out of 47 European countries require voters to present ID. I guess all of those countries are hopelessly racist. townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2021/06/04/study-46-out-of-47-european-countries-require-photo-id-to-vote-n2590454 Perhaps you endorse President Biden's claim that the GOP voting laws proposed or actually passed are as bad as the Jim Crow laws of the pre-1960s era. Such a claim is ridiculous and tends to trivialize what African Americans had to face generations ago. I am more disturbed by something you wrote above. You claim that I have stated that I "despise Donald Trump". You can read, obviously. But it appears that you interpret some things you read as the opposite of their actual meaning. Down is up and day is night, apparently. I think Trump was a woefully inadequate POTUS. I will not again cite the list of reasons why I think he was not close to having the basic requirements that almost all Americans believe a President should possess. But, and here is the point you either do not understand or want to ignore, I do not HATE or DEPISE the man. You do. Hatred can blind one to objectively evaluating a person or situation. I do not have to hate Donald Trump in order to consider him to have been a grievously flawed man and President. By the way, I see that you, yourself, have done some mental gymnastics. You have gone from saying that he DID say that people should inject or drink bleach to saying that some people MISINTERPRETED his words to mean that they should do so. Well, that's bad, for sure. And his whole bit about suggesting that the experts ought look into bleach, etc., is clearly proof that Trump does not think before he talks. Let's just agree on that point. AzWm This is right on, especially the part where you said hatred can blind being objective. Those words could never be truer here. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 15, 2021 12:06:45 GMT -8
Why do you not understand that your half-hearted criticism goes out the window as soon as you backtrack to defend the very person you claim to despise? We can't even have a real discussion on January 6th because you won't answer basic questions, but you will damn sure try to equate Democrats and policy on the same level as Donald Trump. It's disingenuous, misleading and a detriment. We get it, he's unqualified and a terrible person, but what about Joe Biden?!?!? (Is how it reads, all the time...) Here's an exercise around mental gymnastics: While the former president did not say "Go inject yourself with bleach" verbatim, the fact is that poison control center calls spiked dramatically in the days following those comments. That's not a coincidence. The cult followers, of which there are millions, actually believe that this man is some kind of deity. There are still a LARGE percentage of people who think he is going to be reinstated as president...today. But yes, let's talk about Joe Biden's slavery comments as Republicans actively try to block Black people from voting. As for suppressing the right to vote, notice how at least some Democrats are suddenly not quite so hostile to voter ID. I guess they looked at the polls and realized that a VERY large majority of Americans think that voter ID is important. Here's a fun fact, 46 out of 47 European countries require voters to present ID. I guess all of those countries are hopelessly racist. townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2021/06/04/study-46-out-of-47-european-countries-require-photo-id-to-vote-n2590454 Perhaps you endorse President Biden's claim that the GOP voting laws proposed or actually passed are as bad as the Jim Crow laws of the pre-1960s era. Such a claim is ridiculous and tends to trivialize what African Americans had to face generations ago. I am more disturbed by something you wrote above. You claim that I have stated that I "despise Donald Trump". You can read, obviously. But it appears that you interpret some things you read as the opposite of their actual meaning. Down is up and day is night, apparently. I think Trump was a woefully inadequate POTUS. I will not again cite the list of reasons why I think he was not close to having the basic requirements that almost all Americans believe a President should possess. But, and here is the point you either do not understand or want to ignore, I do not HATE or DEPISE the man. You do. Hatred can blind one to objectively evaluating a person or situation. I do not have to hate Donald Trump in order to consider him to have been a grievously flawed man and President. By the way, I see that you, yourself, have done some mental gymnastics. You have gone from saying that he DID say that people should inject or drink bleach to saying that some people MISINTERPRETED his words to mean that they should do so. Well, that's bad, for sure. And his whole bit about suggesting that the experts ought look into bleach, etc., is clearly proof that Trump does not think before he talks. Let's just agree on that point. AzWm You're so lost on here that you're mixing up who has replied to what comment, William. And then you trivialize it? "Well that's bad, for sure." It's impossible to take you seriously. And please, do not EVER try to trivialize my statements with TDS. Gross, gross, gross behavior on your part. Inaccurate, completely false, to be clear. So now you're saying you don't despite the man? Saying someone is unfit for office, reckless, dangerous and so on doesn't equal despise? Odd. Okay. So if you don't despise him, then we're left with more empty statements which lead nowhere, which again makes it impossible for you to be taken seriously. I'm not asking you to throw the man in jail, I'm asking you to have a good faith argument based on the facts of what happened the last four years. Regarding voter suppression, it's not a secret what happened in Georgia, Michigan and other swing states where a majority of Black votes were targeted with suppression tactics. Having the right to vote is a bedrock of freedom in this country, is it not? While they aren't lynching Blacks in public, stripping away their rights as humans is very much in lockstep with Jim Crow era freedoms, or lack thereof. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 15, 2021 12:08:01 GMT -8
As for suppressing the right to vote, notice how at least some Democrats are suddenly not quite so hostile to voter ID. I guess they looked at the polls and realized that a VERY large majority of Americans think that voter ID is important. Here's a fun fact, 46 out of 47 European countries require voters to present ID. I guess all of those countries are hopelessly racist. townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2021/06/04/study-46-out-of-47-european-countries-require-photo-id-to-vote-n2590454 Perhaps you endorse President Biden's claim that the GOP voting laws proposed or actually passed are as bad as the Jim Crow laws of the pre-1960s era. Such a claim is ridiculous and tends to trivialize what African Americans had to face generations ago. I am more disturbed by something you wrote above. You claim that I have stated that I "despise Donald Trump". You can read, obviously. But it appears that you interpret some things you read as the opposite of their actual meaning. Down is up and day is night, apparently. I think Trump was a woefully inadequate POTUS. I will not again cite the list of reasons why I think he was not close to having the basic requirements that almost all Americans believe a President should possess. But, and here is the point you either do not understand or want to ignore, I do not HATE or DEPISE the man. You do. Hatred can blind one to objectively evaluating a person or situation. I do not have to hate Donald Trump in order to consider him to have been a grievously flawed man and President. By the way, I see that you, yourself, have done some mental gymnastics. You have gone from saying that he DID say that people should inject or drink bleach to saying that some people MISINTERPRETED his words to mean that they should do so. Well, that's bad, for sure. And his whole bit about suggesting that the experts ought look into bleach, etc., is clearly proof that Trump does not think before he talks. Let's just agree on that point. AzWm This is right on, especially the part where you said hatred can blind being objective. Those words could never be truer here. It's not, in the slightest, actually. Your inability to have any original thought, however, is true. Do facts mean nothing to you? Irrefutable information? Are you okay with just making stuff up as you go? Do you have any integrity? Serious questions. Let me spell it out for you: January 6th, just the tip of the iceberg, the former president attempted to orchestrate a coup to remain in office. There were meetings, there were plans, there were coordinated efforts to overturn a fair election. His disciples, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, have spread radical conspiracy theories which have resulted in people, children, getting murdered. Is that not a problem? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 16, 2021 15:29:28 GMT -8
Ryan, many aspects of Trump's presidency were a problem. Charging him with orchestrating a coup is pretty bold. At least as bold as the Dems who kept saying that Trump was in a conspiracy with Vladimir Putin.
In my opinion, there is more reason to lend credibility to this charge than to the Trump-is-a-Russian-agent claim. I do think that Trump wanted the Congress to overturn the election. It's not impossible that he truly believes he won.
But was it an expressed desire that some others tried to engineer on their own? Or was it a plan hatched specifically in the Oval Office. I hope all such charges will be investigated thoroughly. That's why I am so disappointed that the Speaker went out of her way to ensure that the House investigation's conclusions will be dismissed by nearly half the country. Even if those conclusions have merit.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 16, 2021 16:27:17 GMT -8
Ryan, many aspects of Trump's presidency were a problem. Charging him with orchestrating a coup is pretty bold. At least as bold as the Dems who kept saying that Trump was in a conspiracy with Vladimir Putin. In my opinion, there is more reason to lend credibility to this charge than to the Trump-is-a-Russian-agent claim. I do think that Trump wanted the Congress to overturn the election. It's not impossible that he truly believes he won. But was it an expressed desire that some others tried to engineer on their own? Or was it a plan hatched specifically in the Oval Office. I hope all such charges will be investigated thoroughly. That's why I am so disappointed that the Speaker went out of her way to ensure that the House investigation's conclusions will be dismissed by nearly half the country. Even if those conclusions have merit. AzWm Insane. What did Nancy Pelosi do, out of curiosity? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 16, 2021 23:03:59 GMT -8
Ryan, many aspects of Trump's presidency were a problem. Charging him with orchestrating a coup is pretty bold. At least as bold as the Dems who kept saying that Trump was in a conspiracy with Vladimir Putin. In my opinion, there is more reason to lend credibility to this charge than to the Trump-is-a-Russian-agent claim. I do think that Trump wanted the Congress to overturn the election. It's not impossible that he truly believes he won. But was it an expressed desire that some others tried to engineer on their own? Or was it a plan hatched specifically in the Oval Office. I hope all such charges will be investigated thoroughly. That's why I am so disappointed that the Speaker went out of her way to ensure that the House investigation's conclusions will be dismissed by nearly half the country. Even if those conclusions have merit. AzWm Insane. What did Nancy Pelosi do, out of curiosity? To ensure that the results of any investigation of Jan. 6th be accepted by all Americans, it should have been an independent commission set up as was the 911 Commission. Here are the members of that commission. Half Republican, half Democrat; None was a sitting member of Congress. Members
Thomas Kean (Chairman) – Republican, former Governor of New Jersey
Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chairman) – Democrat, former U.S. Representative for the 9th congressional district of Indiana
Richard Ben-Veniste – Democrat, attorney and former chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office
Max Cleland – Democrat, former U.S. Senator from Georgia. Resigned in December 2003, stating that "the White House has played cover-up".[9]
Fred F. Fielding – Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel
Jamie Gorelick – Democrat, former U.S. Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration
Slade Gorton – Republican, former U.S. Senator from Washington
Bob Kerrey – Democrat, President of the New School University and former U.S. Senator from Nebraska. He replaced Max Cleland as a Democratic Commissioner, after Cleland's resignation.
John F. Lehman – Republican, former Secretary of the Navy
Timothy J. Roemer – Democrat, former U.S. Representative for the 3rd congressional district of Indiana
James R. Thompson – Republican, former Governor of IllinoisAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 16, 2021 23:15:09 GMT -8
Insane. What did Nancy Pelosi do, out of curiosity? To ensure that the results of any investigation of Jan. 6th be accepted by all Americans, it should have been an independent commission set up as was the 911 Commission. Here are the members of that commission. Half Republican, half Democrat; None was a sitting member of Congress. Members
Thomas Kean (Chairman) – Republican, former Governor of New Jersey
Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chairman) – Democrat, former U.S. Representative for the 9th congressional district of Indiana
Richard Ben-Veniste – Democrat, attorney and former chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office
Max Cleland – Democrat, former U.S. Senator from Georgia. Resigned in December 2003, stating that "the White House has played cover-up".[9]
Fred F. Fielding – Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel
Jamie Gorelick – Democrat, former U.S. Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration
Slade Gorton – Republican, former U.S. Senator from Washington
Bob Kerrey – Democrat, President of the New School University and former U.S. Senator from Nebraska. He replaced Max Cleland as a Democratic Commissioner, after Cleland's resignation.
John F. Lehman – Republican, former Secretary of the Navy
Timothy J. Roemer – Democrat, former U.S. Representative for the 3rd congressional district of Indiana
James R. Thompson – Republican, former Governor of IllinoisAzWm You are aware that this was explicitly proposed by Nancy Pelosi, correct? To a tee. The problem is that the Republican-led Senate didn't pass the resolution. I think you need to change the story here because this is 100% inaccurate. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/15/pelosi-congress-commission-investigate-capitol-riotShe continued: “Our next step will be to establish an outside, independent 9/11-type commission to “investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex … and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement in the National Capitol Region.” So, care to revise your statement? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 16, 2021 23:44:56 GMT -8
To ensure that the results of any investigation of Jan. 6th be accepted by all Americans, it should have been an independent commission set up as was the 911 Commission. Here are the members of that commission. Half Republican, half Democrat; None was a sitting member of Congress. Members
Thomas Kean (Chairman) – Republican, former Governor of New Jersey
Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chairman) – Democrat, former U.S. Representative for the 9th congressional district of Indiana
Richard Ben-Veniste – Democrat, attorney and former chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office
Max Cleland – Democrat, former U.S. Senator from Georgia. Resigned in December 2003, stating that "the White House has played cover-up".[9]
Fred F. Fielding – Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel
Jamie Gorelick – Democrat, former U.S. Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration
Slade Gorton – Republican, former U.S. Senator from Washington
Bob Kerrey – Democrat, President of the New School University and former U.S. Senator from Nebraska. He replaced Max Cleland as a Democratic Commissioner, after Cleland's resignation.
John F. Lehman – Republican, former Secretary of the Navy
Timothy J. Roemer – Democrat, former U.S. Representative for the 3rd congressional district of Indiana
James R. Thompson – Republican, former Governor of IllinoisAzWm You are aware that this was explicitly proposed by Nancy Pelosi, correct? To a tee. The problem is that the Republican-led Senate didn't pass the resolution. I think you need to change the story here because this is 100% inaccurate. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/15/pelosi-congress-commission-investigate-capitol-riotShe continued: “Our next step will be to establish an outside, independent 9/11-type commission to “investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex … and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement in the National Capitol Region.” So, care to revise your statement? Thanks for the info. But that will not make the current House investigation legitimate in the eyes of many. She should have accepted Jordan and the other guy. They couldn't be worse than Schiff. It's obvious that the two she picked (Why in the hell is SHE picking GOP members?) were chosen precisely because they hate Trump. Now there are 100% Trump haters. Hey, she could have picked me! I am no Trump fan and am neither a Dem or Rep. AzWm AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 17, 2021 8:12:57 GMT -8
You are aware that this was explicitly proposed by Nancy Pelosi, correct? To a tee. The problem is that the Republican-led Senate didn't pass the resolution. I think you need to change the story here because this is 100% inaccurate. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/15/pelosi-congress-commission-investigate-capitol-riotShe continued: “Our next step will be to establish an outside, independent 9/11-type commission to “investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex … and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement in the National Capitol Region.” So, care to revise your statement? Thanks for the info. But that will not make the current House investigation legitimate in the eyes of many. She should have accepted Jordan and the other guy. They couldn't be worse than Schiff. It's obvious that the two she picked (Why in the hell is SHE picking GOP members?) were chosen precisely because they hate Trump. Now there are 100% Trump haters. Hey, she could have picked me! I am no Trump fan and am neither a Dem or Rep. AzWm AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 17, 2021 9:12:19 GMT -8
You are aware that this was explicitly proposed by Nancy Pelosi, correct? To a tee. The problem is that the Republican-led Senate didn't pass the resolution. I think you need to change the story here because this is 100% inaccurate. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/15/pelosi-congress-commission-investigate-capitol-riotShe continued: “Our next step will be to establish an outside, independent 9/11-type commission to “investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex … and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement in the National Capitol Region.” So, care to revise your statement? Thanks for the info. But that will not make the current House investigation legitimate in the eyes of many. She should have accepted Jordan and the other guy. They couldn't be worse than Schiff. It's obvious that the two she picked (Why in the hell is SHE picking GOP members?) were chosen precisely because they hate Trump. Now there are 100% Trump haters. Hey, she could have picked me! I am no Trump fan and am neither a Dem or Rep. AzWm AzWm A) No. Why on Earth should Jim Jordan, an outright piece of trash human being and a staunch Trump ally be allowed to serve on a commission investigating....himself? Truly preposterous. B) She's the Speaker of the House, it's her job to create a commission like this. Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader, refused to participate because he, like Jordan, is a Trump loyalist. It required legislation, which the Republicans filibustered. (Why don't they want the truth?) C) Jim Jordan couldn't hold a freaking candle to Adam Schiff. Jim Jordan belongs in prison for his cover up of sexual assault at Ohio State. D) Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have more integrity than the entire rest of the GOP's body put together. "They hate Trump" is a ridiculous statement and a logical fallacy that undermines the truth. Liz Cheney was expelled from her party after voting for impeachment the second time. Make this make sense, please. You're clearly not up to speed on this, but this is outlandish even by your standards. How are we more concerned with the "truth" when one party has actively denied trying to find it for the past 7 months? Do you really believe Americans are that stupid? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 17, 2021 11:36:25 GMT -8
My view differs considerably from yours on a number of points: A) No. Why on Earth should Jim Jordan, an outright piece of trash human being and a staunch Trump ally be allowed to served on a commission investigating....himself? Truly preposterous. Well, how about the fact that many Americans, most especially the Americans who voted him into the House, do not share your opinion of the man? Perhaps it's your view that the ones who voted for him are also pieces of human trash. Being a "staunch Trump ally" may be accurate, but there is no reason, beyond your highly partisan view (which I find to be growing almost daily) why that should exclude him from serving on this committee. I suspect that you believe that Jordan should not be allowed to sit in the House for any reason whatsoever. In terms of his possible service on the committee, if he says preposterous things, let the American people hear what he has to say. B) She's the Speaker of the House, it's her job to create a commission like this. Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader, refused to participate because he, like Jordan, is a Trump loyalist. It required legislation, which the Republicans filibustered. (Why don't they want the truth?) The Speaker had a choice. She could have accepted the Republicans submitted by McCarthy despite her objections to two of them. As I mentioned above, if Jordan or the other (can't remember his name at the moment) embarrassed themselves, the American people, who in your opinion are not stupid, would draw the appropriate conclusions. Or, once she had barred two Republicans and the other GOP names were withdrawn by McCarthy, she could have at least made an attempt to create a bi-partisan committee. Well, with the proviso that a majority of the members would be Democrats in any case, that was pretty much out the window at the outset. Still, Pelosi could have named five GOP members. Instead, she picked the two members arguably the most hostile to Donald Trump. If this were a jury trial (yes, I know, it's all politics) a parallel situation would be to not allow the defendant to be represented by an attorney of his choice. Why did Pelosi not name three other Republicans to fill out the committee? After all, she was willing to accept the three remaining GOP members after Jordan and the other one were excluded. I don't know how this all unfolded at that point. Perhaps Pelosi contacted other Republicans and they turned her down. As things stand, it's obvious that the committee is a stacked deck. I'm not saying that valuable information may not be revealed during the hearings. What I am saying is that appearances are important. As things stand, those most allied to Donald Trump will be able to claim that the committee was a Democrat run kangaroo court. Millions of people who might otherwise seriously consider the committee's findings will reject them out of hand. C) Jim Jordan couldn't hold a freaking candle to Adam Schiff. Jim Jordan belongs in prison for his cover up of sexual assault at Ohio State. Oh, boy! There are many Dems in the House and Senate for whom I have at least a degree of respect. Schiff is not one of them. He is a creep. I now offer what I think is an accurate portrait of the man from the Wall Street Journal. www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/wall-street-journal-no-one-should-ever-believe-another-word-from-schiff. Nevertheless, as awful a man as I find Schiff to be, I do not think he should have been barred if the situation were reversed and it was the Republicans were creating a similar committee. I must add that your claim that Jordan should be in prison is in the best tradition of punishment first and then, if absolutely necessary, a trial. I wonder whether you believe that Justice Kavanaugh should be in prison for participating in a rape gang. After all, someone accused him of doing that. Isn't that all that's required? (Or, yes, a woman accused Biden of raping her. That claim was treated with seriousness and respect, right?) D) Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have more integrity than the entire rest of the GOP's body put together. "They hate Trump" is a ridiculous statement and a logical fallacy that undermines the truth. Liz Cheney was expelled from her party after voting for impeachment the second time. First of all, your opinion of the integrity of "the entire rest of the GOP's body put together" is a view that fair-minded people will recognize as wildly partisan. It's another piece of evidence that leads me to believe that in your opinion no Republican should ever be seen as having integrity. Nor should anyone ever vote for a Republican under any circumstances. The prospect of a perpetual one-party state seems to trouble you not at all. And, by the way, Liz Cheney was NOT "expelled from her party." Make this make sense, please. You're clearly not up to speed on this, but this is outlandish even by your standards. How are we more concerned with the "truth" when one party has actively denied trying to find it for the past 7 months? Do you really believe Americans are that stupid? Again, all this should be investigated thoroughly, but by a committee or commission whose members who are not currently serving in the Congress. And, of course, the makeup of this committee or commission should be made up of equal members of Republicans and Democrats. When the original five Republicans were excluded from the Committee, Nancy Pelosi could have, at the very least, picked five more Republicans. The committee would have still been unbalanced, but better that than having only five Dems and the two Reps arguably most hostile to DJT. Remember that Pelosi did accept three of the original five Republican members nominated by the Minority Leader. Are we to believe that, having rejected two Republicans, the three remaining were the ONLY other members of the GOP caucus acceptable to the Speaker? Seriously? AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 17, 2021 11:48:32 GMT -8
My view differs considerably from yours on a number of points: A) No. Why on Earth should Jim Jordan, an outright piece of trash human being and a staunch Trump ally be allowed to served on a commission investigating....himself? Truly preposterous. Well, how about the fact that many Americans, most especially the Americans who voted him into the House, do not share your opinion of the man? Perhaps it's your view that the ones who voted for him are also pieces of human trash. Being a "staunch Trump ally" may be accurate, but there is no reason, beyond your highly partisan view (which I find to be growing almost daily) why that should exclude him from serving on this committee. I suspect that you believe that Jordan should not be allowed to sit in the House for any reason whatsoever. In terms of his possible service on the committee, if he says preposterous things, let the American people hear what he has to say. B) She's the Speaker of the House, it's her job to create a commission like this. Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader, refused to participate because he, like Jordan, is a Trump loyalist. It required legislation, which the Republicans filibustered. (Why don't they want the truth?) The Speaker had a choice. She could have accepted the Republicans submitted by McCarthy despite her objections to two of them. As I mentioned above, if Jordan or the other (can't remember his name at the moment) embarrassed themselves, the American people, who in your opinion are not stupid, would draw the appropriate conclusions. Or, once she had barred two Republicans and the other GOP names were withdrawn by McCarthy, she could have at least made an attempt to create a bi-partisan committee. Well, with the proviso that a majority of the members would be Democrats in any case, that was pretty much out the window at the outset. Still, Pelosi could have named five GOP members. Instead, she picked the two members arguably the most hostile to Donald Trump. If this were a jury trial (yes, I know, it's all politics) a parallel situation would be to not allow the defendant to be represented by an attorney of his choice. Why did Pelosi not name three other Republicans to fill out the committee? After all, she was willing to accept the three remaining GOP members after Jordan and the other one were excluded. I don't know how this all unfolded at that point. Perhaps Pelosi contacted other Republicans and they turned her down. As things stand, it's obvious that the committee is a stacked deck. I'm not saying that valuable information may not be revealed during the hearings. What I am saying is that appearances are important. As things stand, those most allied to Donald Trump will be able to claim that the committee was a Democrat run kangaroo court. Millions of people who might otherwise seriously consider the committee's findings will reject them out of hand. C) Jim Jordan couldn't hold a freaking candle to Adam Schiff. Jim Jordan belongs in prison for his cover up of sexual assault at Ohio State. Oh, boy! There are many Dems in the House and Senate for whom I have at least a degree of respect. Schiff is not one of them. He is a creep. I now offer what I think is an accurate portrait of the man from the Wall Street Journal. www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/wall-street-journal-no-one-should-ever-believe-another-word-from-schiff. Nevertheless, as awful a man as I find Schiff to be, I do not think he should have been barred if the situation were reversed and it was the Republicans were creating a similar committee. I must add that your claim that Jordan should be in prison is in the best tradition of punishment first and then, if absolutely necessary, a trial. I wonder whether you believe that Justice Kavanaugh should be in prison for participating in a rape gang. After all, someone accused him of doing that. Isn't that all that's required? (Or, yes, a woman accused Biden of raping her. That claim was treated with seriousness and respect, right?) D) Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have more integrity than the entire rest of the GOP's body put together. "They hate Trump" is a ridiculous statement and a logical fallacy that undermines the truth. Liz Cheney was expelled from her party after voting for impeachment the second time. First of all, your opinion of the integrity of "the entire rest of the GOP's body put together" is a view that fair-minded people will recognize as wildly partisan. It's another piece of evidence that leads me to believe that in your opinion no Republican should ever be seen as having integrity. Nor should anyone ever vote for a Republican under any circumstances. The prospect of a perpetual one-party state seems to trouble you not at all. And, by the way, Liz Cheney was NOT "expelled from her party." Make this make sense, please. You're clearly not up to speed on this, but this is outlandish even by your standards. How are we more concerned with the "truth" when one party has actively denied trying to find it for the past 7 months? Do you really believe Americans are that stupid? Again, all this should be investigated thoroughly, but by a committee or commission whose members who are not currently serving in the Congress. And, of course, the makeup of this committee or commission should be made up of equal members of Republicans and Democrats. When the original five Republicans were excluded from the Committee, Nancy Pelosi could have, at the very least, picked five more Republicans. The committee would have still been unbalanced, but better that than having only five Dems and the two Reps arguably most hostile to DJT. Remember that Pelosi did accept three of the original five Republican members nominated by the Minority Leader. Are we to believe that, having rejected two Republicans, the three remaining were the ONLY other members of the GOP caucus acceptable to the Speaker? Seriously? AzWm When you can't argue the facts, attack the process. When that fails, create meaningless diatribes that deviate from reality and attempt to muddy the waters into unrelated territory. Brett Kavanagh? Rape gang? Stick to the story, please. Jim Jordan, if you have any knowledge whatsoever of the man, is incapable of being impartial. As stated, he's an avowed Trump loyalist and likely culpable as a member of Trump's inner circle in the planning of January 6th. We know he spoke with Trump on the morning of January 6th. No, we don't let those folks investigate themselves. Hard pass. Same with Kevin McCarthy, who destroyed any hope of a bipartisan reality with his antics. Stop arguing in bad faith here with this kangaroo court nonsense, as the Republicans are why we are here in the first place. *You* cannot have it both ways. A commission was introduced. The Republicans denied the resulting legislation. Why? That's on THEM, not Nancy Pelosi. Period. End of story. If you really think that any intelligent person is going to believe that somehow undermines the process and results, I'm inclined to disagree. Liz Cheney was expelled from her leadership position on May 12th, for her stance on impeachment and not supporting the farce of a stolen election. Factually accurate. Not a surprise you're not up to speed there. www.cnbc.com/2021/05/12/house-gop-votes-to-oust-trump-critic-liz-cheney.htmlOver 100 Republicans voted to overturn the election in favor of Donald Trump. If that doesn't show a lack of integrity, what does? Let's stick to facts here. We know meetings took place at the White House the night before the insurrection. We know multiple GOP members were on video at Trump Tower, meeting together. We know there's direct communication between "Stop the Steal" organizers and multiple GOP members like Paul Gosar. How, on any planet, does that not show a lack of integrity? Why are we focusing on Nancy Pelosi and not, oh, I don't know, the fact that Republicans don't want to get near the truth of what happened that day? Lauren Boebert's illegal Capitol tours? The security failures? Come on now. By the way, Pelosi is still leaving open the possibility of a true outside commission, if the Republicans want to come back to reality. And one last thing: Any person who has been paying attention knows what really happened on January 6th. Donald Trump delayed the response of the National Guard in the hopes of the mob taking the Capitol by force, to overturn an election he didn't win. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 17, 2021 13:19:45 GMT -8
If the House investigation is fair, and I hope it will be, all pertinent facts will come out.
As usual, you somehow twist my words to be a defense of Donald Trump's actions. They are not. I hold no brief for Trump in this matter. I have already posted that I feel that Trump's actions post Nov. 2020 were inexcusable.
And for your part, your responses come very close to saying that the Republican Party has no legitimacy and should be condemned in toto. What is important is that Nancy Pelosi made sure that her committee would consist only of people who had made up their minds that Trump was guilty of, well, I guess treason.
I believe that there was no need to limit the members of the committee to Democrats plus a couple of totally anti-Trump Republicans. The most important thing is that most Americans, including the millions who continue to support Trump, have faith that the committee's findings be legitimate. Or maybe you don't give a damn what people who hold political views different from you own think.
Honestly, Ryan, if you cannot see that Pelosi went out of her way to more or less make sure of the committee's results, I don't know what to say. Apparently, like a crooked gambler who is almost certain that his horse will win but fixes the race anyway, Pelosi chose not to take a chance.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 17, 2021 13:43:11 GMT -8
Answer please: why do you think that Pelosi did not name Republicans other than Cheney and Kinsinger after the original remaining Republicans were withdrawn? Can you not see that naming those two and no others looks very, very unfair to many Americans? If she tried to do that but only those two accepted the invitation, she should have said so publicly.
"Look, I tried to have more Republicans on the committee, but everyone else I approached turned me down." It would have been to her benefit politically to be able to say that. It would have put the onus on the GOP.
Why do you think she did not make such a public statement? Well, let's see. The only reason I can think of as to why she made no such statement is because she NEVER made an attempt to add Republicans to the committee beyond those two guaranteed to be as hostile to Trump as are the Democrats.
I know that you feel that anyone, regardless of party, who does not have as bad an opinion of Trump as yours is illegitimate. If you take a look at America, you must feel it really unfortunate that so many people choose to hold different views.
Again I say, it IS important how he public sees the committee's work. It is obvious to me that such a view was never held by Nancy Pelosi. Results most favorable to her party, not the truth, has always been uppermost in her mind.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 17, 2021 13:48:39 GMT -8
If the House investigation is fair, and I hope it will be, all pertinent facts will come out. As usual, you somehow twist my words to be a defense of Donald Trump's actions. They are not. I hold no brief for Trump in this matter. I have already posted that I feel that Trump's actions post Nov. 2020 were inexcusable. And for your part, your responses come very close to saying that the Republican Party has no legitimacy and should be condemned in toto. What is important is that Nancy Pelosi made sure that her committee would consist only of people who had made up their minds that Trump was guilty of, well, I guess treason. I believe that there was no need to limit the members of the committee to Democrats plus a couple of totally anti-Trump Republicans. The most important thing is that most Americans, including the millions who continue to support Trump, have faith that the committee's findings be legitimate. Or maybe you don't give a damn what people who hold political views different from you own think. Honestly, Ryan, if you cannot see that Pelosi went out of her way to more or less make sure of the committee's results, I don't know what to say. Apparently, like a crooked gambler who is almost certain that his horse will win but fixes the race anyway, Pelosi chose not to take a chance. AzWm This isn't about fairness, it's about justice and the truth. Stating that Pelosi went out of her way to stack the deck is a false characterization of what transpired. Once more, she tried to institute a bipartisan, outside commission. Exactly what you wanted. Her attempt to do that required ensuing legislation, which the Republicans tanked. Why? Answer that. And don't give me some half-baked speech that they are worried about impartiality or being taken advantage of. They are not interested in personal responsibility, their oath of office or any form of justice. I'm not twisting anything - You blame Pelosi, Schiff and any other Democrat you can think of...I've yet to here anything on any Republican outside of feigned anger from a supposed neutral third party perspective. Why? The most important thing is to get to the truth of how deep the involvement goes with people like Jordan, Brooks, Gosar, Boebert, Tuberville and others, including Donald Trump's inner circle. That's really the only important element of what remains. This version of the Republican Party has no legitimacy in my eyes. But that's not completely unfounded, TDS-induced rage. It's well-reasoned, logical, critical analysis of statements made and actions taken that are grossly in conflict with upholding the Constitution. Tommy Tuberville: Direct communication with Trump in real-time as Mike Pence was being evacuated, which led to Trump's tirade on Twitter. Lauren Boebert: Leaking Nancy Pelosi's whereabouts in real-time on social media to her followers and giving illegal Capitol tours. Paul Gosar: Confirmed contact with Stop the Steal fundraisers and event planners. (Just three examples for the sake of time, but there are many, many more) I have no hope for the people who still believe that Trump is president, should be president and that the election was stolen from him. I don't care one ounce about their perspective, because those people are misled by a con artist and a huckster. The Trump campaign directly contributed millions of dollars to this "rally" - That's a major, major problem. You're asking the wrong questions. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 17, 2021 13:54:47 GMT -8
Answer please: why do you think that Pelosi did not name Republicans other than Cheney and Kinsinger after the original remaining Republicans were withdrawn? Can you not see that naming those two and no others looks very, very unfair to many Americans? If she tried to do that but only those two accepted the invitation, she should have said so publicly. " Look, I tried to have more Republicans on the committee, but everyone else I approached turned me down." It would have been to her benefit politically to be able to say that. It would have put the onus on the GOP. Why do you think she did not make such a public statement? Well, let's see. The only reason I can think of as to why she made no such statement is because she NEVER made an attempt to add Republicans to the committee beyond those two guaranteed to be as hostile to Trump as are the Democrats. I know that you feel that anyone, regardless of party, who does not have as bad an opinion of Trump as yours is illegitimate. If you take a look at America, you must feel it really unfortunate that so many people choose to hold different views. Again I say, it IS important how he public sees he committee's work. It is obvious to me that such a view was never held by Nancy Pelosi. Results most favorable to her party, not the truth, has always been uppermost in her mind. AzWm Stop making it about me. Stop acting like my criticisms aren't valid and backed up with facts, more so than you've ever provided in pages and pages of debate. This is not about my lack of tolerant views or one-party dominant superiority. You're flat out wrong here, unfortunately. Kevin McCarthy, not Nancy Pelosi, is where your ire should be directed. Once she rejected (rightfully) Jim Banks and Jim Jordan, two of Trump's most vocal supporters who perpetuated the myth that the election was stolen, Kevin McCarthy pulled the rest of the GOP involvement and stated they would boycott the proceedings like a child because he isn't interested in the truth. More accurate and more important question: Why should the Speaker of the House allow any Republican on the panel who voted not only not to impeach Donald Trump, but also refused to certify the election? If we are at all worried about impartiality, bias, or a transparent investigation, how on Earth could you possibly allow potential criminals to serve on a commission that would reveal their involvement? Why? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 17, 2021 14:07:38 GMT -8
The GOP specializes in the ultimate form of hypocrisy when they can't hold the moral high ground if it was weighted down by two ton pillars. As predictable as the sunrise, the GOP leadership is attempting to blame the current administration for the events in Afghanistan, when it was the previous administration who started the avalanche. This is more of the same rank and file lack of accountability that you see with current leadership in the party as it pertains to January 6th.
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Aug 17, 2021 20:04:07 GMT -8
The GOP specializes in the ultimate form of hypocrisy when they can't hold the moral high ground if it was weighted down by two ton pillars. As predictable as the sunrise, the GOP leadership is attempting to blame the current administration for the events in Afghanistan, when it was the previous administration who started the avalanche. This is more of the same rank and file lack of accountability that you see with current leadership in the party as it pertains to January 6th. I call BS. Almost everyone wanted out of Afghanistan except some neocons from both parties. Remember, Joe voted for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and had 8 years in the smug punk era to do something different and/or exit. Joe raised his hand and asked that he be given the responsibility to direct foreign policy, hand pick the people to lead military, national intelligence agencies, etc., and this epic fail is all his and no one else's. But, but Chewbaca man was in the Capitol  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 17, 2021 20:35:44 GMT -8
The GOP specializes in the ultimate form of hypocrisy when they can't hold the moral high ground if it was weighted down by two ton pillars. As predictable as the sunrise, the GOP leadership is attempting to blame the current administration for the events in Afghanistan, when it was the previous administration who started the avalanche. This is more of the same rank and file lack of accountability that you see with current leadership in the party as it pertains to January 6th. I call BS. Almost everyone wanted out of Afghanistan except some neocons from both parties. Remember, Joe voted for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and had 8 years in the smug punk era to do something different and/or exit. Joe raised his hand and asked that he be given the responsibility to direct foreign policy, hand pick the people to lead military, national intelligence agencies, etc., and this epic fail is all his and no one else's. But, but Chewbaca man was in the Capitol This is completely false, as the drawdown date was instituted by the last administration and the process began under the last administration. Trump tried to take credit for it. The process wasn't great, in fact it was downright bad. But laying this entirely at Biden's feet is an outright falsehood. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 17, 2021 21:00:14 GMT -8
I call BS. Almost everyone wanted out of Afghanistan except some neocons from both parties. Remember, Joe voted for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and had 8 years in the smug punk era to do something different and/or exit. Joe raised his hand and asked that he be given the responsibility to direct foreign policy, hand pick the people to lead military, national intelligence agencies, etc., and this epic fail is all his and no one else's. But, but Chewbaca man was in the Capitol This is completely false, as the drawdown date was instituted by the last administration and the process began under the last administration. Trump tried to take credit for it. The process wasn't great, in fact it was downright bad. But laying this entirely at Biden's feet is an outright falsehood. I don't know why Biden would pull out our troops when the Taliban said that once our troops retreated, they were going to take over. He grossly underestimated the Taliban, and over estimated the Afghan Army. |
|
