BoeingG wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

My opinion is that this crusade against Trump is unwarranted. These hearings (read: theatrics) are a distraction from the pitiful state of our economy—unfettered inflation (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559) and gas prices (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559), and the specter of a recession (https://www.wsj.com/articles/recession- ... 1655631002).

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but rather conveying the consequence of obsessing over a *former* (i.e., powerless) president: ignorance to the issues that matter. $1.6 million was spent 1Q 2022 alone on these hearings (https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-committee ... d=83164749). Sorry if I don't think a fringe faction is worth that much.

Frankly, the media has hyperbolized what amounts to vandalism—something Trump expressly denounced in his January 6 Capitol speech (the one that supposedly "incited" an "insurrection"): https://prnt.sc/PwPSmle0y4sl (source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech). I certainly don't condone what happened, but it's high time to move on.

On the other hand, it's curious that certain leftists won't hold congressmen/women for their hand in "inciting" BLM "protests." A direct quote from Ms. Pressley: "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. And unfortunately, there's plenty to go around..." (source: https://factcheck.afp.com/quotes-us-dem ... s-violence).

Surely, if Trump's speech constitutes "inciting" violence, this does as well. The damage the so-called January 6 "insurrectionists" caused ($1.5 million: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/one-yea ... 20building.) pales in comparison to the $1 billion+ damages by BLM "protestors": https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots- ... rty-damage

Sad that people are only held accountable when it's convenient.

Cool whataboutism story, bro. Care to point out where in the last links any leaders are 'inciting' rioting? Unrest in the streets in the form of people of all ages linking arms is not the same as opportunistic anarchists and teenage gangbangers torching small businesses. Hint: the former is political and attended by people who watch news, the latter aint.

"not the same as opportunistic anarchists and teenage gangbangers torching small businesses."

Who's to say they were opportunistic? They woke up one day and decided to pillage black-owned businesses? They weren't encouraged by politicians and the media to do so? (Hint: that's rhetorical, which you'd know if you read the link I provided.)

We're getting a bit sidetracked from OP's post. I encourage you to read the rest of my comment re: the hearings and their futility, and respond sans immaturity.

The economy was doing great when the MAGAs tried to overthrow the government. These hearings started before corporations got greedy.

Oh, and demanding equal rights is nowhere near the same thing as trying to overthrow the government and demanding the vice president and speaker of the house be executed.

BoeingG wrote:
My opinion is that this crusade against Trump is unwarranted. These hearings (read: theatrics) are a distraction from the pitiful state of our economy—unfettered inflation (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559) and gas prices (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559), and the specter of a recession (https://www.wsj.com/articles/recession- ... 1655631002).

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but rather conveying the consequence of obsessing over a *former* (i.e., powerless) president: ignorance to the issues that matter. $1.6 million was spent 1Q 2022 alone on these hearings (https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-committee ... d=83164749). Sorry if I don't think a fringe faction is worth that much.

Frankly, the media has hyperbolized what amounts to vandalism—something Trump expressly denounced in his January 6 Capitol speech (the one that supposedly "incited" an "insurrection"): https://prnt.sc/PwPSmle0y4sl (source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech). I certainly don't condone what happened, but it's high time to move on.

On the other hand, it's curious that certain leftists won't hold congressmen/women for their hand in "inciting" BLM "protests." A direct quote from Ms. Pressley: "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. And unfortunately, there's plenty to go around..." (source: https://factcheck.afp.com/quotes-us-dem ... s-violence).

Surely, if Trump's speech constitutes "inciting" violence, this does as well. The damage the so-called January 6 "insurrectionists" caused ($1.5 million: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/one-yea ... 20building.) pales in comparison to the $1 billion+ damages by BLM "protestors": https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots- ... rty-damage

Sad that people are only held accountable when it's convenient.

Please note this is a false equivalence, and as such is itself a lie. Trump as President incited a riot with the lie of election fraud, that he knew to be untrue, and he did so for his own personal gain, regardless of the consequences to the nation or anyone but himself. His only goal was the retention of personal power, which was and is despotic behavior.

In contrast, the BLM protests were a result of actual injustices perpetrated against people who were killed as a result those actions. Those were not lies, they were real events, and the protests were intended to rectify similar injustices that had become a repetitive pattern. The protests could and did take place outside the context of any political remarks.

It's true and valid to say that the protests in some cases got out of control, and became riots, although the vast majority of the protests were peaceful. A lot of damage was done as a consequence. But no one applauds that, or views it as the intent of the protestors or their organizers.

Very critically, they were not organized by the White House for the purposes of disrupting and overturning the election, on behalf of one individual. And that individual still defends the Jan 6 Capitol rioter actions, claiming it was necessary to undo the election fraud, which he knows to be a lie.

So there is no equivalence between these events, and suggesting that there is, is frankly disingenuous, if not outright shameful.

Avatar2go wrote:

BoeingG wrote:
My opinion is that this crusade against Trump is unwarranted. These hearings (read: theatrics) are a distraction from the pitiful state of our economy—unfettered inflation (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559) and gas prices (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559), and the specter of a recession (https://www.wsj.com/articles/recession- ... 1655631002).

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but rather conveying the consequence of obsessing over a *former* (i.e., powerless) president: ignorance to the issues that matter. $1.6 million was spent 1Q 2022 alone on these hearings (https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-committee ... d=83164749). Sorry if I don't think a fringe faction is worth that much.

Frankly, the media has hyperbolized what amounts to vandalism—something Trump expressly denounced in his January 6 Capitol speech (the one that supposedly "incited" an "insurrection"): https://prnt.sc/PwPSmle0y4sl (source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech). I certainly don't condone what happened, but it's high time to move on.

On the other hand, it's curious that certain leftists won't hold congressmen/women for their hand in "inciting" BLM "protests." A direct quote from Ms. Pressley: "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. And unfortunately, there's plenty to go around..." (source: https://factcheck.afp.com/quotes-us-dem ... s-violence).

Surely, if Trump's speech constitutes "inciting" violence, this does as well. The damage the so-called January 6 "insurrectionists" caused ($1.5 million: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/one-yea ... 20building.) pales in comparison to the $1 billion+ damages by BLM "protestors": https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots- ... rty-damage

Sad that people are only held accountable when it's convenient.

Please note this is a false equivalence, and as such is itself a lie. Trump as President incited a riot with the lie of election fraud, that he knew to be untrue, and he did so for his own personal gain, regardless of the consequences to the nation or anyone but himself. His only goal was the retention of personal power, which was and is despotic behavior.

In contrast, the BLM protests were a result of actual injustices perpetrated against people who were killed as a result those actions. Those were not lies, they were real events, and the protests were intended to rectify similar injustices that had become a repetitive pattern. The protests could and did take place outside the context of any political remarks.

It's true and valid to say that the protests in some cases got out of control, and became riots, although the vast majority of the protests were peaceful. A lot of damage was done as a consequence. But no one applauds that, or views it as the intent of the protestors or their organizers.

Very critically, they were not organized by the White House for the purposes of disrupting and overturning the election, on behalf of one individual. And that individual still defends the Jan 6 Capitol rioter actions, claiming it was necessary to undo the election fraud, which he knows to be a lie.

So there is no equivalence between these events, and suggesting that there is, is frankly disingenuous, if not outright shameful.

"His only goal was the retention of personal power, which was and is despotic behavior."

Hyperbole and ignorance. You're waxing poetic. No, it's not a false equivalence for the reasons I mentioned. No, referring to Trump supporters as "MAGAs" does not help your credibility. No, infantilizing the black populace and excusing the damage politicians encouraged some of them to inflict is not "justice," but patent hypocrisy. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

scbriml wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

My opinion is that this crusade against Trump is unwarranted. These hearings (read: theatrics) are a distraction from the pitiful state of our economy—unfettered inflation (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559) and gas prices (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559), and the specter of a recession (https://www.wsj.com/articles/recession- ... 1655631002).

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but rather conveying the consequence of obsessing over a *former* (i.e., powerless) president: ignorance to the issues that matter. $1.6 million was spent 1Q 2022 alone on these hearings (https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-committee ... d=83164749). Sorry if I don't think a fringe faction is worth that much.

Frankly, the media has hyperbolized what amounts to vandalism—something Trump expressly denounced in his January 6 Capitol speech (the one that supposedly "incited" an "insurrection"): https://prnt.sc/PwPSmle0y4sl (source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech). I certainly don't condone what happened, but it's high time to move on.

On the other hand, it's curious that certain leftists won't hold congressmen/women for their hand in "inciting" BLM "protests." A direct quote from Ms. Pressley: "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. And unfortunately, there's plenty to go around..." (source: https://factcheck.afp.com/quotes-us-dem ... s-violence).

Surely, if Trump's speech constitutes "inciting" violence, this does as well. The damage the so-called January 6 "insurrectionists" caused ($1.5 million: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/one-yea ... 20building.) pales in comparison to the $1 billion+ damages by BLM "protestors": https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots- ... rty-damage

Sad that people are only held accountable when it's convenient.

Yeah, let's just pretend Trump and his gullible followers/worshipers didn't try to subvert the whole democratic process. Let's just move on.... Ooh look, a squirrel!

Your sarcasm and hyperbole are immature and detract from this discussion.

BoeingG wrote:

"His only goal was the retention of personal power, which was and is despotic behavior."

Hyperbole and ignorance.

So, uh, what was the goal, then?

BoeingG wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

BoeingG wrote:
My opinion is that this crusade against Trump is unwarranted. These hearings (read: theatrics) are a distraction from the pitiful state of our economy—unfettered inflation (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559) and gas prices (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559), and the specter of a recession (https://www.wsj.com/articles/recession- ... 1655631002).

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but rather conveying the consequence of obsessing over a *former* (i.e., powerless) president: ignorance to the issues that matter. $1.6 million was spent 1Q 2022 alone on these hearings (https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-committee ... d=83164749). Sorry if I don't think a fringe faction is worth that much.

Frankly, the media has hyperbolized what amounts to vandalism—something Trump expressly denounced in his January 6 Capitol speech (the one that supposedly "incited" an "insurrection"): https://prnt.sc/PwPSmle0y4sl (source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech). I certainly don't condone what happened, but it's high time to move on.

On the other hand, it's curious that certain leftists won't hold congressmen/women for their hand in "inciting" BLM "protests." A direct quote from Ms. Pressley: "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. And unfortunately, there's plenty to go around..." (source: https://factcheck.afp.com/quotes-us-dem ... s-violence).

Surely, if Trump's speech constitutes "inciting" violence, this does as well. The damage the so-called January 6 "insurrectionists" caused ($1.5 million: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/one-yea ... 20building.) pales in comparison to the $1 billion+ damages by BLM "protestors": https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots- ... rty-damage

Sad that people are only held accountable when it's convenient.

Please note this is a false equivalence, and as such is itself a lie. Trump as President incited a riot with the lie of election fraud, that he knew to be untrue, and he did so for his own personal gain, regardless of the consequences to the nation or anyone but himself. His only goal was the retention of personal power, which was and is despotic behavior.

In contrast, the BLM protests were a result of actual injustices perpetrated against people who were killed as a result those actions. Those were not lies, they were real events, and the protests were intended to rectify similar injustices that had become a repetitive pattern. The protests could and did take place outside the context of any political remarks.

It's true and valid to say that the protests in some cases got out of control, and became riots, although the vast majority of the protests were peaceful. A lot of damage was done as a consequence. But no one applauds that, or views it as the intent of the protestors or their organizers.

Very critically, they were not organized by the White House for the purposes of disrupting and overturning the election, on behalf of one individual. And that individual still defends the Jan 6 Capitol rioter actions, claiming it was necessary to undo the election fraud, which he knows to be a lie.

So there is no equivalence between these events, and suggesting that there is, is frankly disingenuous, if not outright shameful.

"His only goal was the retention of personal power, which was and is despotic behavior."

Hyperbole and ignorance. You're waxing poetic. No, it's not a false equivalence for the reasons I mentioned. No, referring to Trump supporters as "MAGAs" does not help your credibility. No, infantilizing the black populace and excusing the damage politicians encouraged some of them to inflict is not "justice," but patent hypocrisy. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Please note you haven't addressed any of my points, outside of insults and derision. Which is the common response of people who know they are in the wrong, and haven't a leg to stand on. You can't refute them because they're true. Note also, that I did address all of your points.

If you want to understand why meaningful discussion in this country has broken down, this is why. Take unwarranted and unsubstantiated shots, then withdraw while implying the other side is the problem. Then moan and complain about people trying to establish the truth, because that is actually the last thing you want.

Except that doesn't work on intelligent people, who see right through it.

Newark727 wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

"His only goal was the retention of personal power, which was and is despotic behavior."

Hyperbole and ignorance.

So, uh, what was the goal, then?

Q: What was the goal of the BLM riots?

A: Both were attempts to intimidate politicians into acquiescing to their demands.

And while we're on the topic of accountability, where is Dems' outrage over Hunter Biden? (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/p ... ation.html) Where is the incessant news coverage on him? Or is that just another "MAGGOT" conspiracy?

The point I'm making is that accountability isn't a one-way street, as many here seem to think. You can't dispense justice based on your biases. It's baffling how people can't rationalize this.

Avatar2go wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Please note this is a false equivalence, and as such is itself a lie. Trump as President incited a riot with the lie of election fraud, that he knew to be untrue, and he did so for his own personal gain, regardless of the consequences to the nation or anyone but himself. His only goal was the retention of personal power, which was and is despotic behavior.

In contrast, the BLM protests were a result of actual injustices perpetrated against people who were killed as a result those actions. Those were not lies, they were real events, and the protests were intended to rectify similar injustices that had become a repetitive pattern. The protests could and did take place outside the context of any political remarks.

It's true and valid to say that the protests in some cases got out of control, and became riots, although the vast majority of the protests were peaceful. A lot of damage was done as a consequence. But no one applauds that, or views it as the intent of the protestors or their organizers.

Very critically, they were not organized by the White House for the purposes of disrupting and overturning the election, on behalf of one individual. And that individual still defends the Jan 6 Capitol rioter actions, claiming it was necessary to undo the election fraud, which he knows to be a lie.

So there is no equivalence between these events, and suggesting that there is, is frankly disingenuous, if not outright shameful.

"His only goal was the retention of personal power, which was and is despotic behavior."

Hyperbole and ignorance. You're waxing poetic. No, it's not a false equivalence for the reasons I mentioned. No, referring to Trump supporters as "MAGAs" does not help your credibility. No, infantilizing the black populace and excusing the damage politicians encouraged some of them to inflict is not "justice," but patent hypocrisy. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Please note you haven't addressed any of my points, outside of insults and derision. Which is the common response of people who know they are in the wrong, and haven't a leg to stand on. You can't refute them because they're true. Note also, that I did address all of your points.

If you want to understand why meaningful discussion in this country has broken down, this is why. Take unwarranted and unsubstantiated shots, then withdraw while implying the other side is the problem. Then moan and complain about people trying to establish the truth, because that is actually the last thing you want.

Except that doesn't work on intelligent people, who see right through it.

"Please note you haven't addressed any of my points, outside of insults and derision. "

Because nothing you've stated refutes any of what I've said. The rationale I articulated addresses each of your "points."

Fitting that 90% of this comment is riddled with the derision that you decried.

EDIT: also, please provide sources for the (baseless) claims you've put forth. I'm almost certain users are required to distinguish between fact and opinion on these forums, hence why I took care to do so in my post.

If Hunter Biden or BLM activists stormed the seat of US democracy on the day the peaceful transition of power was to occur, via the certifying of the election, then they should be held to the same degree of justice and accountability. But they didn't.

To be clear - you are of the view that the events of Jan 6, 2021 should not be investigated because gas is high and inflation is high in June of 2022?

seb146 wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Cool whataboutism story, bro. Care to point out where in the last links any leaders are 'inciting' rioting? Unrest in the streets in the form of people of all ages linking arms is not the same as opportunistic anarchists and teenage gangbangers torching small businesses. Hint: the former is political and attended by people who watch news, the latter aint.

"not the same as opportunistic anarchists and teenage gangbangers torching small businesses."

Who's to say they were opportunistic? They woke up one day and decided to pillage black-owned businesses? They weren't encouraged by politicians and the media to do so? (Hint: that's rhetorical, which you'd know if you read the link I provided.)

We're getting a bit sidetracked from OP's post. I encourage you to read the rest of my comment re: the hearings and their futility, and respond sans immaturity.

The economy was doing great when the MAGAs tried to overthrow the government. These hearings started before corporations got greedy.

Oh, and demanding equal rights is nowhere near the same thing as trying to overthrow the government and demanding the vice president and speaker of the house be executed.

"The economy was doing great when the MAGAs tried to overthrow the government."
Generalization, immaturity ("MAGAs"), baseless hyperbole ("overthrow the government"). Please provide sources for your claims.

"Oh, and demanding equal rights is nowhere near the same thing as trying to overthrow"
Yes it is, in the sense that the means to achieve these "equal rights" (whatever that means...impunity?) was committed through violence and intimidation.

"demanding the vice president and speaker of the house be executed."
Right. Because it's fair to base our opinions of millions of Trump supporters on a crazed few. Also, source this.

BoeingG wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

"His only goal was the retention of personal power, which was and is despotic behavior."

Hyperbole and ignorance. You're waxing poetic. No, it's not a false equivalence for the reasons I mentioned. No, referring to Trump supporters as "MAGAs" does not help your credibility. No, infantilizing the black populace and excusing the damage politicians encouraged some of them to inflict is not "justice," but patent hypocrisy. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Please note you haven't addressed any of my points, outside of insults and derision. Which is the common response of people who know they are in the wrong, and haven't a leg to stand on. You can't refute them because they're true. Note also, that I did address all of your points.

If you want to understand why meaningful discussion in this country has broken down, this is why. Take unwarranted and unsubstantiated shots, then withdraw while implying the other side is the problem. Then moan and complain about people trying to establish the truth, because that is actually the last thing you want.

Except that doesn't work on intelligent people, who see right through it.

"Please note you haven't addressed any of my points, outside of insults and derision. "

Because nothing you've stated refutes any of what I've said. The rationale I articulated addresses each of your "points."

Fitting that 90% of this comment is riddled with the derision that you decried.

EDIT: also, please provide sources for the (baseless) claims you've put forth. I'm almost certain users are required to distinguish between fact and opinion on these forums, hence why I took care to do so in my post.

Still waiting for that factual response. The claims I made are now common knowledge, as to what happened Jan 6 (if you've been watching the hearings) and what happened in the BLM protests (events were heavily covered in the news).

As to derision, I've pointed out that you aren't actually arguing facts, but your uninformed opinion. That is not derision, but is itself a fact.

skyservice_330 wrote:

If Hunter Biden or BLM activists stormed the seat of US democracy on the day the peaceful transition of power was to occur, via the certifying of the election, then they should be held to the same degree of justice and accountability. But they didn't.

To be clear - you are of the view that the events of Jan 6, 2021 should not be investigated because gas is high and inflation is high in June of 2022?

"same degree of justice and accountability. But they didn't."
So they shouldn't be held accountable is what you're insinuating? Really? Also, I don't know what "degree" of accountability means. Either they are tried and acquitted or convicted, or they aren't.

"you are of the view that the events of Jan 6, 2021"
I am of the view that hyperbolizing what amounted to vandalism is a nonsensical waste of energy and resources. I am not saying the vandals shouldn't be held accountable, I am explaining why this crusade against Trump (former president, if that wasn't clear already) is useless and indicative of long-standing Dem hypocrisy regarding "justice."

BoeingG wrote:

"The economy was doing great when the MAGAs tried to overthrow the government."
Generalization, immaturity ("MAGAs"), baseless hyperbole ("overthrow the government"). Please provide sources for your claims.

"Oh, and demanding equal rights is nowhere near the same thing as trying to overthrow"
Yes it is, in the sense that the means to achieve these "equal rights" (whatever that means...impunity?) was committed through violence and intimidation.

"demanding the vice president and speaker of the house be executed."
Right. Because it's fair to base our opinions of millions of Trump supporters on a crazed few. Also, source this.

It's pretty rich to be trolling on behalf of the "hang Mike Pence" crew by accusing people insufficient decorum and adherence to the rules. If you gave a rat's ass about properly sourced arguments and avoidance of "hyperbole," we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The whole reason any of this happened was because the president of the United States wanted to believe flagrant bullshit and didn't get thrown out on his ass immediately for it.

BoeingG wrote:

"you are of the view that the events of Jan 6, 2021"
I am of the view that hyperbolizing what amounted to vandalism is a nonsensical waste of energy and resources. I am not saying the vandals shouldn't be held accountable, I am explaining why this crusade against Trump (former president, if that wasn't clear already) is useless and indicative of long-standing Dem hypocrisy regarding "justice."

Please note that crusade is not against Trump, but Trump's actions in trying to overturn his own electoral defeat. Which is completely against the letter and intent of the Constitution. Same would be done for any President who attempted to do so. A sitting President cannot refuse to accept his defeat at the hands of the people. To do so implies his power is invested in himself, which is what tyrants and despots believe. But in the US, thanks to the Constitution, power is invested in the people, not in politicians. Every President before Trump has understood this, and that a peaceful transfer of power is the hallmark of that fundamental principle.

That is not hyperbole, again it's the factual truth.

BoeingG wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

If Hunter Biden or BLM activists stormed the seat of US democracy on the day the peaceful transition of power was to occur, via the certifying of the election, then they should be held to the same degree of justice and accountability. But they didn't.

To be clear - you are of the view that the events of Jan 6, 2021 should not be investigated because gas is high and inflation is high in June of 2022?

"same degree of justice and accountability. But they didn't."
So they shouldn't be held accountable is what you're insinuating? Really? Also, I don't know what "degree" of accountability means. Either they are tried and acquitted or convicted, or they aren't.

"you are of the view that the events of Jan 6, 2021"
I am of the view that hyperbolizing what amounted to vandalism is a nonsensical waste of energy and resources. I am not saying the vandals shouldn't be held accountable, I am explaining why this crusade against Trump (former president, if that wasn't clear already) is useless and indicative of long-standing Dem hypocrisy regarding "justice."

No, that is not what I am insinuating. My point was that if Hunter Biden or BLM did what the insurrectionists of Jan 6. did in terms of storming the Capitol Building that I would expect that they be held to account in the exact same way - in whatever form that may take. The point being - if you storm the seat of US democracy with the intent of interfering or interrupting the governance of the country - whether right or left or black or white - you should be held to account in the same way as any other person.

But again, this isn't about Hunter Biden or BLM activists.

On the other points - we will need to disagree on a matter of principles and values. I don't view an investigation of what happened that day as hyperbolic or useless.

And if you are going to insist on respectful exchanges, you may want to drop the sarcasm by suggesting that posters don't know that Trump was the former President. I assure you, it was perfectly clear already.

Have a good day. The next committee hearing is June 21 @ 1pm. Don't forget to tune in!

Could someone then please answer the question for BoeingG, I’d love to know his opinion on what exactly he thinks Trump was trying to do? Hope I don’t turn into one of those memes, a skeleton, hanging at the picnic table with beer in hand, patiently waiting for a answer…

While the poster in question has excused themselves from the discussion, I went back and read the thread was surprised that the term MAGA / MAGAs was seen as insulting or immature. I posit that MAGAs is not an insult. In fact, it is used by members of the 'MAGA movement' to refer to themselves.

In this article, it is noted how a member of the GOP refers to the 'MAGA crew' in a recent video about RINO hunting - (yes, RINO - not Rhino's) https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sk ... =bfnsplash

In the video, which was posted to Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, a group of armed men dressed as Navy SEALS then break down the door of a home and enter it with their guns drawn as dramatic music plays.

Greitens follows them inside and says, "Join the MAGA crew, get a RINO hunting permit, there's no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it doesn't expire until we save our country."

If members of the group refers to themselves as the 'MAGA crew' then using the term 'MAGAs' is an appropriate way to refer to someone who is part of, or identifies with, it. Similarly, if someone said 'join the Republican crew' .. members of the crew would be referred to as - you guessed it - Republicans!

Some interesting polling out.

6 in 10 Americans say Trump should be charged for Jan. 6 riot: POLL
A majority of Americans also think the Jan. 6 committee has been fair.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/10-amer ... d=85482369

Of course, it is split largely among party lines - but the following is an interesting tidbit -

Among self-described independents, 62% think Trump should be charged and 61% think he bears a "great deal" or a "good amount" of responsibility.

Will be interesting to see the trend lines as the investigation continues.

skyservice_330 wrote:

While the poster in question has excused themselves from the discussion, I went back and read the thread was surprised that the term MAGA / MAGAs was seen as insulting or immature. I posit that MAGAs is not an insult. In fact, it is used by members of the 'MAGA movement' to refer to themselves.

In this article, it is noted how a member of the GOP refers to the 'MAGA crew' in a recent video about RINO hunting - (yes, RINO - not Rhino's) https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sk ... =bfnsplash

In the video, which was posted to Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, a group of armed men dressed as Navy SEALS then break down the door of a home and enter it with their guns drawn as dramatic music plays.

Greitens follows them inside and says, "Join the MAGA crew, get a RINO hunting permit, there's no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it doesn't expire until we save our country."

If members of the group refers to themselves as the 'MAGA crew' then using the term 'MAGAs' is an appropriate way to refer to someone who is part of, or identifies with, it. Similarly, if someone said 'join the Republican crew' .. members of the crew would be referred to as - you guessed it - Republicans!

Almost as though that poster wasn't being very honest, or was looking for a distraction, or something... Crazy idea, I know.

Now now Newark727. Just remember, Hilary BLM Benghazi Hunter Hilary Soros WEF Hunter Hilary Emails BLM Trans.

Questions?

Please stick to the discussion. Argumentative and disrespectful comments will be removed, and users may be banned. There's also absolutely no reason to declare multiple times that you're done with a discussion...you can just leave.

✈️ atcsundevil

BoeingG wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

If Hunter Biden or BLM activists stormed the seat of US democracy on the day the peaceful transition of power was to occur, via the certifying of the election, then they should be held to the same degree of justice and accountability. But they didn't.

To be clear - you are of the view that the events of Jan 6, 2021 should not be investigated because gas is high and inflation is high in June of 2022?

"same degree of justice and accountability. But they didn't."
So they shouldn't be held accountable is what you're insinuating? Really? Also, I don't know what "degree" of accountability means. Either they are tried and acquitted or convicted, or they aren't.

"you are of the view that the events of Jan 6, 2021"
I am of the view that hyperbolizing what amounted to vandalism is a nonsensical waste of energy and resources. I am not saying the vandals shouldn't be held accountable, I am explaining why this crusade against Trump (former president, if that wasn't clear already) is useless and indicative of long-standing Dem hypocrisy regarding "justice."

So as a thought experiment, if say nobody stopped the “vandals”, what might the outcome have been? Are you suggesting that they would have had enough of vandalizing and just went home peacefully?

hh65man wrote:

Could someone then please answer the question for BoeingG, I’d love to know his opinion on what exactly he thinks Trump was trying to do? Hope I don’t turn into one of those memes, a skeleton, hanging at the picnic table with beer in hand, patiently waiting for a answer…

I will but I can't speak for anyone but myself. No matter how many times the the media parrots repeat there was no significant election fraud, the majority of American voters believe there was.

"A majority (51%) of voters believe it is likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 35% who say it’s Very Likely cheating affected the election.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe it is likely last year’s presidential election was affected by cheating, a view shared by 30% of Democrats and 51% of voters not affiliated with either major party."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public ... scriminate

I am surprised the numbers aren’t higher. I would have guessed more democrats thinking the republicans cheated.

afcjets wrote:

hh65man wrote:

Could someone then please answer the question for BoeingG, I’d love to know his opinion on what exactly he thinks Trump was trying to do? Hope I don’t turn into one of those memes, a skeleton, hanging at the picnic table with beer in hand, patiently waiting for a answer… :roll:

I will but I can't speak for anyone but myself. No matter how many times the the media parrots repeat there was no significant election fraud, the majority of American voters believe there was.

"A majority (51%) of voters believe it is likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 35% who say it’s Very Likely cheating affected the election.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe it is likely last year’s presidential election was affected by cheating, a view shared by 30% of Democrats and 51% of voters not affiliated with either major party."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public ... scriminate

M564038 wrote:

I am surprised the numbers aren’t higher. I would have guessed more democrats thinking the republicans cheated.

afcjets wrote:

hh65man wrote:

Could someone then please answer the question for BoeingG, I’d love to know his opinion on what exactly he thinks Trump was trying to do? Hope I don’t turn into one of those memes, a skeleton, hanging at the picnic table with beer in hand, patiently waiting for a answer…

I will but I can't speak for anyone but myself. No matter how many times the the media parrots repeat there was no significant election fraud, the majority of American voters believe there was.

"A majority (51%) of voters believe it is likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 35% who say it’s Very Likely cheating affected the election.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe it is likely last year’s presidential election was affected by cheating, a view shared by 30% of Democrats and 51% of voters not affiliated with either major party."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public ... scriminate

You're probably right, there are a lot of Republicans like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger who would likely gladly cheat to help a Democrat beat Trump.

afcjets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I am surprised the numbers aren’t higher. I would have guessed more democrats thinking the republicans cheated.

afcjets wrote:

I will but I can't speak for anyone but myself. No matter how many times the the media parrots repeat there was no significant election fraud, the majority of American voters believe there was.

"A majority (51%) of voters believe it is likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 35% who say it’s Very Likely cheating affected the election.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe it is likely last year’s presidential election was affected by cheating, a view shared by 30% of Democrats and 51% of voters not affiliated with either major party."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public ... scriminate

You're probably right, there are a lot of Republicans like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger who would likely gladly cheat to help a Democrat beat Trump.

This is just absolutely crazy-level reasoning. Are. you. ok.?

Aaron747 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I am surprised the numbers aren’t higher. I would have guessed more democrats thinking the republicans cheated.

You're probably right, there are a lot of Republicans like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger who would likely gladly cheat to help a Democrat beat Trump.

This is just absolutely crazy-level reasoning. Are. you. ok.?

I think it’s sarcasm. However, if not I’m concerned as well

The Rasmussen poll cited above is from April 2021. The polls have shifted after last year, when all the audits undertaken by GOP supporters turned up nothing. In May 2022, a Winthrop poll found:

Eighty-five percent of Democratic respondents said the election of President Joe Biden was fair, while 77% of Republicans said it wasn’t. “Belief, or at least desire to publicly express belief, in the premise that the outcome of the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent remains a major partisan point of division,” Winthrop Poll Director Scott Huffmon said. “While no widespread fraud was found, it remains a touchstone of Republican identity to vocally express doubt.”

This is consistent with comments in this thread as well. Conservatives have been told by their leaders and pundits that something is being taken from them by liberals, for the last 30 years. Now those birds have come home to roost, it no longer matters whether it's true or not. It's a highly corrosive activity for society, but it keeps those people in power, which is their main concern. Ends justify the means.

Also thought it was interesting that Huffmon distinguished between believing, and expressing belief. That has been my experience as well, that most Republicans who advocate for the election fraud issue, in fact know that it isn't true. But they don't want to suffer the losses that might result from admission.

I am right. This wasn't the only case brought up:
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/ar ... -wisconsin

afcjets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I am surprised the numbers aren’t higher. I would have guessed more democrats thinking the republicans cheated.

afcjets wrote:

I will but I can't speak for anyone but myself. No matter how many times the the media parrots repeat there was no significant election fraud, the majority of American voters believe there was.

"A majority (51%) of voters believe it is likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 35% who say it’s Very Likely cheating affected the election.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe it is likely last year’s presidential election was affected by cheating, a view shared by 30% of Democrats and 51% of voters not affiliated with either major party."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public ... scriminate

You're probably right, there are a lot of Republicans like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger who would likely gladly cheat to help a Democrat beat Trump.

afcjets wrote:

hh65man wrote:

Could someone then please answer the question for BoeingG, I’d love to know his opinion on what exactly he thinks Trump was trying to do? Hope I don’t turn into one of those memes, a skeleton, hanging at the picnic table with beer in hand, patiently waiting for a answer…

I will but I can't speak for anyone but myself. No matter how many times the the media parrots repeat there was no significant election fraud, the majority of American voters believe there was.

"A majority (51%) of voters believe it is likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 35% who say it’s Very Likely cheating affected the election.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe it is likely last year’s presidential election was affected by cheating, a view shared by 30% of Democrats and 51% of voters not affiliated with either major party."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public ... scriminate

I always wonder why the folks who thought that the Dems cheated never once stopped to consider the GOP may have cheated as well. Or do they believe that all republicans are 100% honest and would never try to swing an election by underhanded means? Or do they just not think they're as smart as the side that supposedly pulled it off and couldn't think of how to do it? It boggles the mind....

The Tuesday, 6/21, 1 PM public session of the J6 Committee will focus on the actions by Trump and others supporting the attempts to reverse the votes in the states to Trump. Expected live witnesses will include Georgia elections and other officials who were being pressured to change votes for Trump.

afcjets wrote:

I will but I can't speak for anyone but myself. No matter how many times the the media parrots repeat there was no significant election fraud, the majority of American voters believe there was.

In 2012, a majority of American voters believed in Santa Claus, according to PPP.
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pol ... ys-debate/

In 2012 52% of Americans said they believed in Santa Claus to 45% who said they did not.

ER757 wrote:

I always wonder why the folks who thought that the Dems cheated never once stopped to consider the GOP may have cheated as well. Or do they believe that all republicans are 100% honest and would never try to swing an election by underhanded means? Or do they just not think they're as smart as the side that supposedly pulled it off and couldn't think of how to do it? It boggles the mind....

Once again I can only speak for myself. I am neither Republican or Democrat and I already indicated I believe people like Mitt, Adam and Liz, despite what I believe there ultimate fantasy is which is to be praised as an honorable loser by Democrats, that they're not above cheating. So I will definitely go with and wholeheartedly agree with your last option, IMO Republicans as a whole are not nearly as smart, skilled and experienced at cheating as the DNC is.

afcjets wrote:

You're probably right, there are a lot of Republicans like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger who would likely gladly cheat to help a Democrat beat Trump.

Good for them but at this point the Dems are going to be handed a devastating loss in this election as well as in two years. We are so far gone it will take a while to recover and it won't be time for 2024, people will remember and they won't care about this spectacle on TV or that Russia has invaded Ukraine.

Avatar2go wrote:

This is consistent with comments in this thread as well. Conservatives have been told by their leaders and pundits that something is being taken from them by liberals, for the last 30 years. Now those birds have come home to roost, it no longer matters whether it's true or not. It's a highly corrosive activity for society, but it keeps those people in power, which is their main concern. Ends justify the means.

Also thought it was interesting that Huffmon distinguished between believing, and expressing belief. That has been my experience as well, that most Republicans who advocate for the election fraud issue, in fact know that it isn't true. But they don't want to suffer the losses that might result from admission.

Once again I'm not a Republican. I will only believe the election wasn't stolen when someone offers an explanation beyond the circular logic of the evidence has been debunked.

afcjets wrote:

Once again I'm not a Republican. I will only believe the election wasn't stolen when someone offers an explanation beyond the circular logic of the evidence has been debunked.

So will just point out that this is the common thread of conspiracy theories, to insist that something be disproved, rather than proved. Also explains why the divide is so wide on this issue.

One side is using the formal logic that fraud allegations have to be proved, which is also the foundation of our system of justice. On that side, there is no evidence despite massive efforts to investigate across the country. As acknowledged even by our former attorney general, staunch Republican and Trump supporter Bill Barr.

The other side is demanding that fraud be disproved. But of course the reason disproof is not admitted into formal logic, is that you cannot account for every possible way in which fraud can be committed, nor every possible person that might have committed it. In short, you cannot prove a negative assertion, only positive assertions can be proved.

This is why in our justice system, people are presumed innocent as a matter of law, and their guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The law very specifically does not allow the presumption of guilt, with the subsequent need for the defendant to disprove the presumption. The obvious reason for this, is the impossibility of defense. The prosecution could continually raise new mechanisms of guilt, forever, and the defendant would have to answer each one.

This quite obviously stacks the deck in favor of the prosecution, and that is also the reason it's favored by conspiracy theorists. They can say, "you can't disprove that it happened", and that is correct. But the flaw lies in the initial premise of the presumption of fraud, without evidence.

afcjets wrote:

Once again I can only speak for myself. I am neither Republican or Democrat and I already indicated I believe people like Mitt, Adam and Liz, despite what I believe there ultimate fantasy is which is to be praised as an honorable loser by Democrats,

(citation needed)

NIKV69 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

You're probably right, there are a lot of Republicans like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger who would likely gladly cheat to help a Democrat beat Trump.

Good for them but at this point the Dems are going to be handed a devastating loss in this election as well as in two years. We are so far gone it will take a while to recover and it won't be time for 2024, people will remember and they won't care about this spectacle on TV or that Russia has invaded Ukraine.

Copy that - Republicans are above consequences for their actions as long as they win elections.

afcjets wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

This is consistent with comments in this thread as well. Conservatives have been told by their leaders and pundits that something is being taken from them by liberals, for the last 30 years. Now those birds have come home to roost, it no longer matters whether it's true or not. It's a highly corrosive activity for society, but it keeps those people in power, which is their main concern. Ends justify the means.

Also thought it was interesting that Huffmon distinguished between believing, and expressing belief. That has been my experience as well, that most Republicans who advocate for the election fraud issue, in fact know that it isn't true. But they don't want to suffer the losses that might result from admission.

Once again I'm not a Republican. I will only believe the election wasn't stolen when someone offers an explanation beyond the circular logic of the evidence has been debunked.

Not how the real world works. Belief is for things not tangibly verifiable.

Avatar2go wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Once again I'm not a Republican. I will only believe the election wasn't stolen when someone offers an explanation beyond the circular logic of the evidence has been debunked.

So will just point out that this is the common thread of conspiracy theories, to insist that something be disproved, rather than proved. Also explains why the divide is so wide on this issue.

One side is using the formal logic that fraud allegations have to be proved, which is also the foundation of our system of justice. On that side, there is no evidence despite massive efforts to investigate across the country. As acknowledged even by our former attorney general, staunch Republican and Trump supporter Bill Barr.

The other side is demanding that fraud be disproved. But of course the reason disproof is not admitted into formal logic, is that you cannot account for every possible way in which fraud can be committed, nor every possible person that might have committed it. In short, you cannot prove a negative assertion, only positive assertions can be proved.

This is why in our justice system, people are presumed innocent as a matter of law, and their guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The law very specifically does not allow the presumption of guilt, with the subsequent need for the defendant to disprove the presumption. The obvious reason for this, is the impossibility of defense. The prosecution could continually raise new mechanisms of guilt, forever, and the defendant would have to answer each one.

This quite obviously stacks the deck in favor of the prosecution, and that is also the reason it's favored by conspiracy theorists. They can say, "you can't disprove that it happened", and that is correct. But the flaw lies in the initial premise of the presumption of fraud, without evidence.

Gee, thanks for explaining how our justice system works. Perhaps you can now enlighten the 1/6 committee.

As for your last sentence, please read mine again (the one you quoted).

Newark727 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Once again I can only speak for myself. I am neither Republican or Democrat and I already indicated I believe people like Mitt, Adam and Liz, despite what I believe there ultimate fantasy is which is to be praised as an honorable loser by Democrats,

(citation needed)

The citation was provided and included in your quote. Here it is again for quick reference, and with bolded text for added clarity.

"I believe their ultimate fantasy is which is to be praised as an honorable loser by Democrats"

Afcjets

afcjets wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Once again I'm not a Republican. I will only believe the election wasn't stolen when someone offers an explanation beyond the circular logic of the evidence has been debunked.

Gee, thanks for explaining how our justice system works. Perhaps you can now enlighten the 1/6 committee.

As for your last sentence, please read mine again (the one you quoted).

This is a retort like the earlier one from a commenter yesterday, that doesn't address the points raised.

You don't accept that the evidence has been debunked, but the reason it's debunked is that there is no substantive evidence. That has been extensively established, even by Republican reviewers.

You refer to circular logic, but your own is clearly circular. You presume fraud based on no substantive evidence, then insist that your presumption hasn't been debunked. That's an intentional double negative to make it appear that your position is not a presumption, and is based on evidence, even though it's already well established that such evidence doesn't exist.

If one straightens out the double negative, the result is that you don't accept that there is no evidence. Which is tantamount to asking that your presumption be disproved. That's what I tried to point out.

This isn't meant as insult or offense to you, I'm seriously trying to encourage you to adopt the formal rules of logic, which would help you to rule out fraud in this case.

Avatar2go wrote:

BoeingG wrote:
My opinion is that this crusade against Trump is unwarranted. These hearings (read: theatrics) are a distraction from the pitiful state of our economy—unfettered inflation (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559) and gas prices (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559), and the specter of a recession (https://www.wsj.com/articles/recession- ... 1655631002).

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but rather conveying the consequence of obsessing over a *former* (i.e., powerless) president: ignorance to the issues that matter. $1.6 million was spent 1Q 2022 alone on these hearings (https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-committee ... d=83164749). Sorry if I don't think a fringe faction is worth that much.

Frankly, the media has hyperbolized what amounts to vandalism—something Trump expressly denounced in his January 6 Capitol speech (the one that supposedly "incited" an "insurrection"): https://prnt.sc/PwPSmle0y4sl (source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech). I certainly don't condone what happened, but it's high time to move on.

On the other hand, it's curious that certain leftists won't hold congressmen/women for their hand in "inciting" BLM "protests." A direct quote from Ms. Pressley: "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. And unfortunately, there's plenty to go around..." (source: https://factcheck.afp.com/quotes-us-dem ... s-violence).

Surely, if Trump's speech constitutes "inciting" violence, this does as well. The damage the so-called January 6 "insurrectionists" caused ($1.5 million: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/one-yea ... 20building.) pales in comparison to the $1 billion+ damages by BLM "protestors": https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots- ... rty-damage

Sad that people are only held accountable when it's convenient.

Please note this is a false equivalence, and as such is itself a lie. Trump as President incited a riot with the lie of election fraud, that he knew to be untrue, and he did so for his own personal gain, regardless of the consequences to the nation or anyone but himself. His only goal was the retention of personal power, which was and is despotic behavior.

In contrast, the BLM protests were a result of actual injustices perpetrated against people who were killed as a result those actions. Those were not lies, they were real events, and the protests were intended to rectify similar injustices that had become a repetitive pattern. The protests could and did take place outside the context of any political remarks.

It's true and valid to say that the protests in some cases got out of control, and became riots, although the vast majority of the protests were peaceful. A lot of damage was done as a consequence. But no one applauds that, or views it as the intent of the protestors or their organizers.

Very critically, they were not organized by the White House for the purposes of disrupting and overturning the election, on behalf of one individual. And that individual still defends the Jan 6 Capitol rioter actions, claiming it was necessary to undo the election fraud, which he knows to be a lie.

So there is no equivalence between these events, and suggesting that there is, is frankly disingenuous, if not outright shameful.

I wouldn’t bother, anyone who thinks what obviously happened did not, just the same as the 9/11 ‘truthers’, political flat Earther’s really.
No, they didn’t mind their guy attempted a coup and to get to violently overthrow the democratic decision of the American people, to pathetically constantly try to compare with demonstrations against the actions of the police, funny how all of a sudden their ‘concern’ for the police disappeared when the attempt to overthrow the US government happened.

While Republicans complain about electoral fraud, I find this quite comical.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/26/poli ... index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-e ... -rcna31712

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics ... nt-vpx.cnn

The hearings today will focus on the White House coordination with state parties and legislatures, to prepare alternate slates of electors, which Pence would then be pressured to accept in lieu of the legitimately nominated slates.

As bad as the Jan 6 events were, I think this is the most egregious & unlawful aspect of the entire affair. It was basically an attempt to game the electoral college, in a manner never before attempted in American history. It's vital to clarify the law surrounding this process, so it can never be attempted again.

Avatar2go wrote:

This is a retort like the earlier one from a commenter yesterday, that doesn't address the points raised.

You don't accept that the evidence has been debunked, but the reason it's debunked is that there is no substantive evidence. That has been extensively established, even by Republican reviewers.

You refer to circular logic, but your own is clearly circular. You presume fraud based on no substantive evidence, then insist that your presumption hasn't been debunked. That's an intentional double negative to make it appear that your position is not a presumption, and is based on evidence, even though it's already well established that such evidence doesn't exist.

If one straightens out the double negative, the result is that you don't accept that there is no evidence. Which is tantamount to asking that your presumption be disproved. That's what I tried to point out.

This isn't meant as insult or offense to you, I'm seriously trying to encourage you to adopt the formal rules of logic, which would help you to rule out fraud in this case.

No worries, I am not easily offended anyways. As an Independent, I don't automatically assume established Republicans are credible and believe Trump is more about an outsider vs an insider than a Republican vs Democrat. While the allegations of election fraud are totally relevant to the 1/6 hearings, only indirectly so and you can rest assured moderator(s) would delete posts if I started presenting evidence of election fraud for changing the subject. I might start a new topic about reviewing a new documentary however it might trigger leftists and could therefore easily be construed as flamebait once they start posting to it.

scbriml wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

My opinion is that this crusade against Trump is unwarranted. These hearings (read: theatrics) are a distraction from the pitiful state of our economy—unfettered inflation (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559) and gas prices (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559), and the specter of a recession (https://www.wsj.com/articles/recession- ... 1655631002).

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but rather conveying the consequence of obsessing over a *former* (i.e., powerless) president: ignorance to the issues that matter. $1.6 million was spent 1Q 2022 alone on these hearings (https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-committee ... d=83164749). Sorry if I don't think a fringe faction is worth that much.

Frankly, the media has hyperbolized what amounts to vandalism—something Trump expressly denounced in his January 6 Capitol speech (the one that supposedly "incited" an "insurrection"): https://prnt.sc/PwPSmle0y4sl (source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech). I certainly don't condone what happened, but it's high time to move on.

On the other hand, it's curious that certain leftists won't hold congressmen/women for their hand in "inciting" BLM "protests." A direct quote from Ms. Pressley: "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. And unfortunately, there's plenty to go around..." (source: https://factcheck.afp.com/quotes-us-dem ... s-violence).

Surely, if Trump's speech constitutes "inciting" violence, this does as well. The damage the so-called January 6 "insurrectionists" caused ($1.5 million: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/one-yea ... 20building.) pales in comparison to the $1 billion+ damages by BLM "protestors": https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots- ... rty-damage

Sad that people are only held accountable when it's convenient.

Yeah, let's just pretend Trump and his gullible followers/worshipers didn't try to subvert the whole democratic process. Let's just move on.... Ooh look, a squirrel!

Serious question, You are British, correct? Why are you so polarized on American politics?

afcjets wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

This is consistent with comments in this thread as well. Conservatives have been told by their leaders and pundits that something is being taken from them by liberals, for the last 30 years. Now those birds have come home to roost, it no longer matters whether it's true or not. It's a highly corrosive activity for society, but it keeps those people in power, which is their main concern. Ends justify the means.

Also thought it was interesting that Huffmon distinguished between believing, and expressing belief. That has been my experience as well, that most Republicans who advocate for the election fraud issue, in fact know that it isn't true. But they don't want to suffer the losses that might result from admission.

Once again I'm not a Republican. I will only believe the election wasn't stolen when someone offers an explanation beyond the circular logic of the evidence has been debunked.

I don't believe there was large scale cheating, but I do think the heavily biased mainstream and social media helped sway the election. Mainstream media and social media can easily influence the general population of America which was on full display in 2020. I don't know what the answer is to fix that, but I really wish we could figure something out. However, until we can stop with all the "MAGA" this and "Libitard" that. we will never have a constructive conversation about it.

Avatar2go wrote:

BoeingG wrote:
My opinion is that this crusade against Trump is unwarranted. These hearings (read: theatrics) are a distraction from the pitiful state of our economy—unfettered inflation (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559) and gas prices (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61569559), and the specter of a recession (https://www.wsj.com/articles/recession- ... 1655631002).

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but rather conveying the consequence of obsessing over a *former* (i.e., powerless) president: ignorance to the issues that matter. $1.6 million was spent 1Q 2022 alone on these hearings (https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-committee ... d=83164749). Sorry if I don't think a fringe faction is worth that much.

Frankly, the media has hyperbolized what amounts to vandalism—something Trump expressly denounced in his January 6 Capitol speech (the one that supposedly "incited" an "insurrection"): https://prnt.sc/PwPSmle0y4sl (source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech). I certainly don't condone what happened, but it's high time to move on.

On the other hand, it's curious that certain leftists won't hold congressmen/women for their hand in "inciting" BLM "protests." A direct quote from Ms. Pressley: "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. And unfortunately, there's plenty to go around..." (source: https://factcheck.afp.com/quotes-us-dem ... s-violence).

Surely, if Trump's speech constitutes "inciting" violence, this does as well. The damage the so-called January 6 "insurrectionists" caused ($1.5 million: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/one-yea ... 20building.) pales in comparison to the $1 billion+ damages by BLM "protestors": https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots- ... rty-damage

Sad that people are only held accountable when it's convenient.

Please note this is a false equivalence, and as such is itself a lie. Trump as President incited a riot with the lie of election fraud, that he knew to be untrue, and he did so for his own personal gain, regardless of the consequences to the nation or anyone but himself. His only goal was the retention of personal power, which was and is despotic behavior.

In contrast, the BLM protests were a result of actual injustices perpetrated against people who were killed as a result those actions. Those were not lies, they were real events, and the protests were intended to rectify similar injustices that had become a repetitive pattern. The protests could and did take place outside the context of any political remarks.

It's true and valid to say that the protests in some cases got out of control, and became riots, although the vast majority of the protests were peaceful. A lot of damage was done as a consequence. But no one applauds that, or views it as the intent of the protestors or their organizers.

Very critically, they were not organized by the White House for the purposes of disrupting and overturning the election, on behalf of one individual. And that individual still defends the Jan 6 Capitol rioter actions, claiming it was necessary to undo the election fraud, which he knows to be a lie.

So there is no equivalence between these events, and suggesting that there is, is frankly disingenuous, if not outright shameful.

A lot of the BLM protests in recent years have been due to lies. Our current VP even furthered those lies when she tweeted in 2020 that Mike Brown was "murdered", even though Obama's DOJ found that Brown was the aggressor and was shot in self-defense. Lies about police encounters are largely responsible for a lot of violence and bloodshed that we have seen in the last decade.

That said, none of that excuses the January 6th insurrectionists. Riots are bad, but a President trying to overthrow Democracy and his followers storming the capitol and gleefully waxing about executing the vice president is much worse, IMO.