Trump Extremists Demand Civil War, Mass Murder After New Indictment

[Cardin Drake 2,077]

Pelosi was willing to overturn a long history of the minority party getting to choose it's own committee members to avoid anyone asking embarrassing questions about who ordered the capitol police to open the doors and let protestors into the capitol, and why.

[Mikey 16,781]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

Source?

You need a source to confirm that Pelosi knows who's who in the House? How silly. With the old drunk that tore up Trump's state of the union speech controlling things you didn't expect fairness, did you. Such an expectation would defy all logic.

[Leftfield 3,380]

2 minutes ago, Mikey said:

You need a source to confirm that Pelosi knows who's who in the House? How silly. With the old drunk that tore up Trump's state of the union speech controlling things you didn't expect fairness, did you. Such an expectation would defy all logic.

So you have no proof she went out and got the most rabid Trump haters? Have you checked to see who she chose, and what they've said about Trump? Are they level-headed people that can be objective? 

And once again, did you watch the Commission hearings to judge for yourself if they were being reasonable, or did you dismiss it out-of-hand because you didn't want to challenge what you already believed to be true?

[Mikey 16,781]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

And once again, did you watch the Commission hearings to judge for yourself if they were being reasonable, or did you dismiss it out-of-hand because you didn't want to challenge what you already believed to be true?

I dismissed it out of hand because like anyone with any sense I knew it was a stacked deck and there was only one conclusion that would be reached. The majority of the nation felt the same, as the horrible TV ratings for their crap-show indicates.

[Leftfield 3,380]

12 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I dismissed it out of hand because like anyone with any sense I knew it was a stacked deck and there was only one conclusion that would be reached. The majority of the nation felt the same, as the horrible TV ratings for their crap-show indicates.

So let's recap:

• You dismiss the two Republicans on the committee because you call them RINOs, even though they were never considered that, by anyone, before they tried to hold Trump to account. When you disputed that, you presented to evidence.
• You claim Nancy Pelosi chose "Trump haters" for the committee, not knowing anything about the people she did choose and apparently refusing to find out.
• You did not watch the commission hearings to judge for yourself if the facts and evidence pointed to malfeasance on Trump's part, even though many who testified were Republicans. I would assume that you also did not read summaries about what evidence and witnesses were presented. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
• You claim the commission was a "joke" and a "kangaroo court," but since you didn't pay any attention to the hearings you can't cite a single example of inappropriate conduct or malfeasance.

During all this discussion, your only argument against the committee was that it's impossible it could have been fair. I will not dispute for a second that the people on the committee have bias, but competent people can put bias aside to look at the facts. Could they all keep bias from influencing at all times? Chances are high that's not the case, but again, that doesn't mean the committee overall can't be fair. The reason it's a committee and not a single person is so they can recognize when another is letting bias override facts and keep each other in check. Say what you want about Cheney and Kinzinger, but they are not the type to let others steamroll them. Both of them have been ostracized by their party because of this. Hell, most of Kinzinger's family has ostracized him. I would be willing to bet they were keeping the committee honest when it came to protecting some of the Republican interests.

I think this discussion has run its course. I have not engaged you before because of the way I've seen you "debate," but since you addressed me I thought I would give you a chance to be reasonable. That has not materialized. In fact, in pretty much every post you belittled the intelligence of anyone who disagreed with your opinion. There is quite a bit of irony in the attempts to insult intelligence by a person whose next original thought will be their first.

 

[homersapien 12,245]

6 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Pelosi was willing to overturn a long history of the minority party getting to choose it's own committee members to avoid anyone asking embarrassing questions about who ordered the capitol police to open the doors and let protestors into the capitol, and why.

You and Mikey ought to have your own sub-forum.  Cultists only.

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by homersapien

[Cardin Drake 2,077]

We could title it Not ICHY, Homer, and the leftys. I'm all for it. I'll stay out of yours if you'll stay out of ours.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Cardin Drake

[homersapien 12,245]

1 minute ago, Cardin Drake said:

We could title it Not ICHY, Homer, and the leftys.

Yeah, like I said.  "Cultists Only".

Or maybe "Useful Fools".

Edited June 13, 2023 by homersapien

[Mikey 16,781]

13 hours ago, Leftfield said:

You dismiss the two Republicans on the committee

I dismiss the committee. 7 Dems, 2 pubbies and all hand picked by the Trump hater Pelosi. No chance of any fair conclusions coming out of that setup. It was a foregone conclusion what their biased findings would be. That committee doesn't deserve any serious thought, they are a joke.

[homersapien 12,245]

13 hours ago, Mikey said:

I dismiss the committee. 7 Dems, 2 pubbies and all hand picked by the Trump hater Pelosi. No chance of any fair conclusions coming out of that setup. It was a foregone conclusion what their biased findings would be. That committee doesn't deserve any serious thought, they are a joke.

More importantly, how many Republicans testified to the committee compared to Democrats?   I'll make it easy for you:

Witnesses and Key Players:

Matthew Pottinger
Sarah Matthews
Stephen Ayres
Jason Van Tatenhove
Pat Cipollone
Cassidy Hutchinson
Jeffrey Clark
Jeffrey Rosen
Richard Donoghue
Steven Engel
Rep. Russell “Rusty” Bowers
Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss
Brad Raffensperger
Gabriel Sterling
Ginni Thomas
Greg Jacob
J. Michael Luttig
John Eastman
BJay Pak
Al Schmidt
Chris Stirewalt
Bill Stepien
Ben Ginsberg
Bill Barr
Caroline Edwards
Nick Quested
Peter Navarro
Steve Bannon
Mark Meadows

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/who-are-the-key-players-in-the-jan-6-committee-hearings-so-far

[Mikey 16,781]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

More importantly, how many Republicans testified to the committee compared to Democrats?

That makes no difference at all. The committee published their conclusions and the committee was stacked with anti-Trump people hand picked by Pelosi.

Let the Pubbies choose their four and the Dem majority choose their five and you have a valid committee. Pelosi's kangaroo court has no validity and all but lefty extremists think it was a joke.

[homersapien 12,245]

14 hours ago, Mikey said:

That makes no difference at all. The committee published their conclusions and the committee was stacked with anti-Trump people hand picked by Pelosi.

Let the Pubbies choose their four and the Dem majority choose their five and you have a valid committee. Pelosi's kangaroo court has no validity and all but lefty extremists think it was a joke.

You seriously think all those Republicans who testified were lying? 

McCarthy wanted to wanted to disrupt the workings of the committee and chose people who were sure to do so.  It was obvious.

The committee's findings were valid.  You just can't handle the truth.

Edited June 15, 2023 by homersapien

[Leftfield 3,380]

14 hours ago, Mikey said:

That makes no difference at all. The committee published their conclusions and the committee was stacked with anti-Trump people hand picked by Pelosi.

Let the Pubbies choose their four and the Dem majority choose their five and you have a valid committee. Pelosi's kangaroo court has no validity and all but lefty extremists think it was a joke.

Let's step back a minute....since you think the Select Committee was biased, how would you have gone about investigating the events of January 6 and what caused them?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

28 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You think all those Republicans who testified were lying? 

Seriously??

McCarthy wanted to wanted to disrupt the workings of the committee and chose people who were sure to do so.  It was obvious.

The committee's findings were valid.  You just can't handle the truth.

You just don't know REAL patriots when you see them.  You Marxist love those Venezuela voting machines.  Trump supporters were on a PEACEFUL tour of the Capitol when, ANTIFA and BLM started a riot.

You trust all of those people you listed when they have ZERO credibility.  You need to start listening to people like Mike Lindell, Linn Wood, Sidney Powell, Rudy Gulliani, Fox News.

Why can you not see the truth?

[Mikey 16,781]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

You seriously think all those Republicans who testified were lying? 

I think that no matter what they said the committee was going to find against Trump. It was a kangaroo court. No testimony mattered, their conclusions were determined before the first session was held. It was a joke.

9 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Let's step back a minute....since you think the Select Committee was biased, how would you have gone about investigating the events of January 6 and what caused them?

I'd have gone about it in a fair manner. Let Pelosi name her five Dems, let the Pubbies place their four representatives and start the hearings. That would have been fair. Trump hater Pelosi hand picking all nine members made it a joke.

[Leftfield 3,380]

7 hours ago, Mikey said:

I'd have gone about it in a fair manner. Let Pelosi name her five Dems, let the Pubbies place their four representatives and start the hearings. That would have been fair. Trump hater Pelosi hand picking all nine members made it a joke.

Well, first of all, the Democrats tried to go about it in the most obviously fair manner by having an independent commission. McConnell and the Senate filibustered to block it, leaving the Select Committee was the only choice, so you can thank the Republican Senate for that.

Second, you don't even have the numbers correct. As the Speaker, Pelosi was entitled to appoint eight members (she put forward seven Democrats and Cheney) and McCarthy was allowed to nominate five "in consultation" with Pelosi. The five he nominated had three that had voted to decertify the election. Pelosi actually allowed one (Troy Nehls) to remain. As was pointed out, McCarthy, instead of nominating someone less polarizing and disruptive, withdrew the other three and refused to cooperate further. The Committee then proceeded with the eight members Pelosi appointed, plus Kinzinger who agreed to join. So Pelosi added more Republicans to the Committee than McCarthy did.

Jim Jordan and Jim Banks were both vocal election deniers. The only reason they were nominated was to disrupt and distract. Banks had gone as far as to say that January 6 was Pelosi's fault, and they both maintained the stolen election lie well after all the court battles proved otherwise. You can say what you want about "Trump haters" and there being no chance of fair treatment, but McCarthy and McConnell never had any intention of cooperating, for the same reason people will still vote for Trump - they hate Democrats so much they will do anything to get and keep them out of power, even vote for one of the worst human beings imaginable, or dismiss an attack on the Capitol.

[homersapien 12,245]

9 hours ago, Mikey said:

I think that no matter what they said the committee was going to find against Trump. It was a kangaroo court. No testimony mattered, their conclusions were determined before the first session was held. It was a joke.

 

It wasn't a trial.  It was a truth-finding investigation. The purpose was to obtain the testimony.

The committee didn't bring charges.  They had no power to do so.

Edited June 16, 2023 by homersapien

[Mikey 16,781]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It wasn't a trial.  It was a truth-finding investigation. The purpose was to obtain the testimony.

The committee didn't bring charges.  They had no power to do so.

Truth finding investigation? That's a laugher! It was a meaningless exercise in anti-Trump politics, nothing more.

 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Jim Jordan and Jim Banks were both vocal election deniers.

etc, etc, etc.

What you're saying is that Pelosi would not seat anybody who might have disrupted the committee's path to the intended goal, which was to damage Trump. That's my point. Pelosi didn't allow "loyal opposition", she hand picked her tools to do a job. Unless the Pubbies had a free hand to appoint their own choice of members, the thing was nothing but a political ploy. They had no such choice, therefore most of the country knows this was nothing but a put up job. It's alleged findings are meaningless.

[Leftfield 3,380]

Just now, Mikey said:

What you're saying is that Pelosi would not seat anybody who might have disrupted the committee's path to the intended goal, which was to damage Trump. That's my point. Pelosi didn't allow "loyal opposition", she hand picked her tools to do a job. Unless the Pubbies had a free hand to appoint their own choice of members, the thing was nothing but a political ploy. They had no such choice, therefore most of the country knows this was nothing but a put up job. It's alleged findings are meaningless.

So, no comment about the Republican Senate blocking an independent investigation? Hmm.

Try to follow here:

JORDAN AND BANKS WERE REPEATEDLY AND LOUDLY SPOUTING LIES ABOUT THE ELECTION BEING STOLEN."

You don't nominate people who are proclaiming provably false lies to a committee that is investigating the result of those very lies. That's absurd, and Pelosi correctly called it out. A select committee should have members who can be objective, even if they have their own biases. Jordan and Banks had clearly shown they couldn't.

[homersapien 12,245]

9 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Truth finding investigation? That's a laugher! It was a meaningless exercise in anti-Trump politics, nothing more.

What better way to get to the truth of what happened than by interviewing those involved and obtaining their testimony?

What would you do?

Or are you convinced it was a "false flag" operation by Antifa?  It wouldn't surprise me.

Edited June 16, 2023 by homersapien

[Leftfield 3,380]

9 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Truth finding investigation? That's a laugher! It was a meaningless exercise in anti-Trump politics, nothing more.

What conclusions did you disagree with, and why?

[Mikey 16,781]

You lefties refuse to admit one crucial fact: The process to seat members on the committee was biased. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that. Therefore, any action/conclusion by the committee is also biased and not worthy of serious thought. The committee was a sham.

I've bolded the important part for you. Read it multiple times if necessary.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Mikey

[Leftfield 3,380]

18 minutes ago, Mikey said:

You lefties refuse to admit one crucial fact: The process to seat members on the committee was biased. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that. Therefore, any action/conclusion by the committee is also biased and not worthy of serious thought. The committee was a sham.

I've bolded the important part for you. Read it multiple times if necessary.

Maybe one day you'll realize that a person can have bias and still be objective and open to new information. Our entire discussion has been one (overly) long verification that you can't, so you project that as no one else being capable of it.

In this thread you have not put forward one fact. Not one. Every argument you've made has been based on your belief that the committee was unfair because you have no objectivity in yourself, and you give no reason other than "it's obvious."

[homersapien 12,245]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

You lefties refuse to admit one crucial fact: The process to seat members on the committee was biased. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that. Therefore, any action/conclusion by the committee is also biased and not worthy of serious thought. The committee was a sham.

I've bolded the important part for you. Read it multiple times if necessary.

It was not biased.  McCarthy and most Republicans refused to cooperate.  Some objective ones did. 

Unbiased question were asked and straightforward answers were given.  As long as those questions were in good faith and reasonable the person asking them doesn't matter.  And like Leftfield said, it makes no sense to include committee members who have already made up their minds - and have been demonstratively disruptive - on such a fact-finding effort.

You are just another cultist who can't handle the truth.

Speaking of which, you didn't respond to my question, was Jan. 6 a false flag effort organized by Antifa?

 

[Mikey 16,781]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

It was not biased.  McCarthy and most Republicans refused to cooperate.

When the members the Pubbies wanted to seat were blocked by Pelosi, the committee automatically became biased. McCarthy did what I or anyone with integrity would do. He walked away, refusing to be a part of such a political ploy.

5 hours ago, Leftfield said:

In this thread you have not put forward one fact. Not one. Every argument you've made has been based on your belief that the committee was unfair because you have no objectivity in yourself, and you give no reason other than "it's obvious."

I have put forward one undeniable fact: McCarthy was not allowed to place his preferred representatives on the committee. That's biased and at that point the committee's findings became meaningless political garbage.